« Back to Issue 47

The Quest for Leading the Jesus Way

By Colin D Buckland.

This article draws deeply upon the text of the book ‘Culture Craft’ by Rick Sessoms and Colin Buckland and therefore I acknowledge here the joint thinking and writing with Rick, whose words are embedded here alongside my own.

 

A leader of an evangelical agency in the United States asked me, “How can I lead like Jesus and meet my organization’s demands at the same time?”

An HR officer from India who serves in a global Christian organization asked, “Why are none of our real spiritual leaders in positions of senior leadership?”

A Christian worker in Europe said, “A popular speaker in our ministry has been accused by several women of immoral sexual conduct. Why have our senior leaders denied these women’s allegations without due process?”

A youth worker in Brazil asked, “How can our pastor preach about honesty on Sunday morning and be dishonest about the benevolent fund at the board meeting on Tuesday?”

A young leader from the Middle East expressed it this way: “I work with a small Christian mission in my country. We face security risks every day. The leader of our mission recently read a book written by a well-known Christian leader that teaches principles for success. Our leader is trying to practice the lessons from the book, but the lessons are creating much confusion in our mission. What does ‘success’ mean for Christian ministries in our nation?”

These are just a few of the very many questions that are posed to me regularly as I engage in an International leadership development initiative.

Leadership that was modeled by Jesus is an essential dynamic in Christian organizations, but Jesus’ way of leadership - frequently sought-after, often romanticized, and rarely understood - is constantly corrupted by our insecurities and egos. As a result, our leaders are often recognizable more for their status and rank than for their character. This kind of unhealthy leadership divides us. It creates the separation between first class and economy, and attracts the trappings of success. These leaders frequently prioritize their own image over the community’s benefit. They choose personal gain over collective growth. It is no wonder that we struggle to find excellent leaders who enable people to be truly free and to engage everyone’s potential. To borrow a phrase, we need a ‘reformation’ in our understanding and practice of leadership. Like the Christians of centuries past, returning to the wisdom of God is our wellspring for a hopeful future.

My colleague, Dr Rick Sessoms, and I have travelled the globe engaging with Christian leaders, Governments, Military, NGOs and Mission agencies in a process of leadership development, and we have asked this question - “Who are the leaders who have most positively impacted your life and work (or ministry), and what was it about them that impacted you?” On every occasion of asking, regardless of the nationality, the list of responses always spell out that ‘character and care’ have been the prevailing features above power and status. The fact that these leaders where genuinely engaged with real people in real ways was the outstanding dynamic.

Many of our younger leaders are eager for a Jesus way of leadership. They have a real sense that something needs to change, that something inherent in the prominent approaches to Christian leadership is missing the point or failing to find its mark. They may go to a conference or read a book that reflects on the way Jesus led during His life and ministry.

His leadership approach looked something like this:

- He chose not to dominate people, but to serve them.

- He led primarily through relationships with his followers.

- He sacrificed himself for others so that they could reach their highest Kingdom potential.

Can you imagine if our leaders actually led organizations like this? What a reformation we would have!  It’s exciting that some leaders are beginning to believe that leading Jesus’ way is truly attainable. But here’s the typical scenario. The leader reads a book or attends a conference and is convinced to lead Jesus’ way, so he or she tries to lead this way in the work setting, but encounters strong resistance. Why? Because in Christian organizations today, our stated values, biblical though they may be, are oftentimes not our practised values.

The dominant leaders in our organizations are usually profiled as the ‘spiritual leaders’, and their vision is publicly declared as being from God. So they dictate the direction of the organization with little if any input from those who are responsible to carry out the vision. They often use the organization’s political system to manipulate people into maintaining the status quo. They don’t develop relationships with colleagues beyond their own organizational level. They resort to power in order to make things happen. They prioritize the success of the organization at the expense of people, while at the same time stating that people are the organization’s most valuable resource. If this has any truth in it, and I think it has, then this is a strong indictment of today’s Christian leaders. I have to agree that there are exceptions, but this description is more common than we like to admit.

Case Study:

M and P are leaders who faced conflict when they tried to lead Jesus’ way. P grew up in Latin America as a missionary kid; M was from a Christian home in the mid-western United States. They met during their college years and were married. Early on, M was noticed for his leadership ability; his career path accelerated when he was moved into a junior executive position with his company. But they grew restless with their comfortable executive lifestyle. So they signed up with a Christian mission and moved to the Caribbean into a middle management role. Within three years, they were transferred to become the mission’s Director of Operations. But P and M became troubled. They had joined the mission with the assumption that practising Jesus’ way of leadership would be celebrated, but in reality they were in constant conflict with ‘big boss’ senior leaders. Disillusioned, they eventually resigned their ministry position.

Unfortunately, I hear stories like this many times. It seems that good Christian leaders, though they exist, are hard to find. And when we do find them, we don’t necessarily recognize them because they don’t look or sound like leaders to us. The views of leadership in our minds are shaped over many years.

When well-intentioned people like M and P try to challenge these prominent leaders, based on their understanding of a more Jesus-centred approach, the resistance in their organizations is often overwhelming. They become disoriented because the stated values of the organization are not the values that the organization actually practises. And people like M and P don’t know how to survive in this dysfunctional environment. He or she may feel awkward to speak out since Jesus’ way of leadership seems to be out of step with everyone else. Therefore, one of three possible scenarios usually occurs:

1.      The Jesus-centred leader challenges the dominant leadership model until he or she is marginalized by the power structure in the organization. In the worst cases, the individual is accused of insubordination and terminated. In many cases, he or she is isolated and never has the opportunity to have influence. In many cases, the dominant leaders respond with sincerity because they are unable to acknowledge that their leadership motif is in any way flawed. As a result, organizations (including churches) often abuse some of their most talented people, and stand in the way of their own future through ignorance of the process.

 

2.      The leader senses the inconsistency between the stated and actual values within the organization, but does not completely understand the problem, or feels powerless to bring about needed change. Therefore, he or she conforms to the dominant leadership approach and becomes another player that supports the dysfunctional culture. The leader has tasted the possibilities of Jesus’ way of leadership, but sacrifices this dream on the altar of organizational acceptance and personal advancement.

3.      The leader becomes aware that he or she cannot change his or her current organizational environment, but does not want to compromise. In this case, the leader leaves the organization in search of another. He or she may move to another organization, or start something new. However, he or she does not typically have the tools either to discern the new organization’s actual culture or to start a new organization with the strategic building blocks needed to develop a healthy organization.

These dynamics are common in organizations (and I use this term to include churches), particularly where leaders are attempting to live out Jesus-centred leadership dynamics in a traditional organizational environment.

A young leader who came to me for advice was having a good ministry with the youth of a prominent church in London, but he was frequently criticized publicly for offering points of view that differed from those of the senior pastor. He assumed that he would be embraced as a colleague, as someone with experience and something to say. He wasn't overly demonstrative with his ideas; nevertheless, the views he expressed were interpreted by the church’s senior leaders as a failure to accept authority. Since this was a prominent church, he assumed it would be future-oriented and a place for new ideas to flourish. Instead, the senior pastor proceeded to ridicule the young leader. Instead of encouraging him to see things differently, the senior pastor constantly chastised him. The situation went from bad to worse. The young leader was increasingly micromanaged. One of the elders of the church was appointed to watch his every move. He was denied his adulthood and stripped of self-respect. Eventually, the young leader left the church.

This style of leadership seems to be linked to a number of dynamics.

Many Christian organizations which dominated the evangelical landscape during the last half of the 20th century possess a ‘triumphalistic’ spirit.  Most of these organizations were birthed within a few years after WWII.  Some of these larger organizations had their beginnings in the United States (some in Western Europe), many of them were started with the overcoming spirit of the Allied forces.  For example, in the 1950s, Billy Graham began his ‘crusades’ that witnessed hundreds of thousands of converts.  Likewise, Bill Bright began Campus Crusade for Christ, a university/college ministry that has spanned far beyond the campus.  Both these organizations emphasized mass evangelism, and communicated the urgency to win the world to Christ within their generation.  In both these cases, the concept of ‘crusade’ conceived the notion that the evangelical church is in a spiritual battle stance and purposes to be victorious against the evil one and the vices of pagan cultures.  Although the term ‘crusade’ was not adopted by all evangelical organizations, this mindset was embraced throughout.  This mindset spawned such initiatives as AD 2000 and Saturation Church Planting in the later stages of the 20th century, to name just two.

With this triumphalism came a priority for ‘success’ for Christian organizations.  They thought, “If we’re going to win the world for Christ, then we must be big and strong as an organization.”  The church growth movement was a case in point.  Although the founder of the movement, Donald MacGavran, had more in mind, the popular perspectives of the movement became a focus on quantity that resulted in larger churches.  The ‘success model’ is alive and well and literally driving leaders towards meeting sometimes elusive targets.

The concept of hierarchy was deeply embedded in the church following WWII as ministries formed using the most prominent organizational models available. The ‘power-distance ratio’ established with the inevitable top and bottom. The race for the top seems to be deeply connected to the need for significance. The higher I go, the more important I am!

Gospel good news cuts across this with refreshing and freeing truth - Sons and Daughters of the King have no need of promotion, there is no up from there and that significant place has been given, not earned, by grace, the Grace of God. We Christians, of all the peoples of the earth, can escape the ‘rat race’, that driven-ness for seniority, and truly enjoy his peace in our being.

So then, all that has been said may seem somewhat like a ‘rant’, and I suppose it is, but coming from a deep conviction that the church can demonstrate freedom, liberty and acceptance even as it models leadership, a Jesus way of leading, to a needy world.

The Servant Leadership of Jesus

Robert Greenleaf was an executive with AT&T in the 1960s. He also was a guest lecturer at HarvardBusinessSchool and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he taught management and leadership policy. But in the decade of the 60s, even such prestigious universities in America were hotbeds of turmoil due to the Vietnam War and civil unrest. Reflecting on those days, Greenleaf wrote, “It was a searing experience to watch distinguished institutions show their fragility and crumble, to search for an understanding of what happened to them. . . .”

As Greenleaf struggled for answers, he was inspired through a simple story written by Herman Hesse to write his classic book published in 1977 entitled Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. This book coined for the first time in the corporate community the concept ‘servant leader’. In the first chapter of his book, Greenleaf wrote:

“A new moral principle is emerging which holds that the only authority deserving one’s allegiance is that which is freely . . . granted by the led to the leader in response to the clearly evident servant stature of the leader. Those who choose to follow this principle will not casually accept the authority of existing institutions.  Rather, they will freely respond only to individuals who are chosen as leaders because they are proven and trusted as servants. To the extent that this principle prevails in the future, the only truly viable institutions will be those that are predominantly servant-led” (p.10).

Although Greenleaf wrote, “A new moral principle is emerging,” this concept, in fact, originated centuries before Robert Greenleaf or Herman Hesse.  The idea of ‘servant leader’ is straight from the pages of the New Testament.  It is an ageless leadership principle from the teachings of Jesus Christ. One of the key texts where Jesus demonstrated and taught servant leadership is John 13:3-14:

“Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin, and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him..............

In this upper room, the eternal Son of God stripped off his garments and got down on his knees to wash the dirt from the feet of those whom he had called to follow him. But that act was nothing new, for it symbolizes Jesus’ whole life and ministry.

From a human perspective, washing feet is beneath the dignity of a King. In fact, Peter is shocked by Jesus’ actions: “You shall never wash my feet.”  Peter’s words here have the same tone as his other protest at Caesarea Philippi, when Jesus declared, “I must go to Jerusalem and die.” And Peter protested, “God forbid it, Lord. This shall never happen to you.” And Jesus’ response to Peter?  “Get behind me Satan, for you do not have in mind the things of God.”

Here again, in the upper room, Peter still has in mind the perspective of men rather than the perspective of God. In the upper room, Peter wanted Jesus to fit into human ideas of royalty and privilege. “You, the divine King, will never wash my feet.” In this foot-washing, Jesus blows apart our concept of position and prestige and pecking order. We live with the idea that to be leader is to be exalted, surrounded by willing servants, but in his use of the towel, Jesus is revealing the idea that being God means coming down from that throne and giving himself to serve.

Leslie Newbigin wrote a profound observation:

“This is not just an active lesson in humility. Peter could have understood that.  The foot washing is a sign of that ultimate subversion of all human authority which took place when Jesus was crucified by the decision of the powers that rule this present age. In that act, the wisdom of this world was shown to be folly, and the powers of this world were disarmed. But flesh and blood - ordinary human nature - is in principle incapable of understanding this.  It is to the Jew a scandal, to the Greek folly.  Only those whom the risen Christ will call and to whom the Holy Spirit will be given will know that this folly is the wisdom of God, and this weakness is the power of God.”

This ‘King Who led with a Towel’ had three cardinal values which shaped his earthly leadership.  They are:

1. His leadership was consistently founded upon a relationship with his followers.  Leadership, for Jesus, existed only in the context of relationship.  It is impossible to understand the Incarnation apart from his sacrificial love for humankind.  The entire Scripture describes a God who desires relationship with the people he created. Instead of the ‘span of control’ concept to articulate a domain of legitimate management, Jesus emphasized ‘span of relationship’ to define the boundaries of legitimate leadership.  Jesus demonstrated that true leadership is only authentic within the context of genuine relationship.
2. Jesus’ leadership was activated by influence, not positional power or coercive force. Jesus held no positional power over those he was leading.  They had the realistic choice - as did Judas and many other followers - to turn away and reject his invitation to choose the “narrow path.”  Most leadership theorists posit that influence is the characteristic which primarily distinguishes leadership from management.  While management is only legitimized through delegated authority, true leadership is never delegated.  Authentic leadership by influence is not subject to organizational charts; leaders influence both those above and below them in the organization. 

Christian leadership employs three possible types of power:

Positional - power due to one’s organizational title or position on the organisational chart.

Personal - charismatic appeal due to personality type, appearance, etc.

Spiritual - the power that is derived from one’s personal walk with Christ.

His leadership prioritized his followers’ potential over his own benefit or that of the ‘organization’ (established religious system). A review of the previous principle will reveal that leadership influence, even when it is not based in positional power, can be unhealthy.  There are many examples in ancient and modern history of this, David Koresh and Adolf Hitler to name just two (Hitler had enormous influence over people before he came to hold positional power).  However, according to research, the value that really distinguishes servant leadership from all other utilitarian models of leadership (transactional, transformational) is this third one: Jesus’ leadership was focused on his followers’ potential, not on his own well-being or the benefit of any religious system that he was building. Not only is this third principle the most distinguishable; it is also the most controversial.  Note: this third principle not only distinguishes Christ-centred leadership from all other models, it also establishes distance between Christ’s model and all those that are actually utilitarian in the end.  In other words, if Jesus’ followers in whom he had invested had failed to reach their potential, there did not seem to be another plan. Jesus had one focus: the potential of those He called disciples . . .and friends . . . those He led. 

Perhaps there is no more profound and disarming message that we have than this.