Yes, the rest of you are jealous. Admit it.

The problem lies with both laypersons and pastors. Many time the laity want a person to put on a pedestal…it takes some of the pressure off if a “great man” can get most of the kingdom work done. Most of our churches functionally operate in this realm. Some pastors want to set themselves up as untouchable dictator types. This model fails miserably at accomplishing the total purpose of the church…it can lead towards large organizations is some cases, but this comes at a cost.

This is why a plurality of overseerers/elders makes such good sense and also why it comes with so much resistance. The plurality model de-centralizes power. Many pastors and quite honestly many churches dont want this.

Leadership cannot be positional, although holding various positions provide good leadership platforms if handled rightly.

Jesus and Paul were servants, but they were definitely leaders. Paul often referred to his call as an apostle (his position) as verification that he had the right to lead. In his case he had earned the right, but his past cast a shadow on his authority, so he often times appealed to Christ’call on his life. So in one sense, there is a positional aspect to Paul’s leadership.

Team models and servant models are really dominating the leadership world right now. I think any definition of leadership should include and idea that is not present in any of the other definitions – this is the concept of multiplicaiton or replication. A leader is to replicate himself. This is true of Paul, Jesus, and it is true of any good leader.

As someone who is currently a business owner and previously a missionary with the IMB I have always been intrigued with the idea of leadership in the secular world vs. the spiritual/ministry world.

I started trying to write my own definition of leadership based on your question “Do you have a definition that you like?” As I was sitting in my office trying to find the words a live press conference came on CNN with the Director of the FBI covering the events in Miami. I had made it this far in my definition – Leadership is the ability to influence… But I could not come up with the next part. That’s when the FBI Director stated, “Terrorists are not necessarily religious figures, but mentors and friends that transform their friends/followers into radicals.” It hit me that an outcome or result is needed to complete my definition – Leadership is the ability to influence and transform behavior. Yes, Maxwell is right when he says, “Leadership is influence.” But I believe there has to be an outcome for leadership to have existed in the first place. Or in other words, zero outcomes equals zero leadership. Make sense?

I really like the tone and topic of your site and it will now be a daily stop for me.

There are at least three things Jesus’ definition of leadership demands which the CEO definition of leadership doesn’t ignore but turns on its head:
[1] Jesus’ definition makes it clear that leadership is not about lording over. That is to say, the authority vested in Christ and then as a derivative in those wo lead the church is not one which creates prestige or position because people ought to answer to you: it demands sacrifice for the sake of the flock.
[2] That KJV statement about “benefactors” is such a nuanced expression of what Christ is contrasting leadership among believers against. It seems to me that this underscores that leadership in the church cannot be based on what the leader apparently has which he can give to anyone. “not so with you,” he says. I read that to mean that there’s no way to “suck up” in the church, and we should not be giving people the impression that sucking up will do them any good. So, for example, the endorsement of a church leader on some random project is inherently unChrist-like because Christ didn’t send forth his messengers to be award-givers. He sent them out to be servants, not “Gentile kings”.
[3] That seeking to be a church leader for the sake of being a great man is incorrect goal-setting. Paul makes this point so well when he says, “For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. 10We are fools for Christ’s sake … We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things.” (1Cor 4) This really is the part of the CEO thing and the Megachurch thing which really creeps me out: the servants of Christ, while winning Christ’s victory in the hearts of those prepared to come, might find themselves in the courts of Agrippa and Caesar and whosoever it might be — but it’s not as an honored guest. And Paul is unabashed before Agrippa even though he is there in chains, pleading for his life.

Gosh! What is he thinking? Maybe what he is thinking is that the message of Christ is greater than freedom, greater than human admiration, and greater than social acceptance. Maybe he understands something about the leadership definition that Christ extolls us to which we — in 21st century America — would rather not hear.

Amen?

I think this is a good point – obedient service most definitly gets at the essence of leadership…but is there is no distinction here between the function of servant leadership as it does relate to leading followers. There are many obedient servants who are not neccessarily leaders.

25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Jesus’ definition of leadership is “obedient service”.

My wife had an interesting insight into the “shepherd” discussion from the last 2 days: she said that one of the things the shepherd metaphor hsa which the CEO does not is the fact that the shepherd has to debase himself, to get dirty, to live among the sheep — especially a good shepherd. The Shepherd must live among the sheep and stand at the front of their number, and if the wolf or the bear comes, he doesn’t send sheep out with a clever device to see if that’ll stop ‘im. There’s no CEO parallel to that.

She also said that the best modern example of shepherd-likeness is the kindergatern teacher. That’s not very macho, but I think she has said something worth considering.

-This is a great and helpful statement, and I will certainly quote you on this sometime soon.