What is Leadership?

by George Bailey.

Increasingly, I think of leadership simply as an inevitable feature of human community. If there are a group of people with a task to do, there will be some form of leadership. It may be intentional and planned, or may just unfold as some people’s personalities, past experiences and skills encourage others to let them guide and represent the group. Hence leadership is a puzzle – to what extent should we seek to control and determine it? Most people have a view as to what constitutes good leadership, and bad. However, these evaluations are determined by what one supposes might be the aims and purposes of the group in which leadership is exercised. The definition of good Christian leadership is inherently shaped by what we think the church ought to be like.

Attitudes to leadership as a topic vary in Christian missiology, and are often connected to the way that theologians approach the ever expanding non-Christian leadership literature. It is a clear that good leadership can help communities and institutions progress well, so there are understandably a wealth of research, guides and ‘how to’ books from sociological, psychological and organisational perspectives. I am convinced though that it is not sensible to see leadership as a separate subject within the Church’s theology. I am wary of books on Christian leadership which fail to adequately ground their insights in the theology of the church. There are obvious dangers when leaders become detached from the body of the community as if they were a special category of people, and making a theological category for leadership thinking can easily play into that dynamic. In a helpful book on Wesleyan theologies of leadership, Kenneth Carder and Laceye Warner hold firmly to the principle that ‘the tools of business and corporate management and the social sciences are subservient to soteriology and eschatology.’^[1]

If leadership is simply a normal feature of human community, then Christian leadership is an inevitable consequence of the way that Christians are part of a close community that we call a church. Leadership should reflect and be shaped by the theology of the church. In a Wesleyan church tradition, sanctification (being made holy) is the central organising focus of our theology – to use the eighteenth-century term… ‘scriptural holiness’ is our primary purpose. People exercising leadership are firstly Christians who are growing in grace and holiness, and as they do this they encourage and help others in the church to join them, just as they are upheld and supported by the community – a mutual partnership for sanctification. This should take priority over any drift of church leadership towards a small group of people, or worse, just one person, having authority and power over others.

There are New Testament precedents to help with this. Although some see Paul as an authoritarian leader, he always made efforts to work alongside others and not to lead on his own. He also considered himself an apostle amongst other apostles, and the New Testament church is governed by synodical consensus (e.g. Acts 15). The Greek word synod comes from the root ‘to walk/travel’ and the prefix for ‘together’. Paul’s leadership was grounded within his theology of the church as a diverse body with diverse gifts, all of which are valued and need to work together (1 Corinthians 12). I might go as far as to argue that whenever one Christian person is elevated as leader and given authority in a way which de-values the gifts of others, the result is detrimental to the mission of the Church. In my own experience of ministry, I have shared in several teams and currently work in team ministry within a Methodist-Anglican congregation, and also as Co-Superintendent for a circuit. I know that, personally for me at least, shared leadership and partnerships of gifts are better than being in a sole leadership position. If nothing else, it helps me avoid my own weaknesses affecting the way I exercise leadership in the church.

This is in line with Methodist heritage. Although, like Paul, some also dismiss John Wesley as an overly authoritarian leader, and we must acknowledge that he did display various weaknesses and failings, the Methodist revival movement was though drawing many people from diverse backgrounds into mutual leadership frameworks. Lovett Weems describes a Wesleyan practice of ‘multiple leadership’ – leadership comes from different social locations and is recognised in people with widely varied gifts and experiences, and leadership is sometimes ‘for a season’ and a particular situation.[2] This ‘multiple leadership’ is based primarily on the centrality of sanctification alone. Weems develops this thinking further in a 2016 collection of chapters on Wesleyan leadership: ‘Effective leadership in the church begins with God’s call, God’s people and a vision of God’s reign. From the beginning, the focus must be theological, not personal.’[3]

‘The reality is that all are leaders and all are followers.’[4] However, if this principle is applied thoroughly, perhaps there is a danger of the dispersal of effort and loss of clarity about the mission of a church. Again, Weems echoes my experience in ministry: ‘If multiple leadership is to be the rule, then it is essential to make sure that God’s vision for the church at this time in history is discerned, articulated, and shared.’[5] The more that leadership is seen not as a personal vocation, but instead as a shared communal expression of community life, the more important it is that theological grounding and vision is discerned and shared. This becomes the primary leadership activity. Rather than the practical achievement of short term goals, which are best realised by collectively drawing on a diversity of gifts, leadership is about communal responsibility to discern and express theological vocation, and for each disciple to live this out personally.

---

[1] K. Carder and L. Warner (2016). Grace to Lead: Practising Leadership. United Methodist Church: General Board of Higher Education and Ministry. p.14

[2] Weems, Lovett H., Jr. (1998) Leadership in the Wesleyan Spirit. Nashville: Abingdon Press. section 2.5

[3] Weems, Lovett H., Jr. (2016). ‘What makes Leadership Wesleyan?’ in Perry, B. and Easley, B. (eds.) (2016), Leadership the Wesleyan Way: An Anthology for forming Leaders in Wesleyan Thought and Practice, Lexington, KY: Emeth Press. p.28

[4] Weems 1998, Leadership in the Wesleyan Spirit. sect 5.2

[5] ibid.