bobyoungresources.com

Leadership is not what most people think it is. Secular concepts of leadership stand in stark contrast to biblical concepts of leadership. Three aspects of biblical leadership highlight the contrast.

Leadership is sight and insight. To guide is a common synonym of the verb to lead. To guide means to show the way. One root of this word relates to knowing, showing, pointing out, and seeing. This suggests that leading is about seeing and knowing the way to reach the goal. Of course, one shows the way by example, but first one must know the way. In our contemporary world (and in a majority of the churches), we often try to develop leaders or leadership by focusing on a set of qualities or traits of leaders. We promote leadership and we try to cultivate certain qualities in future leaders. Too often we do this without establishing the foundation. Effective leadership demands that leaders understand the nature of reality. Biblically, this means that leaders know God, know themselves, know love and mercy and justice, and can live their own lives accordingly. Biblically, leaders are those who know the way and are able to influence others to follow a certain path. They are spiritually wise and capable guides. They have both sight and insight. The New Testament describes church leaders as those who have a certain kind of relationship in their marriages, their homes, the church, and their neighborhoods and communities. While list of qualities or requirements may be helpful, a better first question is, what can this person see? Another question that reflects the same principle is this: what is the testimony of his or her life, relationships, lifestyle, priorities, reputation, and influence?

Leadership is influence. In most of the seminars I present in Latin American churches, the entire local congregation is invited. Since the goal is congregational and spiritual development, it is imperative that as many as possible be present. I often begin seminars by asking all of those who are leaders to raise their hands. Generally, only a small number of those present raise their hands. After explaining that every person who has influence in the life of another person is a leader, I ask the question again. The second time, almost everyone raises their hands. The first point I want to make is that all are leaders. A leader is simply a person with influence. There are good leaders because people have a good influence; there are bad leaders because there are people who are bad influences. Everyone is a leader; every Christian is a leader. We are leaders through our examples—whether good or bad. Our children are leaders when they invite their friends to church events. Our leadership crisis in the church begins in our pre-school and primary classes because we describe leaders as an exalted and separated class of Christians. We must rethink the nature of leadership, and we must begin by establishing the biblical foundations.
In the Old Testament, Israel had good leaders and Israel had bad leaders. Whether your translation of the Bible uses the word leader or not, there were people who functioned as guides and influences. Because there were people with influence, there were leaders. I repeat: a leader is simply a person with influence. Leadership was exercised in the home and in the nation. Sometimes the influence of a king in his home was different than his influence in the nation. There were good kings who had bad sons. There were bad kings who had good sons. This reminds us that leadership exists in the home, in the church, in our neighborhoods, at work, in the community, and everywhere we go.

Leadership is for every member. In the church described in the New Testament, all Christians were called to be leaders according to the gifts, ministries, and activities they had been given. Every Christian was called and empowered to be involved in the work of the church and to be an influence for Christ, to assist in the edification of the body and to grow into spiritual maturity. Different Christians were given different gifts, different ministries, different roles, and different responsibilities. Never did these become a matter of position or office.
Misunderstandings of the nature of the leadership described in the New Testament have led the church to depend on special classes of members (“leaders” such as elders, deacons, preachers, and evangelists) to do the work. The churches have developed offices and positions, power and control. The average member sitting in the pew does not see himself as a leader. The average member does not think of herself as capable of doing much that is important in the work of the church. The average member does not think constantly about who and where and when and how to be an influence for Christ.
Before the local church can begin to grow again—with spiritual maturity and biblical organization, with members committed to being positive influences for Christ everywhere they go, we must conceptualize afresh the nature of the New Testament church. The New Testament church is not an enterprise or a business. It is the body of Christ, a living organism. Biblical organization does not parallel the organizational models of secular endeavors.

While the etymology of a word does not provide a current definition, understanding the root, origin, and past usage of a word can help us understand the present.

What is the origin of the word “lead?” The Arcade Dictionary of Word Origins gives two roots. One is related to the metal, spelled the same but pronounced differently, which “may have come…from an Indo-European source meaning ‘flow’ (a reference to the metal’s low melting point).” The second suggests that the word originated in the “prehistoric West and North Germanic laithjan.” Laithjan is derived from laitho, meaning way or journey. Related words include Old English lǣdan, Dutch leiden and German leiten, from which also we get our English words load and lode. The Online Etymology Dictionary (TOED) gives the following etymology of lead as a verb: “to guide,” Old English lædan “cause to go with one, lead, guide, conduct, carry; sprout forth; bring forth, pass (one’s life),” causative of liðan “to travel,” from West Germanic laidjan (cf. Old Saxon lithan, Old Norse liða “to go,” Old High German ga-lidan “to travel,” Gothic ga-leiþan “to go”), from PIE *leit- “to go forth.” Etymologically, lead is related to movement or a journey, causing one to go or helping along the way.
The relationship to the heavy metal (German, Lot “weight, plummet”) gives a set of usages related to heaviness: lead balloon, lead-footed (slow), and lead-footed (a heavy foot on the accelerator). The concept of heaviness in relationship to leaders is interesting.
In medieval times the word began to take on specific usages. Usage as a noun, “action of leading,” developed in the 14th century; and the idea of being “in first place” developed in the late 14th century. Lead in reference to “the front or leading place” is from the mid-16th century. The use of the noun in card-playing comes from 1742; in theater, from 1831; in journalism, from 1912; in jazz bands, from 1934 (TOED).

Leadership, referring to the “position of a leader,” is used in 1821, e.g. “He aspires to leadership.” By the end of the 19th century, the word came to include “characteristics necessary to be a leader,” (perhaps combining leader + shape), e.g. “He exhibits leadership.” As a noun, leadership now means (1) the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group: He managed to maintain his leadership of the party despite heavy opposition; synonyms: administration, management, directorship, control, governorship, stewardship, hegemony; (2) the ability to lead: As early as sixth grade she displayed remarkable leadership potential; synonyms: authoritativeness, influence, command, effectiveness; sway, clout; (3) an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction: They prospered under his strong leadership (4) the leaders of a group: The union leadership agreed to arbitrate (TOED).
The idea of “being in first place, in a leading role, or at the front,” a major feature of leadership in modern times, is considerable different from earlier usages which reflect moving on a journey, e.g. “leading one’s life.”

Leadership, as a word, has a history of less than 200 years, but the concept is much older. Biblically, the patriarchs were leaders. Israel had elders as early as Exodus 3:16 (the first biblical reference to elders). Parents are charged with spiritual leadership (Deuteronomy 6). Other leaders in Israel are described as prophets, judges, and kings. The judges (shophatim) were rulers, military leaders, and also presided over legal hearings. In a pre-modern sense, all of these groups were leaders and exercised leadership in Israel. The modern and post-modern concept of leadership most often refers to a set of traits or characteristics. These may or may not reflect an exemplary life. For example, leadership may be based on financial success, being well-known (celebrity status), or specific skill sets (athletics or entertainment). In our society, celebrities, athletes, and entertainers are more apt to be described as leaders than teachers, parents, or craftsmen. In fact, our cultural definitions of leadership tend to separate and exalt certain classes of people. We may speak of those who are leaders and those who are not.

What does it mean to lead? Who is a leader? What is leadership? Who can be a leader? How do responses to these questions change when one begins with a biblical foundation? How have the influences of our culture altered the usual responses to these questions?

The brother in Christ, a long-standing and faithful member of the church in another country, was not seeking confrontation or conflict. He only wanted clarification. “What is this thing called leadership that you are talking about?” Where does the Bible use the word? [Good question, and worthy of a thoughtful, well reseached answer!]
Leadership (and leader) are relatively recent in origin and common use, and the meaning of the words has been influenced by secular uses more than biblical concepts. I spend a lot of time in Latin America presenting seminars. One purpose of the seminars is to help develop mature Christians in local congregations so that the congregations can be biblically organized. I describe these as seminars focused on congregational and spiritual development. Sometimes I use the phrase leadership development to describe these seminars, but I wish there was another word. I wish there was another word because what I mean by developing leaders is not what many hear. I wish there was another word because many aspects of leadership as the word is used in the modern (and post-modern) world are unbiblical. [Another claim that deserves a more detailed explanation!]
In the next few days, I will post a few blogs to deal with these and other “leadership” concerns in the contemporary church.

What difficulties have you encountered? Many of the problems in local churches are related to how we understand “leadership.” What problems have you personally encountered?