leadership is not pretty

it is a difficult thing, to lead. In my life, I have seen leadership modeled beautifully and I have seen leadership butchered.

I have observed it from afar and been in the very thick of it.

I have seen 'visionaries' and 'idea men' who understood strategy but had no ability to plan nor carry out their own ideas. I watch great tacticians and managers - they can execute a plan flawlessly - who have no vision whatsoever.... I see quiet leaders who command respect and deserve it...and I have seen precious few who are gifted with the 'leadership trifecta': vision, strategy and tactical skills...

I have been a leader and I have been a follower.

Admittedly, I find the latter more difficult than the former. I would like to think that's because I have some God-lent-giftedness toward leading... but it is more likely some huge character flaw - like being a control freak! - that makes me overestimate my worth and giftedness. I am likely a weaker leader than I perceive myself to be and a worse follower than I need to be...

All that said, I believe I have a good idea what healthy leadership looks like. And with regard to leading a church, I have very strong feelings as to what a good leader is... most of my ideas in that vein derive from Peter's first letter, which paints a most beautiful portrait of what a church elder/pastor would look like (chap 5)... and, of course, from Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus (when taken in context instead of jerked out of it to create a man made checklist litmus test!)...

Lynn Anderson also penned a book 'They Smell Like Sheep' which should be a prerequisite for any person aspiring to lead a church.

I believe it was in this volume that I read something like this: "If you are leading and nobody is following, you're just taking a walk"

It occurs to me that there are several styles or methods men and women use to lead (most modeled after secular example)... here are a few that come to mind:

• consensus leadership - this leader will always try to build consensus, to do what most people agree would be right and good... there is sometimes persuasion involved, as this leader has some feelings as to direction, and this leader model seems pretty good and logical.... but it may sometimes result in this leader agreeing to things they personally disagree with...
• majority leadership - a close cousin to the 'consensus' model, this one also wants to do what most people want... but depends less upon persuading people and more upon reflecting what the majority 'votes' for.... this leader has fewer strong convictions than the consensus leader, and usually wants hard data to support the hue and cry of the masses, in case he is challenged.
• compass leadership - probably the most difficult model, and the least applied in most organizations today... it calls for the leader to have a strong compass which governs his heart and influences his decisions. This method requires a rare moral certitude and takes the most courage by far, because compass leading will always be offending someone - maybe large groups of someones... (I would note that history - Biblical and Secular - remembers these types of leaders as the very best ones!)
• squeaky wheel leadership - this one is weakest, because it has no compass and depends upon the negative.... and it relies totally upon volume: and more often than not, much greater attention is given to the volume (loudness) of complaints than the volume (number) of complaints... it also potentially ignores a very large group of 'constituents' who are neither negative nor loud

while there may be some good found in each of these models, they all smack of school boards and city councils and bank boards, and seem to completely miss the point of what true 'church leadership' is meant to be... at least with respect to the Bible picture of 'shepherd' leadership.

That's because church leadership is different than corporate leadership...

it is meant to be imitative of true shepherding, not bank boards. ...and I haven't seen this model very much, frankly. I have read about it, but it is rarely modeled in the church of today.

the Shepherd is the perfect picture of what churches desperately need... I mean, think of what a herder of sheep actually does...

• cares for, guards and feeds the sheep
• directs and leads and guides them
• operates from a selfless stance, always considering what his flock needs

and doesn't do:

• have you ever heard of a shepherd building consensus? Hardly
• and what kind of attention would a herder of sheep give to a 'squeaky wheel'?
• have you heard of a shepherd taking votes among his sheep about which pasture to visit or what food to eat?

of the worldly models, it would seem that a true shepherd most closely resembles the 'compass' leader, right? (Frank Viola wrote this about that: "a true shepherd-leader knows what the next step is" ...pretty simple yet insightful.)

but the most widely applied 'secular method' of 'eldering' that I have observed is the squeaky wheel model. …a terrible model for church leadership which guarantees terrible results.

for the true shepherd, however, the Word is his compass. and he gives proper weight to both the LOUD VOICE and the DEAD SILENCE of scripture...

and he spends more time tending the sheep than rendering decisions, doesn't he?

(to be continued...)