Leadership

One of my dear friends, Ben Scott, invested much of his time over the last year planning a conference on leadership for Covenant College. He was so excited to present the school with the opportunity to hear about leadership and what it looks like in "the real world." Along with other students, the Student Senate, and members of the faculty, Ben brought in a Christian leader from the political scene as well as a Christian leader from within the Christian school community.

Before the conference began, a man in our Sunday school brought up a point. Shouldn't we, he posed, call something to this effect a "Servant Conference." Leadership has such a secular connotation. Leadership is not what we're after.

I beg to differ. Romans 12:8 encourages those who have the gift of leadership to govern diligently. While being a servant is a clear part of how Jesus modeled leadership, it is still leadership.

While true Christian leadership does require the characteristics of a servant, it requires much more. It does not have to (and should not) follow secular guidelines of power and lust for personal gain. At the same time, it does require influence, not just servant hood. Perhaps our Sunday school friend was simply attempting to escape from the wrong definition the world has given to leadership by running away from the term completely. Let's not get SO caught up in avoiding the world's pit falls that we unnecessarily go to the opposite extreme. Completely staying away from the term "leadership" and going to "servant" is a mistake. The truth is, "servant leadership" is the most accurate way to describe the Bible's outlook.

While there is so much more to be said about what leadership is biblically, the real thought that sparked this post is this: Not everyone is meant to be a leader. Leadership is (as Romans 12 notes) a gift given to specific people. Even just from a logical standpoint, if we ask all people to be leaders, who will be left to be led?

Merriam-Webster describes a leader as "a person who has commanding authority or influence" and to lead as "to guide on a way especially by going in advance." Leadership usually tends to involve being in authority or at the very least influencing. (Christ was both in authority and influencing the people around him, guiding.)

One of the conference speakers (and forgive me, I forget who) noted that some people are leading in official roles (captain of the soccer team, class president, etc.) while others are leading just a few people in the context of friendships and relationships. This idea seems to be an easier way to allow for every Christian as a "leader".

To teach every person in a college about leadership is certainly advantageous. When opportunity presents itself, then they will be equipped to step up and take the lead if necessary. To present "leadership" as the ideal role for every Christian, however, is something completely different. Leadership is a gift, a gift that has changed history. However, leadership is not the gift given to every Christian.

Question of the day: What is the balance between encouraging such a wonderful gift and remembering that someone has to follow the leader?

This concludes "disorganized food for thought" (my specialty) brought to you by April Hoekstra. :)