Bible Students

Reflections on “Biblical Leadership” by Forrest (chapters 20-24)

This week’s reading introduced the theology of leadership in the New Testament, especially through an exploration of Jesus and His followers. Jesus was and is the ultimate example of leadership both in the Bible and today through His believers. Jesus’ leadership is a back-wards kind of leadership, embracing humility over authoritative power. This will be the mark of Christ-like leadership in the New Testament, as beginning to be explored below. 

There is not one Greek word to every English word. There are often many meanings and many words. Words usually depict whole pictures of ideas, which are not perfectly shared with all people. Every word has a unique meaning. If a word had the same meaning and picture as another word, it would become obsolete. Leadership in the New Testament is a kind of guiding, not an authoritative ruling of other people. 

The kind of ruling which is demanded by James and John is the ruling of the world, which dominates other people. It exercises power and authority over other people. Biblical leadership is guiding other people, not taking charge over them to rule them harshly. Leaders must be of good character in the New Testament. Of course, this is true in the Old Testament as well, but the New Testament explicitly describes the character of a leader and gives the ultimate example of Jesus as a leader. 

Through the Old Testament, leadership must be explored through the stories presented. Additionally, the Gospels and Acts must be explored through the stories presented. Leadership in these books is not explicitly stated, at least not normatively. However, the example of the Gospels gives the explicit leadership example of Jesus, the ultimate leader. If one is to study the New Testament for leadership, one must know what Jesus’ view of the world is. 

The Day of the Lord is when pagan nations would be destroyed, acknowledge the Lord, and all those who love the Lord would see His glory with excitement. There was much excitement when Jesus began speaking about the Kingdom of God, similar to the Day of the Lord. The eschatology of the Kingdom seems upside-down, where the ruling power of those who are in the kingdom is actually to follow the humility of Jesus, not the ruling authority of pagan nations. Administration and power in the Kingdom is only by delegation, authority given on behalf of the Lord.

Jesus’ followers are exactly that: Followers, not leaders. All people in the Kingdom of God were entrusted to obey Christ by following His example as a follower, not breaking new ground as a leader. All leaders are actually followers of Christ who seek to point themselves and others to follow the example of the Lord. 

Leadership must acknowledge they are not in control. The ultimate control belongs to Jesus. Leaders do not self determine, they must give all of their power to the Lord, and accept His power. Of course, there is no real power to give to Christ that He does not already have, so the leader is not losing anything by giving up the little he has. 

Those who have spiritual eyes to see are those who are able to lead. Those who have worldly eyes will see worldly power as the epitome of success. However, the Kingdom of God is not about coming out above everyone else. Rather, Jesus Himself served His followers, acting as the primary example for those who follow Him. It is completely opposite to the Kingdom of God to desire power. Power is worldly. Serving others is what the Kingdom is made of, not being served. If Jesus desired to serve others, and He was the greatest man (being Himself God), how much less must Christians feel they are deserving to be served? Do Christians claim themselves to be more deserving of being served than Jesus? If not, then they should be willing to serve others before being served themselves. 

Leadership in the Kingdom of God begins with the calling, not with the desire. The Lord calls those who He wishes to raise up in leadership. Leaders are servants who must lead because of the circumstances. If a “leader” only serves because the circumstances necessitate it, they have their leadership completely backwards. They should be servants who only lead because the Lord has called them for a specific project (which may be a vocational ministry, but even so the primary goal must be servanthood, not being served). 

In John, the Apostles seem to have a  lessened status. They are followers of Jesus, not primarily leaders of the church. The Apostles are strong leaders of the church in Acts, but before the resurrection they are identified as those who follow Jesus as sheep, showing their faults. Footwashing is a necessary practice for servants of Jesus, following in the humility and servanthood of the chief example, Jesus Himself. 

Acts begins to describe the Apostles as the strong leaders of the early church, contrasted with the weak sheep of the Gospels. The leadership of Acts is descriptive of what proper leadership looks like, though is not necessarily prescriptive in all aspects. Leaders do not need to go to a new area, foreign to their home, to lead well. In Acts, many of the Apostles went to a new context to preach the gospel, but leaders and pastors today do not need to go somewhere new.

Additionally, numbers are not a good measurement of faithfulness. Others’ reactions are not how a Christian must measure how faithful they are. Many people through the Bible were incredibly faithful while having almost no reaction from the public (see Jeremiah). 

All leaders need to delegate responsibility to other people, as they can not do everything themselves. Additionally, leaders must point their team back to the Word. Dwelling on the Word is an essential aspect of leadership. While I would not say I am a leader in the kitchen, one of the things I am most proud of at work is helping to make frequent Bible reading a reality throughout the day. This has shown to be very profitable for spiritual development, working for the Lord, and team building. 

I appreciated the insights present in this reading. The emphasis on followership is something I have greatly gained from in the past. Leaders are not leaders because of their desire to be served. Rather, leaders are true followers of Jesus who are elected to leadership for a specific cause. The natural state of the leader should be to follow well. Pastors who lead the church lead them by comforting them, praying for them, giving them the Word, and helping them. The pastoral job is one of service to other people. Now, of course, congregations are called to love and submit themselves to their “leaders,” but I do not like to use this kind of leadership. Pastors and husbands are ultimately servants of their respective other parties (congregation and wives), not leaders, at least how the world would evaluate it. They do make the final choice for direction, and are called to be above reproach and of good character (as all Christians are), and held to a higher standard because others look to them. However, husbands and pastors are called to love like Christ, even to death. They make choices about direction, but must do so in favor of the other party, not themselves. I do not like using the term leader, at all, because I feel it has been stained by the world’s understanding of leadership. I would prefer to use a term closer to serving by example.