The saying, “Too many chiefs and not enough Indians.” is often used to communicate the idea of the difficulties and sometimes chaos that result from having too many people calling the shots and too few people executing the shots. I’m sure that everyone has experienced a number of difficult and taxing situations in their lives that has stemmed from being in an environment that is duly described by the above saying.
Over the past several years, I’ve noticed the incredible increase in books and other resources that have to with becoming a better or more effective leader. I’ve also noticed that the ideas and principles in these resources, which at one time were almost exclusive to the corporate world, have gained great popularity in religious circles, especially in the area of church leadership. (Sadly, many of these ideas and principles have been altered or adjusted very little, if at all!)
At some point, the persona or idea of being a leader became in vogue. It seemed that everybody who was anybody was teaching people to become leaders, and everyone else was learning to be leaders. There were books, tapes, CDs, DVDs, conferences, seminars, and even boot camps. All designed for the purpose of producing leaders.
As a pastor, I am not all that concerned with what goes on in the business world, but in the church, that’s a whole different matter! In the church, what is needed more, leaders or followers? Now as a leader, I’m certainly not saying leadership is not needed. That would make me hypocritical in my vocational and ministerial pursuits. But I do believe things have gotten out of balance, at least in motivation and ideology if not in numeric ratios.
Take the following analogy. Which army do you think would be more effective? Would it be Army A, which has 21 generals and 500 soldiers or Army B, which has 3 generals and 1500 soldiers? I think the obvious answer would be Army B. Why? I believe it is due to the difference in the general/soldier ratio or to put it another way the leader/follower ratio. Army A with its vast number of generals probably has many great plans and strategies, but its small number of soldiers would limit its ability to carry out these plans. However, Army B, although it has fewer and possibly less-qualified generals, has the man-power to carry out almost any plan its generals devise. And although the plans of Army A may be superior in many ways, a poor plan that is put into action will always beat a superior plan that is not!
I’m sure that the human ego plays a role in all this. Not many people clamber to become what society thinks is a lesser station in life. Most want to be first, on top, and in the lead. But as I write this, a few passages of Scripture come to mind. One is from Luke, and two are found in James. In Luke 14, Jesus says, “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” In the fourth chapter if his epistle, James reminds to “humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.” And in the third chapter of the same epistle, James warns, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”
I want to point out two very important principles from these texts that I believe apply to leadership in the church as well as personal perceptions of “societal placement” addressed in the immediate context. In the first two passages, notice that it is someone other than ourselves who are “advancing us” or “lifting us up”. (In the second passage, it is specifically God.) Whether it is ourselves or someone else who is in a position of leadership, we must ask the question, “Have they/I obtained this position of leadership through self-effort and self-promotion, or have they/I been placed here by God?”
Among the ranks of pastors, there is a saying that goes, “Some were called, some were sent, and some just packed their bags and went.” This pithy saying addresses the motivating force behind those who take upon their shoulders the great responsibility of ministry. Some go because they have been called by God, and God has revealed it to them in some manner. Others have had an outside agent, usually and preferably a church, notice and confirm their giftedness and ability to minister and has set them forth in a particular field of ministry. Still others are enamored by the popularity, power, influence, and rewards that often SEEM to go along with being a leader in ministry, and they take it upon themselves to do whatever is necessary to place themselves in and promote themselves to those positions. But many people, especially those of that third group overlook the second and most sobering of the principles found in the above Scriptures.
James warns that those who teach will be judged more strictly! Although not every leader is teacher, within the church, the vast majority of leadership roles include teaching as part of their function and responsibility. This is particularly true of pastors, preachers, and evangelists. Do those who are leaders understand the gravity of role they are to fulfill? Do they act, teach, and lead with the constant understanding that they are going to be held to a higher standard and a greater level of accountability?
To be continued.............
No comments:
Post a Comment