What Is Christian Leadership?

In discussing the question of appropriate forms of leadership for the church, we are exploring the nature of Christian leadership. Is Christian leadership something similar to Christian football or Christian radio? In each of these cases, football and radio exist as discreet and definite disciplines, with their own rules, mechanics and logic. The term ‘Christian’ stands as an collective noun to describe the people who perform and participate in the discipline. Is it the same with Christian leadership? Are we simply referring to a universal discipline called ‘leadership’ which may or may not be done by Christians? Or can the term ‘Christian’ stand in an adjectival sense, in which it affects, modifies and determines the nature of that described when used in relation to the term ‘leadership’? It is my assumption in this essay that it is this latter meaning which must apply. While there may be many interesting and helpful insights regarding leadership to be learned from the wider culture in which we live, any genuine understanding and development of Christian leadership theory must be formed within the distinctive terms of the Christian community, the Church. Thus, our theories of Christian leadership must be primarily governed by the self-revelation of God given us in the person of Jesus Christ. Christian leadership therefore finds its true provenance in the Scriptural witness to Jesus Christ, and is properly nurtured and explored by the Spirit-formed community of the Church. Steven Croft, who now heads up the recently formed ‘Fresh Expressions’ team in the Church of England makes the same point:

‘Because we are Christian ministers, our understanding of the people we are called to be and the task we are called to fulfil must be securely rooted in and consonant with the Scriptures and with the understanding of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ and the Church which we find there. It is not enough simply to be pragmatic, to argue from what we think we need to be to what we should therefore become.’ (Croft 1999, p21)

It is interesting to note that this argument is made even by a person responsible for encouraging what are often perceived to be pioneering forms of church which do not necessarily conform to inherited models of church. Where some practitioners would adopt a very pragmatic approach to such a task, promoting a ‘whatever works’ mentality, Croft is keen for any new and emerging forms of church to be rooted in the deep heritage of the Church. This results in a firm rejection of allowing primacy to any categories of thought external to the Gospel-focused tradition of the Church.

‘The understanding of ministry which we develop at the beginning of the third millennium must draw on the evolving traditions of the Church and its ministry through the ages, and not simply on understandings of leadership drawn from society around us.’ (ibid.)

We should note that while this allows the Church to resist the influence of secular management theories which are, at least superficially, hierarchically conceived, it also compels us to reject the unquestioning acceptance into the Church’s ministry of contemporary secular trends towards team or collaborative forms of management, or in other words, plural leadership. Rather, all models of leadership available in the wider world must be attended to and regarded for their potential to teach us valuable lessons, and equip us for ministry in God’s Church, but must be always made subservient to the lordship of Jesus Christ, mediated to us by the Spirit, the Scriptures and the traditions of the Church.