I wrote a few weeks ago on 3 Roadblocks to a Better Church, and the roadblock that got the most attention in the comments was the 2nd—indecisive leadership. Since leadership sets the tone for what happens in a church, how we think of their role and how they execute it is a big deal.
It’s that word “decisive” that makes the difference, though.
My point in the previous article was to say that democracy and populism are poor ways to lead a church. The people can’t lead themselves; if they could, God wouldn’t have set up a hierarchical system. Thus, indecision among the leaders won’t get the church anywhere.
What the counter looks like is a challenge, though. It’s walking the fine line between caring too much about what the people think, and not caring enough, of running them over or letting them run over you.
So, let’s break it down via an illustration to which we all can relate: the importance of picking the right option for lunch.
Option 1: The elders (or one particularly strong-willed elder, or one elder’s wife who sends her husband in to do her bidding) like Chinese food, so they always decide based on their preference. Before long the people realize they are welcome to tag along for fried rice and sesame chicken, but they will never be given any say and aren’t considered important by the leadership.
Option 2: The elders poll the crowd and always go with the majority opinion. The minority are incentivized to take their ball and go home, since things will be the same with or without their input.
Option 3: The elders know it’s a roughly 50-50 split between those who prefer Mexican and those who prefer Italian, but they also know that there are people in the Mexican food party who will loudly complain if Italian is chosen, while the Italian food party will be happy enough with Mexican food. So, Mexican food it is. And that can be fine—if isolated to one decision.
But if the leaders aren’t careful, it won’t be long before the Mexican food party gets their way every time. If the 2 year old finds out they get to watch Bluey every time they throw a temper tantrum, you’re going to get more temper tantrums, to stack another metaphor on the pile.
And then you’re going to get resentment from the Italian food party, who are learning that their faithful reasonableness is working against them and they may never get a breadstick again. It’s chips and salsa from here on out, apparently. They’ll either learn to start throwing their own fits, or start looking for somewhere they feel heard and valued.
Option 4: The elders take individual orders for everybody and run to 17 different restaurants to get takeout to keep everybody happy. It’s inefficient and will inevitably burn them out, though. And, it teaches everybody in the church that the elders have subjected themselves to every whim a member has.
Option 5: The elders spend time getting to know their flock, learning everyone’s preferences, and demonstrating their love for the sheep through serving and putting in the time. When it’s time to pick lunch, they know the general tone of the congregation, and they make sure everyone is taken care of.
This might mean that this week it’s Mexican and next week it’s Italian. The Mexican food party might be upset about the Italian food, but they won’t be able to claim that it’s because the eldership doesn’t care.
The eldership should still serve Italian from time to time, while emphasizing to the squeaky wheel Mexican food crew that they are loved but also need to love their breadstick brethren enough to take a back seat sometimes. And if those people still throw their fit and go elsewhere, it’s not because the leadership was dismissive of them.
Obviously, Option 5 is decisive leadership. They’ve done the work of loving, serving, and getting to know people, and they’re making the best decisions they know how. They’re not putting themselves first. They’re not letting themselves be driven by everyone’s whims. They’re (lovingly) putting people in their place when the need arises. In short, they’re leading.
Yes, the lunch options make for a light-hearted illustration (and should be the job of a deacon who answers to the elders, if we’re taking it quite literally). Still, these leadership options remain the same across a broad spectrum of decisions that leadership groups have to face.
Of course some things, like God’s explicit commandments, don’t require a decision at all. But others, like what the Bible class curriculum is going to look like or which man of a few good, possible options is going to be hired as the preacher, or what the order of worship looks like, will require their hands-on decision. In those moments, the ease of Option 1, 2, 3, or 4 will be appealing, but knowing their people and knowing how much weight to give the members’ opinions on a given matter is what true decisiveness looks like.
This makes them servants, not waiters.
was the first (to my knowledge) to do a thorough takedown of the concept of “servant leadership,” so I’ll just recommend his piece without getting into the whole discussion here. But suffice it to say, it would be easy for a leader or a group of leaders to consistently give in to the whims and desires of their people and pat themselves on the back for being “servant leaders.”There’s a reason Paul chose the word “rule” with regard to the work of elders (1 Timothy 5:17). As people of the 21st century, we don’t like that word. We can’t conceive of someone “ruling” without being a self-serving dictator. But history shows us plenty of men who ruled with fairness and generosity with a concern for the good of their people. Ultimately, they were servants of their people, yet without being a rubber stamp for the people.
That’s the idea of an elder’s job as a shepherd over both individual sheep and the flock as a whole. A waiter takes orders from people and gives them what they want. A leader who is a servant does what is best for His people, even if it’s hard, and even if they’re going to hate Him for it.
This makes them authoritative, not authoritarian.
Leadership is not mere appeasement. But neither is it domination. It would be easy for a man or a group of men to consistently choose whatever they want and pat themselves on the back for being decisive. Jesus, however, teaches them to put their people first:
But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles domineer over them, and those in high position exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant, and whoever desires to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” - Matthew 20:25-28
This is also why Paul said elders must not be self-willed (Titus 1:7) and Peter told them to shepherd their flocks without lording over the people (1 Peter 5:3).
As is almost always the case, we have to acknowledge two ditches, know which one we’re more prone to fall into, and guard against overcorrection.
The authoritarian can see the problems with a capitulating leadership, but may be blind to the way his style crushes his people. He must learn to soften up a little without totally giving in to people’s demands.
The capitulating leader can see the problems with authoritarian leadership, but may be blind to the way his style encourages unruly membership. He must learn to take a stronger position of leadership without turning into an authoritarian. The guy who said “Aw, shucks, me?” when asked to be an elder needs to understand that yes, actually, you, and you had better rise to the occasion.
No matter which style an eldership, the membership needs to be ready to submit to them and support them, not following kicking and screaming or throwing their weight around.
As the leadership goes, so goes the congregation. If they know their people and lead them lovingly and decisively, a strong church will be the result.
Book update
Christ’s Co-Rulers is now available in paperback! You can pick it up here
A brief note about subscriptions…
You may have noticed that, other than book giveaways, everything on this site is now FREE!
However, locking articles does drive more premium subscriptions, and the added income from those has been a tremendous boost to give my family a little more financial breathing room. In other words, giving everything away free does make it tougher to gain paying subscribers.
So, I want to thank all those who are premium subscribers for your invaluable support. And I want to encourage non-premium subscribers to consider upgrading. Having a steady growth of premium subscribers without using the paywall is a huge boost and helps me keep everything available free.
Thanks for subscribing, and for your consideration!
Great article, Jack! In my many years in the church, I have observed the scenarios you pointed out. I have seen a weak elder who was a proxy elder for his family. By the way, that type of elder is not a qualified elder. Also, I have seen the elders who ignored the flock they were charged to oversee. Members complained that one elder, in particular, would callously walk away in the middle of a conversation if he didn't like the question or suggestion. He would walk away if he didn't want to have to provide an answer. He and a fellow elder, who was a bully, made consequential decisions for the congregation without asking the flock what they thought. Too many elders are drunk on power. Then there are the elders who consult the flock and are fair in their dealings with those allotted to their care. These are the ones who are God-honoring and live up to the qualities and work of elders who "rule well." Thankfully, this describes the elders who oversee my soul.