Exchange theory of leadership: all for one, one for all

We all so readily confess that Jesus is the head of the church, but in practice it is rarely so. I have found very, very few contexts that give practical expression to that idea.

A friend spoke of their church being without a leader, because Jesus is their leader. That is commendable, but potentially risky. The truth is that leadership and authority is a serious issue to God. Many of our greatest issues stem from a clash of interest between God’s position on authority and the consequential resentment of followers.

Either way we lose if we don’t get a balanced perspective on leadership. Many churches have been suppressed by self-centered leaders, whilst others have been impoverished by lack of leadership, but far too many individuals are in wilderness places because they could not connect with leadership at all.

Influence versus direction

Directive leadership styles are always popular with leaders - but divine leadership is a better way.

God is often perceived as directive in His own leadership style and certainly there are many examples of decisive leadership, as when He dealt with Pharaoh of Egypt or led Israel out of captivity through the Red Sea. But it would be wrong to interpret Him as a directive leader, because there is substantially more evidence pointing to an influential style of leadership.

It is a given that God respects our freedom of choice and will not impose His will on us. Yet He gave us His Word and made it very clear that there are consequences for not obeying it. That borders on directive-ness, but stops short of it. He does not actually respond directly to disobedience, rather He created laws of cause and effect that are invoked by our own responses to them. So when we willfully disobey we invoke the embedded consequences or curses of His law.

Actually the entire universe is made that way. God doesn’t sit down with a “weather angel” every day and decide what kind of day we are going to have. Rather He invested a handful of highly deterministic laws that govern the entire weather cycle, without any further intervention. Thus Jesus said, “The wind blows where it wants to”.

Now such principles already allude to a very effective style of leadership. Rather than interfere in daily decision making, which would be disempowering and intrusive, God established the fewest possible laws (minimalism) to achieve the greatest possible level of self-regulation in life. The resulting system is very self-adjusting and able to bounce back from human excesses, although we are currently at risk of pushing our life support system beyond its design limits.

So God gives us principles to guide our lives and then lets us find the fine balance between those principles so that we may be effective. Beyond that He influences our hearts and minds, through His still small voice, but He never says “do that or else”. He makes allowance for our complexity and our competing influences, by patiently influencing our choices until that yields the peaceable fruits of righteousness. Sometimes our willfulness will drive us into long periods of isolation and frustration, but then He simply meets us in those experiences and shows us His divine ways.

Humans tend to be too willful to adopt a patient, influencing style. Yet a lot of modern thinking around EQ (Emotional intelligence), presupposes an influential, patient approach to the way we interact with people. Many vent their frustration with people and turn to manipulation: anger, politics, underhandedness, malice and all the other negative levers so popularly applied in corporate and, sad to say, church life. That is self-negating, because the resulting impositions provoke a push back from people and that leads to the nasty, unproductive standoffs that characterize politics. Some have paid dearly for that, as did the bourgeoisies of revolutionary France.

So effective leadership does not require an overt, charismatic, loud, assertive, pushy style – ever.

Truly effective and sustainable leadership requires us to shepherd, not herd, God’s heritage. It is a rod and staff thing, requiring us to use the staff to gently nudge and influence, whilst deploying the rod to deal with exceptions, exceptionally. The rod reflects the consequences that are embedded within divine law and reflect God’s bottom line. Good leadership must define boundaries (doctrine, direction and discipline) and defend them, but it should liberate and empower all behavior that functions within those boundaries.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Authority relates to stewardship

Leadership is the highest form of stewardship that imposes the greatest call to personal submission.

Power closely relates to sin and sin feeds on self. Self awareness was the first change that happened in Adam and Eve after they ate of the tree of knowledge. It is the crux of all temptation and has been used by Satan to draw us away from God into deviant purposes. Self-knowledge is a key consideration of the tenth Commandment: “Do not covet”.

It is no coincidence that the grand prize in Satan’s temptation of Jesus, was to get Him to displace His Father’s authority and rule in His own right. That was completely against the grain for Jesus, but it reflects the soul of self-awareness: the instinct to advance ourselves. Whilst I am all in favor of self-development and self-respect, the insidious spirit of self-centeredness relates directly to original sin: the rebellion of Satan against God’s throne.

We tacitly align ourselves with that rebellion when we promote self over the kingdom, for in so doing, we effectively subvert the throne and authority of God. Indeed, whether self-awareness manifests as pride or debasement, as overt or covert behavior, it still detracts from the glory of God, diminishes the power of the kingdom and makes us an unwitting channel for Satan’s subversion of God’s purposes.

Self is a key factor of the power struggle between leaders and followers. Both parties struggle within themselves for mastery and recognition and the issues compete with the healthy attributes of leadership. Most leaders would agree that laying ourselves down to serve the greater cause, in cooperation with leaders, significantly reflects spiritual maturity. I agree and I also adopt the bible’s bias towards leaders. Even imperfect leadership is better than no leadership and taking the law into our own hands is perverse, for leadership represents the whole and the whole is always more than any one individual.

But for submission to be relevant at any level it must be relevant at all levels. Leaders must also be subject to authority and if not they have no right to require submission from their followers, for the essence of all leadership is stewardship of the mandates entrusted to us. If we lose touch with that principle and strike out on our own independent agenda, we will also place ourselves beyond the limits of God’s authority.

It is no wonder that the bible calls “Rebellion, the sin of witchcraft” (1 Samuel 15:23), for it is the heart of corruption, insurrection, conflict, wickedness, vice, malice and lawlessness.

For a leader to give full effect to their own submission, they must take deliberate steps into the context of authority. They must respect that the principle of authority is independent of the person, but dependent on God. This is not just about being accountable to other leaders: we must start with submission to God and His Word.

Now this is where the rub comes. When leaders misinterpret leadership as something sacrosanct, an imposed right of way, they miss the raison d’etre of their calling: which is all about God entrusting His Kingdom and His purposes to our frailty. Indeed, it is about a whole (the kingdom) that precedes us and will outlive us, but nonetheless extends to us (individuals) the privilege of participation.

The reason that Abel and Jacob found favor with God over their brothers, was because they brought back to God what God first entrusted to them. Their brothers tried to impress with the labors of their hands and the originality of their thinking. But Abel and Jacob feared God in the spirit of true stewardship. Abel despised sweat capital and only laid before God a lamb that was first entrusted to his shepherd heart: it was a costly part of his own heritage and the sacrifice was sensitive to the heart of God (he offered a lamb without being told that such a sacrifice would be a recurring symbol of godliness).

Abel brought to God what God wanted, but Cain brought what he wanted. Jacob, on the other hand, showed profound regard for the legacy handed down from Abel through succeeding generations, whilst his foolish brother was willing to trade that legacy for some stew (you could stew for popularity, power, position, symbols or reputation).

Our legacy, the Kingdom of God, has a six thousand year heritage established through faithful hearts, whom God sustained through enormous personal sacrifices. How dare we assume that what we have inherited is our fiefdom or an expression of our own original thinking? Moses would have raised his rod over this generation, saying “He called us only to implement the patterns shown on the mount”.

It is a fearful and noble thing to be called to steward something of such priceless value and we must needs do so with fearful, faithful hearts. Like Joshua we need to apply great attention to detail in handling the wonders of God. That implies personal discipline, submission to the Word, holy living, accountability for our conduct and respect for the pillars of divine governance: the prophetic, the priesthood and ruler-ship.

In closing, may I hint at the next chapter in this discourse. The wise leader needs to realize that when biblical principles are applied to their leadership, it will enhance their ability to lead effectively. It is incumbent on all good leaders to study divine patterns and principles in the knowledge that real authority is independent of their personality, personal power, charisma, original thinking, vision or any other humanistic concepts of leadership. Real authority relates to what we steward, not who stewards it.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Authority is not personal power

The idea of separating authority from the office bearer is controversial, but empirically logical..

In the previous article I said that Authority is not a person, but a principle. I wish to explore that further, using a few relevant examples. The examples I have chosen are biblically defined authority structures.

The first is Slavemasters. The term, as such, is no longer relevant, but the principle relates to business leaders. Peter was quick to say that we should submit to these, even when they are harsh and I support that, in principle. Harsh leadership has its place in every leadership context for those who define and preserve boundaries, but I will speak later on leadership styles and roles.

A business leader is empowered by defined terms of reference that are independent of the office bearer. In business we always referred to “the job”, not the “incumbent”. The job is mandated and sanctioned by the organization and its shareholders. The mandate and its compensation is job specific, not specific to the office holder. It ultimately relates back to the stewardship of shareholder value. The authority to do the job is defined within the terms of reference. These are readily accepted principles in business circles, but it surprises me that we cannot translate the principle to other leadership contexts.

When a business leader fulfils his or her given mandate and delivers to their terms of reference, they have authority. I do believe that such authority is more than a human mantle. God nominated such leaders as a legitimate class of authority and I have seen how an intangible spirit of authority seems to accompany appointed leaders. However, I have also seen leaders walk in and out of authority, for they can exceed themselves. Thus, when leaders (be they Christians or not) consciously or unconsciously apply biblical principles, things work. Fairness, equity, integrity, honesty and other timeless principles come to mind and great leaders swear by them. But of equal importance is faithful stewardship of their terms of reference.

A scriptural example of how authority can waver, relates to Joshua. Whilst clearly anointed of God to lead Israel, his authority was diminished by sin within the camp, the sin of Achan. God withdrew His power until the sin was resolved, for the people had effectively stepped outside of His authority. Sin here could be a proxy for corruption, inequity, double-dealing or violation of terms of reference: namely, “disobedience”.

Parental authority

As with the previous discussion, this is another defined biblical authority that carries divine weight. A Father has authority within the home, power to impose discipline and the ability to instill values. It is an intangible spirit of authority that comes from God, regardless of race or creed, but it is specific to Fathers. Mothers also have authority, but it is specific to their role. I frequently hear women express frustration with child discipline and other unnatural roles, but I rarely see men battling with their own natural roles.

However, I have seen men lose authority by stepping outside their mandate and I have also seen at least some of that same authority gradually pass to their wives, by default. A father can and does lose the respect of his wife and children when he fails to live up to God’s terms of reference. I think far too many men are currently disempowered and are being left behind because they do not understand their authority or invoke it. It doesn’t matter how theologians cut or slice this issue, the reality is that despite the defined authority of fatherhood, fathers will suffer diminished authority through sin and misappropriation of God’s mandate.

I once had a major sin issue in my household, but as for Joshua the sin was concealed. I found myself struggling in almost every area of my life because of this, because God held me accountable, just as Joshua was accountable for Israel. When I confronted and resolved those issues, I regained authority in my home and in society. I actually felt very disempowered and ineffective as a man until the issues were resolved.

Church authority

I am amazed at how all the foregoing is held to be valid, but somehow breaks down within church leadership. There are clear biblical principles for leadership that represent the separate mandate of authority. Leaders who live within their mandates, thrive and invoke the power implied by their terms of reference, but leaders who exceed their mandates forever struggle with discipline, submission and support. As someone once said, “If you keep hitting brick walls, you are probably doing something wrong”. That is true for leadership. There is a right way and a high way of leadership, but violations of our divine mandate, always undermine our ability to lead.

To make any form of submission reasonable, it is important that those who lead are themselves in submission: to Godly principle, the Word and to the “pattern” that God prescribed for His church. I do not celebrate many of the original ideas that leaders love to introduce in their pursuit of numbers and popularity, for it will be tough to stand before our King one day and explain how, like Saul, we grew impatient with His way and did it our way. I have limited regard for big ideas like vision or strategy. Jesus set the example, when He said, “I came to do your will O’ God.”

Simply put, if leaders are not accountable to God’s mandate and to those who cover them, then they will battle to command authority for by their actions they step outside their mandate into the realm of self-power, an authority that actually usurps divine authority, aligns with God’s enemy, frustrates the purpose of the Kingdom and turns a six thousand year legacy into a personal fiefdom.

Personal authority

The upshot of all that I have said relates ultimately to personal authority. Satan is an illegitimate authority, who assumes legitimacy because we allow his to do so. As rock beats scissors and scissors beat paper and paper beats rock, so anyone who has a right standing in God’s Word will find authority to overcome sin, Satan and the world. We can step into that mandate and step out of it, but the authority is an expression of God that outlives our comings and goings. Divine authority is ordained of God and we need to learn how to live within it if we are ever to be effective as believers. Indeed, whilst the world emphasizes personal charisma as a basis for power, God separates the locus of power and declares that those who live by His Word will prosper in spite of other more obvious limitations: how I thank God then that my success or failure is not something predefined by my birth, my looks, my height or my strength, but by His Word in me.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Authority as a principle

One of the recurring cries of leaders is a call to submission but that is only one side of the story.

Jesus said, in John 19:11 that “All authority is God given and God ordained” or “All authority is from God”. He effectively challenged those who sought His life, saying “You can do nothing against me except my Father allows it”.

That aspect of the teachings on authority is relatively easy to grasp. Its implications for us are harder to grasp, because of scriptures like Romans 3:1-2, which says, ““Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves”.

Peter went on to emphasize this further in 1 Peter 2:18-20, saying that we should even submit to harsh authorities.

To the last point it must be said that Human Scientists also advocate situational leadership, arguing that sometimes a harsh leader is quite necessary. Consider the role of a drill sergeant in instilling discipline in troops, so that they can learn to obey orders in the heat of battle – a requirement that is designed to save lives and win wars. It is important to bring this context, because I will later make a contextual case for harsher leadership styles.

The teachings of Paul in Romans and other scriptures, combined with the words of Jesus and Peter, have created some serious dilemmas for believers.

We find four authority tiers in the bible, namely God, The State (1 Peter 2:13-15; Romans 13:4), the family (Ephesians 6:10 relates to children and parents, whilst Ephesians 5:22-24 relates to husbands and wives) and the Divine (His Spirit (Rom. 8:14), His Word (2 Tim. 3:16), and Church leadership (Matt. 18:17-20, Heb. 13:17)). So God-given authority has a broad scope and God requires us to submit to and honor such authorities.

Where the dilemma comes in, is with individual leaders. Hitler comes to mind. Was he ordained of God? I doubt it. I know that is an extreme example, but it serves to test the boundaries of the principle of authority. Clearly it could not have been God’s intent to universally embrace all leaders within the scope of His authority. Here I make a very contentious point in saying that there comes a point where even husbands step outside of the principles of authority and invalidate themselves, which the church should consider before subjecting a battered wife to an abusive husband.

Note, that I define authority as a principle, not a person. When a person submits to Godly principles, they acquire Godly authority and the power to represent God on those terms. But they can later step out of authority through disobedience and that will invalidate them, whoever they are.

We have a tendency to confuse the principle or concept of authority, with the subject of authority. I fear that is a hangover of the Catholic era, where the clergy wielded oppressive and offensive power through their command of the scriptures and the seals of office. That is not leadership, nor is it legitimate authority – it is merely control and power.

People can disappoint and have proved time and again to be fallible, but God’s authority as a principle has never failed, not in one single dimension. This separates the authority of God from the person in authority, for authority is continuous, but people are temporary.

Where there is right leadership of homes, children are more focused and self assured and wives are fulfilled. Where God’s Word overrules human whim, right decisions prevail. Where spiritual leaders rule well, they are worthy of a double reward. And individuals who learn to handle God's Word with fear and wisdom, will find victory through the authority extended to them by the Word.

Saul lost his (spiritual) authority to David, who not only acquired Saul’s anointing, but also inherited his throne. Saul held the kingdom hostage for years after, by holding onto the weakest element of authority, namely positional authority i.e. power and control. He occupied the throne and had the means to enforce his position, regardless of God’s greater intention for David.

David knew what the score was, but as is often the case in leadership tussles, he had to patiently wait for his moment knowing its inevitability and trusting in his anointing. There is such wisdom in his demeanor and I counsel leaders-in-waiting to learn patience, for it is in such times that God builds character. In fact, during his time of waiting, David built vital alliances and an army in waiting, a great example for leaders-in-waiting who should spend their waiting days constructively building alliances and support structures. It is a foolish leader who believes that his/her future role will be effective without the support of informal power bases. For no man/woman is an island.

There is so much yet to say, but let me close by saying that any principle is only valid if it holds true for all conditions. Authority as a person fails routinely and is, by all empirical considerations, invalid. But (godly) authority, as a principle is always valid and consistent for all observations.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Leadership is accountability

Leadership is submission and accountability, for therein lies the mandate that empowers our actions.

When Saul was anointed King, Samuel the priest told him to wait seven days at Gilgal. Now Samuel was Saul’s key point of accountability, his reference point. He would be akin to a covering leader, chairman, boss, stakeholder or shareholder i.e. our locus of authority.

Saul should have obeyed Samuel and gone straight to Gilgal, but he felt there were more important things to do and battles to engage. He only obeyed two years later.

The first principle of leadership is that we are actually not instruments of our own timing.

We are beholden and should respect the authority that anoints us. No matter how well intentioned our actions may be, running off on our own is a sure recipe for a dangerous standoff and loss of confidence. Waiting until our stakeholders give us a mandate to proceed is a vital process in securing real authority, rather than simple positional authority. Positional authority (rank, status, position) has little currency in real leadership contexts and expert authority (knowledge, opinion) has not much more.

Real leaders arise out of a need to implement what they were appointed for and to influence all other power bases (staff, the organization, the public, experts, detractors and other leaders), to buy into the vision. Real leadership is about influence and the ability to command a following. Someone once said, “He who thinketh he leadeth but findeth that no one follweth, merely taketha walk.”

So when Saul was asked to wait, for only a short period, he would have learnt something from Samuel about his role and the expectations that came with his mandate. Ultimately he would have gained something of God’s heart rather than his own head.

The second principle of leadership is to recognize that we are custodians of what is entrusted to us. Israel was God’s heritage, not Saul’s fiefdom. It was God’s kingdom, not Saul’s empire. The heart of God for His own people was all that had to be implemented, not Saul’s own original thinking or presumption. The context is always bigger than us. We are dispensable and God’s heritage will outlast even the most charismatic of leaders.

Saul also needed to realize that his own stature (he was head and shoulders above all his peers), his breeding or his identified skills were of limited consequence. Indeed he was ultimately replaced by a youngster who had no experience in matters of state, but possessed the one thing Saul never had: a heart for God. The authority of Saul lay entirely in his mandate, his anointing. I can be quite outspoken, but hate to defend myself: yet when a principle or the interests of those I represent is at risk, I will put up a defiant struggle, because the mandate of my constituencies carries weight, or authority.

Saul was anointed to be king of Israel, a privilege extended to him by God and His people: with it came a reciprocal responsibility to fight for their cause, defend them and establish a form of government that would facilitate kingdom life and not to feather his nest or champion his ego.

The third principle of leadership is to recognize that the locus of your power lies not in your qualifications, your personal power, your stature (even though men tend to follow men of power) or your background. It rests entirely on your anointing and the role you have been called to assume on behalf of those that anointed you. God said to Moses, “be careful to implement all that I showed you on the mount.” That is exactly what I mean: implement God’s mandate not your own personal ambition or vision. If you can get that right, you will rise to greatness and be entrusted with much.

Saul felt that anointing equaled status and substance, instead of servant-hood. He implemented what he though was a good idea and missed the point, frustrating himself, his people and the throne above his head.

See 1 Samuel 10:8 and 1 Samuel 13:8

© Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com