Dr. John Willis was one of my major professors at ACU. I can’t say enough about his scholarship and his servant heart. He has begun writing regularly on his blog recently. I don’t know if he’ll keep it up, but I’m enjoying it for now.
He had a great post this weekend on leadership in the Bible. The whole post is worth reading, but I especially found the following quote interesting.
It is very revealing that the New Testament NEVER uses the word LEADER in a positive sense. The Greek word LEADER {odegos} in the New Testament occurs only 5 times, and they are ALWAYS opponents of God and his people. Matthew 15:14; 23:16, 24; Acts 1:16; Romans 2:19.
You hear a lot today about the need for leadership in the church. Maybe we need more followers, rather than more leaders.
Dr. Willis closes with these words:
The CRAZE of LEADERSHIP is a human invention, destined for corruption and failure. History has demonstrated this throughout the centuries, and it is still true today. God through Christ is the ONLY HEAD, the ONLY LEADER. Let us strive to be FOLLOWERS.
Wise words.
“The CRAZE of LEADERSHIP is a human invention”
Tim, we all have heroes that we see through special eyes, but I could not disagree with Dr. John more, I see he did not open comments on his blog, which is his right. But that could shield his leadership from criticism, yes I said leadership. Although the word leader may not be represented but five times, it is represented by the word follow, in some tense 126 times in the NT alone. common sense tells us there can be no followers, without a leader.
1Cor:4:16: Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
Dr.John said “Let us strive to be FOLLOWERS.” is that not saying the same as Paul ? is he not seeking followers? Which in turn would make him “leader” ?
No leadership is not a human invention . we all want to be leader, but we did not invent it. I believe the bible tells us lead by example.
I think I understand what the point of the good professor’s article is, but I don’t fully agree either. Yes, there are some people who are natural leaders and could stand to learn from following instead (I’m speaking for myself there). And from being SERVANTS instead of BOSSY LEADERS. (Definitely speaking for myself there!!) But I also think there are some that tend to follow along with life and only get involved with their church family on a surface level, on Sunday mornings. Would they, and their church family, benefit from leading more? I think so.
Maybe it’s just a matter of semantics with me. I like the word “servant” instead of “follower.” We’re all to be followers of Christ, for sure. But to each other, we should serve instead of bossing.
Laymond,
It’s very true that I may give special deference to Dr. Willis’ ideas. As for comments, I doubt that he wants the hassle of trying to keep up. If you look over his blog, he has not been a frequent poster.
I think the idea is that we don’t need people seeking to be leaders per se; they should be seeking to be servants.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Lisa,
As Laymond conveniently calculated for us, following is discussed over a hundred times in the Bible, so I don’t think you should be uncomfortable with that word.
The focus on service is a good one. But if we get down to it, good followers will be servants, or they’re not good followers. And those that follow Christ will fulfill what needs to be done in the traditional “leadership” roles, but they will do so out of a desire to follow and serve, not a drive to lead.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
Leadership is attractive to many because it allows them (us!) to draw emotional sustenance from those they lead. The praise, following, adoration, etc. feeds ego needs and fuels a combative spirit to keep the position, fending off challengers to the seat of power. You can look at the rubble of many of our churches today and see where a failure to grasp servicemindedness has led us. wb
I think the Willow Creek Leadership Summit is a good example of what church “leadership” has come to now. They even have Tony Blair Carly Fiorina, and David Gergen this year, as if they have something to teach ministers about how to follow Christ. I believe it’s all about following, not “leading.” This is a crucial distinction no matter what anyone thinks about it. If it’s about leading, then they are perfectly justified in inviting Blair and whoever.