Biblical Foundations of Christian Leadership

Revelation. These books and those in between reveal the deeds and misdeeds of leaders

throughout. We see the massive deterioration of leadership behavior in the rebellion of Lucifer

against God, but we also observe the incredible demonstration of leadership in the descent of

the Messiah into the greatness of transformational service.

to serve as God’s stewards from a platform that is free of positional tension or self-ascendant

attitude. As He emptied Himself of all desire for honor and glory (Phil. 2:7), so His followers are

called to a leadership model marked by humility and powered by love. The competencies

necessary for the ministries to which each one is called are provided by the Holy Spirit. The

competencies are practiced in an interdependent manner with all other believers within the

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.” (Matt. 20:25–28, NIV)

What mother doesn’t want the best for her children? What wouldn’t a

mother do to assure the success and reputation of those she labored in love to bear?

Salome1 (Matt. 20:20–21; Mark 10:35–37) respectfully approaches Jesus during His last journey

to Jerusalem with a request on behalf of her sons, James and John. Kneeling before Him, she

humbly makes a less than humble request, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at

your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

organizational contexts. They demonstrated courage and enterprise in crafting their approach

to request advancement; their timing was well-considered in that Jesus was being quite clear

that something was about to happen that would challenge the current structure of their

discipleship community; they were leveraging existing relationships to accomplish a desired

be effective in the positions to which they aspired. Not a bad recommendation, based upon the

common profile expected of an emerging leader of promise. The biblical narrative does not,

however, support that assumption.

He will drink (v. 23), but He informs them that He does not have the authority to determine

authority and that of the Father.

Salome is to be identified with the woman who is also called ‘the mother of the sons of

Zebedee,’ i.e., the mother of James and John, two of Jesus’s most prominent disciples. This

would also make her the wife of Zebedee, who appears to have been a moderately wealthy

man, since he employed ‘hired men’ and owned a boat (Mark 1:20)” (Powell, 2011, p. 1124).

spiritual leader. He further flattens the structure of the discipleship community with the

subsequent incredible announcement that He would henceforth relinquish the title of “Master”

and assume the preferred relational designation of “friend” (John 15:15). He creates a flat

leadership community.

group. Leadership roles, if not assigned, will emerge through this sorting process. The persistent

question of “who is the greatest” was never answered by the imposition of a hierarchical

structure in the discipleship community. It remained flat and unranked with Jesus at the center.

The introduction of positional ranking immediately introduced issues of jealousy and strife,

because it violated what had for three and a half years functioned as a community of equals led

by One who chose to become like those He led.

together for a teaching moment:

peoples, then Jesus’ listeners have a problem—they are people! Translating ethnon (εθνων) as

“Gentiles” lets the Jewish people off the hook, and consequently the disciples themselves since

they are Jewish. “Not so with you” (v. 26) requires a search for an alternative that does not

exist in the behavior of people—even the Jews. If the Greek source word (εθνων) is translated

human race. He did so by making selfless generative service His mantra. He came down to serve

(Mark 10:45; John 1:14). In this story of Salome, her two sons and a group of offended disciples

are asked to consider the mantle of service even to the point of suffering to and for others as

the purpose of being leaders in the kingdom of God. Accepting this mantle requires embracing

a model of leadership that is radically different from what is commonly held to be leadership.

Some reject it as being totally upside down from what is deemed appropriate and necessary to

qualify as leadership.

footings of spiritual steel and hardened concrete—a foundation for building a Christian model

of leadership.

management, and leadership is pervasive. Social norms of male headship, privilege of the

firstborn, stewardship, shared and distributed leadership models, and leadership ethics are

embedded in the leadership ethos and behavior of many cultures around the globe. Though

most of these elements have been radically interpreted at times, in certain cultures the root

concepts are embedded in the biblical narrative.

leadership promises permanent relationship with Him (Heb. 8:10), transformed hearts (Jer.

31:33; Heb. 8:10), forgiveness (Jer. 31:34),ultimate prosperity (Gen. 12:3; 32:12; Ps. 72:7),

ultimate security (Ps. 4:8), and descendants—either physical or faith community (Gen. 22:17;

Heb. 11:12). Gideon acknowledged this leader/follower relationship for what it was—God is

ruler (Judg. 8:23) and His people follow in obedience. But God requires of the people more than

leaders and a mass of compliant followers. “Leading” the people of this planet to the person of

like prior to mankind’s fall into sin (Gen. 3). We can, however, catch glimpses that give us

significant insights into how God accomplished tasks prior to that time. The first verse of

Genesis introduces us to the Creator by using the name Elohim, which is a plural form of the

name for God. This is often missed in the English reading of this verse since the plural element

is not translated. The intent of the term is that the earth was created by what we commonly

refer to as the Trinity—the divine community. Christian teachings did not emerge in a vacuum

but in a rich and varied

historical context. History prior to the record of the rebellion of Lucifer (Isa. 14:12–15; Rev.

12:7–9) is sketchy, but enough exists to provide critical background to Jesus’ teaching related to

leading and leadership behavior.

Genesis 1:

1:1), encapsulates the essence of leadership: it is derived from the word rosh, which literally

means “head” and is the technical term normally used to designate one who is leading in a

given situation. The event of creation is thus from the start described as an act of leadership.

Creation is leadership par excellence. (p. 31)

presence of dominance-oriented behavior or the aspirations of ambition that would spawn it.

“In the beginning God created . . .” (Gen. 1:1) gives no hint of the distinct positions or roles held

by the members of the Godhead—no ranking or hierarchy that would betray a prior process of

establishing dominance or role. There was a consistent sense of oneness wherein no one

member of the Trinity was elevated or abased relative to another. The expression “Let us make

medieval commentator Rashi explains this text as a lesson of humility on the part of God: “The

superior must take counsel and ask authorization from his inferior.” The text of the Midrash

Rabbah which is the source of Rashi’s remark is even more explicit and reports the story that

when Moses received this phrase by revelation he was disturbed and asked God to explain. And

Me that the greatest] should ask the agreement from the smallest before imposing on him a

leader.

host) is understood in a broad and larger sense, though with some nuances. In the former

interpretation, the sharing operation involves other beings than God Himself. In the latter

interpretation, it takes place within the Godhead and is here understood as an inherent quality

of God Himself. (pp. 38–39).

adopted and carried out by the collective Godhead without addressing the issue of dominant

voice or position. No one person is given credit for the suggestion nor does the context seem to

expect that the recommendation needed to be credited to an individual member of the

Godhead.

Heb. 1:2, 10), the creation account mentions the activity of God in a plural sense. The plural

specifically as an active agent in the creation process (Gen. 1:2). It seems that the credit given

to Jesus as Creator is assumed to extend to all three members of the Trinity. Jesus described

the nature of the relationship of the Trinity (John 14) to His disciples as a radical oneness (John

14:7–18) to the degree that it allowed Him to use the first person singular pronoun “I” when

clearly referencing the presence and activity of the Spirit (John 14:18). He reminds Thomas and

oneness which defies physical reality—“I am in the Father, you are in me and I am in you” (John

14:20).

the rise and fall of the King of Babylon (Isa. 14:3–11) also includes a metaphorical comparison

with the rise and fall of Lucifer (Isa. 14:12–21). The origin of leadership as self-ascendancy that

aims at attaining dominance for self is revealed in this depiction of his coveting the throne of

God, or at least a place of parity at the throne with God.

behavior and practice more than any other event in history. It is the story of an angel, Lucifer,

created with great gifts of service and leadership, who inexplicably began to feel envious

toward the God who created him. Though his position was that of “the guardian cherub” (Ezek.

28:14) and he was ordained by God to live and function in a position next to God Himself, he

began to doubt the love and wisdom of God to a degree that he coveted the very throne of

God. War followed. This war dramatically and tragically impacted life on our planet. Humans,

who had been entrusted with leading planet earth, were influenced to side with Lucifer in this

conflict, which altered their very nature and thereby indelibly impacted behavior—particularly

leadership behavior.

elements of his philosophy—“I” is the prominent pronoun and ascendancy is the overriding

direction of his movements. Within this vision of his future, Lucifer reveals negative dimensions

that trouble many within the context of leadership. His intense self-centeredness contrasts with

the generative attitude of the Creator, characterized as a giver who blesses and enhances the

lives of others. We also see the seeds of competition for primacy that germinate in his heart

human history. Power and force replaced the cooperative conversations that led to task

accomplishment in the previous era, where the influence of Lucifer’s rebellion was unknown.

Great Man Theory2 as a model for leadership went unchallenged for most of earth’s history

until challenged by Jesus. He condemned the wickedness of Capernaum (Luke 10:15) by

slaves (Matt. 20:26–27) and recalibrating our sense of what it means to be a leader by inverting

first with last (Matt. 19:30; 20:16; Mark 9:35).

bracket the history of leadership on this earth after the rebellion of Lucifer and the moral fall of

mankind.

Jesus’ disciples as to who among them was the greatest (Luke 22:24), and countless other cases

that stain the history of the human race.

years of Samuel’s role as judge and prophet. The absence of a physical ruler was a problem for

the Israelites before and during the period of the Judges. Idol worship emerged as a persistent

problem as they endeavored to fill the physical vacancy that accompanied their covenantal

king was likewise associated with a preference for the physical over the spiritual. Centuries

later, this dissatisfaction raised its head again as the early church struggled with the absence of

Jesus and the need to depend upon a spiritual leader in the person of the Holy Spirit. This

tension of absence eventually led to the consolidation of authority in human clergy, which

reached its zenith in the supreme ascendency of the Bishop of Rome and the papacy.

represent believers to God. Viewing themselves as separated for special ministry via the rite of

It is critically important to the formation of an understanding of God’s leadership ideal that we

recognize that kingly administration was not originally included in that model. God predicted

that it would become a part of their future (Deut. 17:14f) because He knows the tendency of

the human heart. The covenant relationship of God with His people established Him as ruler

and the people as followers and stewards of His authority on earth, but the kingly model was an

accommodation to the desires of His people to have a tangibly visible human leader presence.

all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:20). The subsequent act of choosing a king for Israel was accompanied

by a warning from God through Samuel: He predicted that the king would rule (1 Kings 8:9, LXX;

Rahlfs, 1971) with complete control (βασιλεύσει) (Louw & Nida, 1989) and that his subjects