Pastoral ministry is one of the highest privileges for any Christian. “Nothing could be more honorable or have greater eternal significance than serving our Christ in His church.”[1] Consequently, the responsibility of this eternal task requires that Christian ministers have a theological comprehension and a clear Christological understanding of what pastoral ministry is or can or should be. Despite this requirement, there appears to be a growing number of respected evangelicals who observe a deviation in pastoral ministry and a drift toward less biblical practices. Some think that there are “all-too-worldly demands on lay and ordained ministry,”[2] and yet, there is a contrasting recognition that “Christian leadership is fundamentally theological in its source, substance, and ends”.[3] Thus, evaluating the definition of pastoral leadership is a legitimate preeminent consideration worthy of contemporary reflection. The contemporary model of pastoral leadership also faces scrutiny and, therefore, returning to a Christocentric definition of pastoral leadership may prove helpful. What is needed is “a theology that defines leadership rather than a leadership that defines theology”.[4] Using Christlike leadership as a standard by which we measure all other Christian leadership ensures that the “imitation of Christ is primary”[5] and that pastoral leadership is examined from a “primarily theological, and kingdom-oriented rubric”.[6] This paper seeks to do that by engaging with the key question how is Christ-like leadership different to the contemporary model of pastoral leadership? First, a scriptural and theological definition of Christlike leadership is sought through an evaluation of the theology of the incarnation. Incarnational research suggests, that Christlike leadership can be defined as servantship and that this idea is firmly rooted in a theology of the incarnation. Second, and in contrast, a definition of contemporary pastoral leadership is discussed. After examining historical and contemporary literature, this paper suggests that contemporary pastoral ministry embraces the concept of hierarchical leadership. Finally, the key question is addressed and one significant difference between Christ-like leadership and the contemporary model of pastoral leadership is provided, namely servantship versus leadership.
Defining Christlike leadership
A definition of Christlike leadership derives from a theological and biblical understanding of Christ. Huizing agrees, advising that “Christians cannot simply rely upon general leadership theory to guide them to an expression of leadership that is Christ-like”.[7] The starting point for all Christlike leadership research, therefore, must be a Christocentric theology,[8] which in turn helps lead to a biblical definition of Christlike leadership. This section examines the Christocentric theology of incarnation and draws from this a biblical definition of Christlike leadership, namely servantship.
A Theology of the Incarnation
Oden, defines the term incarnation as “enfleshing, or becoming flesh, the union of human nature with the divine in one person”.[9] Although the English word ‘incarnation’ (God appearing among us)[10] does not appear in either the Old or New Testaments, the concept does.[11] The first place where the concept of the incarnation appears is in the Johannine prologue in particular, John 1:14.[12] Here, the author states that the eternal Word “became flesh and dwelt among us”.[13] John 1:14 means, according to O’Collins, that Christ underwent a genuine incarnation so that through the flesh, he could be truly seen and touched.[14] The historical person Jesus “refused to clutch his divine prerogatives”[15] but instead became God’s humble, obedient servant. In addition, the relationship between incarnation and servant positioning is further extended in the New Testament through what is commonly known as the Pauline or Philippian Hymn.[16] In Philippians 2:5-11 the author states that, although Jesus was in the very “form of God”,[17] he choose to humble himself by “taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men”.[18] In this Philippian incarnational passage, Christ voluntarily empties himself and becomes a person void of social advantage or status, with few privileges or rights of His own, all for the predetermined purpose of “serving” others.[19] Christ’s incarnation (being born in the likeness of men) appears to embody an unconventional servant focused approach to the saving of humanity. Hellerman thinks that this servant positioning would have been significantly counter-cultural in Philippi, “the most status-conscious city in the Roman East”.[20] The Roman view of leadership status was all-important at the time. Christs self-denying servant centred leadership would have challenged the dominant view of Philippian citizens, who according to Peterson, “valued their imperial connections, their privileges, and their advantages as subjects of the emperor”.[21] Bekker observes that this self-emptying (kenosis) and “incarnational motif”[22] identifies Christ with the lowest members of society, and therefore, he crucially and accurately defines Christs incarnational act as ‘servant posturing’.[23]
Servantship: A Theology of the Incarnation
From the aforementioned incarnational New Testament passages and subsequent theological literature, it appears that Christlike leadership has a servant posture and, on the surface, appears to loosely reflect a biblical form of Greenleaf’s[24] servant leadership.[25] Forrest et al. agree, suggesting that “servant leadership is supremely demonstrated in the incarnation of Christ”.[26] Russell et al. further this by suggesting, “Jesus saw Himself as a servant leader, one whose very incarnation had the purpose of serving humankind”.[27] Chung also thinks that Jesus embodies the true and perfect example of servant leadership.[28] Similarly Whiteman, who sees the incarnation as a model for missiological ministry, advocates for a Christological servant leadership based upon the theology of the incarnation.[29] Nevertheless, although Christ’s incarnation points towards leadership that adopts a servant posture, the assertion that Christ was a servant leader is not without shortcomings. Hill argues that Greenleaf’s concept and the term ‘servant leadership’ struggles to find a biblical or theological rationale.[30] He argues that the word ‘leadership’, in the term ‘servant leadership’, portrays a secular hierarchical power, authority and control, instead of a Christlike self-emptying and sacrificial service that forfeits all social status.[31] As an alternative, he proposes a “deeply biblical”[32] Christocentric term that defines Christlike leadership as, servantship. Hill defines servantship as “following our Lord Jesus Christ … in His pattern of self-emptying, humility, sacrifice and servantship that values others more than yourself”.[33] To support his promotion of the term servantship, Hill references Matthew 20:26 “whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant”[34] and asserts that the Son of Man did not come to lead, but to be led.[35] In his view, Christ redefines the concept of greatness and status within the kingdom of God and in turn initiates a “revolution of ruling and leadership … characterized by service and humility”.[36] This revolution, he candidly asserts, occurs far from the throne-room and boardroom of contemporary Christian leadership, yet through its ministry of sacrificial suffering and servantship, is capable of triggering a “revolution of cosmic scale … against which the gates of Hades will not prevail”.[37] It appears that, Hills view lines up with scripture and that incarnational New Testament passages (Johannian, Pauline and Matthean passages previously cited) and theological literature, categorises Christlike leadership as servantship. To better engage with the key question and to further understand how Christ-like leadership differs from the contemporary model of pastoral leadership, it may now prove helpful to arrive at a comparative definition of contemporary pastoral leadership.
Defining contemporary pastoral leadership
Historical definitions
The definition of pastoral leadership began to change significantly during the twentieth century. Fisher attributes this shift to Hiltner’s 1958 Preface to Pastoral Theology[38] in which “Hiltner proposed a psychological/sociological base as a unifying theory for ministry”.[39] Pastoral ministry became increasingly therapeutic and spiritual direction was replaced by clinical counselling. Hiltner’s view influenced the therapeutic definition of pastoral ministry during the 60s and 70s. Crucially, “because the base was social science, not theology, the pastoral art was reduced to developable human skill”.[40] Pastoral ministry became increasingly described in human terms and pastoral theology was replaced by practical theology[41] – “how-to pastoral training”.[42] This sociological skill-based paradigm triggered a major theological diversion and “opened up the door for a focus that brought the concept of secular leadership theory to the forefront of contemporary pastoral identity”.[43] As a result, throughout the past two decades, pastors seeking ministry effectiveness have increasingly engaged with leadership literature that stemmed from business, corporate organisation and secular leadership worldviews. Christian ministers began to “immerse themselves in the learning of leadership skills and strategies in order to become more effective leaders in directing the affairs of the church”.[44] This approach meant that “business practice replaced biblical precept”[45] and, over time, contemporary definitions of pastoral leadership progressively leaned towards business and managerial leadership functions. Addressing this contemporary change, Willimon notes that the twenty-first century Christian minister can often be defined as a church manager, ecclesiological entrepreneur or CEO.[46] Similarly, the professionalising of pastoral ministry is also observed by Peterson, who candidly suggests, that Christian ministers “have metamorphosed into a company of shopkeepers”.[47] An idea that is echoed byMacArthur, who also believes, that many pastoral leaders see themselves through the lens of hierarchal seniority and business management.[48] Patton takes this idea further, suggesting that contemporary pastoral ministers facilitate management functions such as organisational performance, motivation, directing and organisational leadership.[49]
Leadership: A contemporary definition
The above-mentioned historical definitions of pastoral leadership highlight the gradual shift in definition. Contemporarily, the definition and purpose of pastoral ministry appear to be primarily one of leadership.[50] The contemporary view of Christian leadership sets the pastor-as-CEO and places him in a hierarchical position of authority (not pastoral servantship). Kuhl suggests that this shift in definition led to the “the term ‘pastor’ being relegated to the function of an adjective to describe leadership”,[51] rather than the term that describes its essence. It appears that the emphasis on secular leadership theory within pastoral ministry has captivated evangelicals in the last twenty years and has led to a meteoric rise in CEO-style hierarchical pastoral leadership.[52] This contemporary view, of the pastor as a hierarchal leader, is also observed by Forward. In his study of the conceptualisations of the pastoral role, respondents “were asked to provide a metaphor that represents their view of the pastor”. The metaphors that individuals prescribed to pastoral roles became indicators of deeply held organisational meanings, values and proscribed actions.[53] Following qualitative and quantitative analysis, Forward states that “an archetypal metaphor analysis revealed that most respondents described a hierarchical, one-way communication relationship that placed the minister in a dominant leader position (akin to a CEO who issues orders and directs staff)”.[54] In his summary, Forward observed that “many of the dominance metaphors used to describe pastoral roles reveal a cultural paradigm which emphasizes power, individualism, hierarchal leadership and the exercise of control (on which all hierarchical notions of ministry depend)”.[55] The evidence seems to suggest that the contemporary model of pastoral leadership can be defined as hierarchical leadership. This hierarchical definition of contemporary CEO-style pastoral leadership differs from the servantship mentioned above ascribed to Christlike leadership. To help us engage with the key question, further insight may now be gained by highlighting and comparing the significant difference between contemporary and Christlike leadership.
A proposed difference: Servantship versus Leadership
Christlike leadership appears to be scripturally and theologically defined as servantship. A humble voluntary self-emptying that; denies self, forfeits social status, abandons privileges and values others more than self. Through this, the concept of greatness, ruling and leadership is redefined and instead, the ministry is characterised in terms of humility and service. In contrast, the literature mentioned earlier suggests that the contemporary model of pastoral ministry centres around a concept of hierarchical leadership. In this role, the pastor functions as a CEO and leads with power, individualism and seniority that attracts privilege and status. The difference between Christlike and contemporary leadership appears to one of servantship versus leadership. Kuhl picks up this comparative tension, asking whether “the contemporary emphasis on leadership is the primary focus of being a servant?”.[56] Similarly, would Jesus define himself in terms of servantship or leadership? Alternatively, did Jesus come to reverse, redefine and turn leadership upside down by modelling it as servantship? This paper advocates the later.
Tangen has observed the revolutionary, inverted nature of Christological leadership. He suggests, Christs reversed leadership and servant positioning would have been a stark contrast to the opposing Roman societal “preoccupation with honor”,[57] dignity, power and status. The pecking order of power, dignity and formal public positioning played an important role in Roman culture and was commonly known as cursus honorum. Christ took the Roman cursus honorumor ‘course of honor’ (the formalised sequence of public offices that Romans followed to advance their career) and turned it upside down. Instead of climbing the Roman status ladder, Christ descended it, embracing the cursus pudorum or ‘course of shame’.[58] Christs servantship became counterpole to the Roman system of hierarchical greatness and in turn redefined leadership. This reversal, of the Roman-style leadership into Kingdom-style servantship, is noted by Rinehart who asserts that Jesus’ leadership was paradoxical.[59] He was the “greatest leader in the history of the world”,[60] with designated authority both in heaven and on earth[61] and yet He was the exemplar of servantship. “He willingly surrendered His position of power to humbly and sacrificially serve mankind”,[62] and therefore, His leadership “ran afoul of contemporary expectation” in that it came through “sacrifice not subjugation and through cross rather than crown”.[63] Christlike leadership focuses on sacrificial servantship and not hierarchical leadership and this comparative understanding appears to have biblical rationale and semantic authority.
Damazio notes that “the Hebrew word for ‘leader’ is ‘nagiyd’ and it has “servanthood as a base element”.[64] The servant-centred semantic definition of Old Testament leadership stands in contrast to the hierarchical contemporary definition of pastoral leadership. Similarly, in the New Testament following a semantic analysis of the biblical Greek words associated with the idea of ‘leader’ or ‘leadership’, Forrest concludes that “from the perspective of the New Testament … the concept of a leader as someone who wields power or authority over others is defective, deficient, and distorted.” Forrest further analyses this idea by examining the ‘subject of leadership’ within the gospels. He observes that, although the New Testament rarely treats leadership as a subject itself (because “leadership is not the subject of the New Testament, Jesus is”),[65] there does appear to be one place within the gospels where leadership is treated as a subject(Mark 10:35-45). Interestingly, even here Jesus “denounces the idea of leadership as the exercise of control and power over others”[66] and instead reveals his servantship perspective by stating “whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant … for even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve”.[67] Forrest suggests that this passage summarises the Christocentric view of leadership and highlights its emphasis on viewing leadership from a servantshipparadigm. Thus, Christs mentioning and modelling of this leadership redefinition is designed to act as a mimetic Christological exemplar. Therefore, from the view of pastoral theology, “in the community of God’s pastors are not the head, the pastoral director, the boss or the chief executive officer”, but rather, they are “servants who understand ministry, not in terms of status but service”.[68]
Conclusion
This paper attempts to engage with the key question how is Christ-like leadership different to the contemporary model of pastoral leadership? First, a scriptural and theological definition of Christlike leadership was sought by examining the theology of the incarnation. Key to this understanding was the Philippian depiction of Jesus, who although he was in the very “form of God”, choose to serve humanity by “taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men”. As scriptural evidence suggests, Christlike leadership can be defined as servantship and that this idea is firmly rooted in a theology of the incarnation. Second, and in contrast, a definition of contemporary pastoral leadership was offered. After examining historical and contemporary literature, this paper suggests that the contemporary model of pastoral ministry embraces the concept of hierarchical leadership. In this role, the pastor functions as a CEO and leads with power, individualism and hierarchical seniority. Finally, the difference between the two forms of leadership was proposed. This paper notes, one significant difference between Christ-like leadership and the contemporary model of pastoral leadership, is that of servantship versus leadership. It appears that these two concepts and terms are in many ways contradictory. Pastoral servantship and CEO style hierarchical leadership appear incompatible. Contextualising Christs servantship (cursus pudorum) against the Roman preoccupation with honour and status (cursus honorum), this paper advocates the notion that Christ reverses, redefines and turns leadership upside down by modelling it as servantship.
[1] John MacArthur, Pastoral Ministry: How to Shepherd Biblically, 1st edition. (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005), 6.
[2] Christopher Beeley, “Theology and Pastoral Leadership,” Anglican Theological Review 91.1 (2009): 1-11 (n.d.): 11.
[3] Ibid., 11.
[4] Russell Huizing, “Bringing Christ to the Table of Leadership: Moving Towards a Theology of Leadership,” Journal of Applied Christian Leadership 5, no. 2 (2011): 62.
[5] Andrew David Clarke, “‘Be Imitators of Me’: Paul’s Model of Leadership,” Tyndale Bulletin 49 (1998): 359.
[6] Roland Kuhl, What Is Pastoral Leadership? A Review of the Relevant Literature and Understandings of Pastoral Leadership at the Beginning of the 21st Century, March 13, 2016, 91.
[7] Ibid., 73.
[8] Ibid., 62.
[9] Thomas C. Oden and Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life, Systematic theology Thomas C. Oden ; 2 (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2006), 93.
[10] Gerald O’Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Oxford ; New York: Oxford Univesity Press, 2009), 8.
[11] T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Leicester, England : Downers Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press ; InterVarsity Press, 2000), 577.
[12] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England : Grand Rapids, Mich: Inter-Varsity Press ; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 126.
[13] John 1:14 (ESV)
[14] O’Collins, Christology, 178.
[15] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 310.
[16] Corné J Bekker, “Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership” (n.d.): 1.
[17] Philippians 2:6 (ESV)
[18] Philippians 2:7 (ESV)
[19] David J. MacLeod, “Imitating the Incarnation of Christ: An Exposition of Philippians 2:5-8,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158, no. 631 (2001): 321.
[20] Joseph H Hellerman, “The Humiliation of Christ in the Social World of Roman Philippi Part 2,” Bibliotheca sacra160, no. 640 (October 2003): 427.
[21] Brian K. Peterson, “Philippians 2:5–11,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology Interpretation 58, no. 2 (2004): 179–180.
[22] Bekker, “Sharing the Incarnation: Towards a Model of Mimetic Christological Leadership,” 10.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Robert K. Greenleaf and Larry C. Spears, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, 25th anniversary ed. (New York: Paulist Press, 2002).
[25] Greenleaf first set forth the idea of ‘servant leaddership’ in his 1970 essay, ‘The Servant as Leader’. In summary, Greenleaf’s ‘servant leadership’ is a leadership philosophy in which the main goal of the leader is to serve and grow those who follow.
[26] Benjamin K Forrest, Biblical Leadership: Theology for the Everyday Leader (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic, 2017), 516.
[27] Robert Russell and Henry College, “A Practical Theology of Servant Leadership,” School of Leadership Studies(August 2003): 4.
[28] Young Soo Chung, “Why Servant Leadership? Its Uniqueness and Principles in the Life of Jesus,” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 14, no. 2 (January 2011): 159–170.
[29] Darrell L. Whiteman, “Anthropology and Mission: The Incarnational Connection,” Missiology 31, no. 4 (October 1, 2003): 408.
[30] Graham Hill, Servantship: Sixteen Servants on the Four Movements of Radical Servantship (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2013), 18.
[31] Ibid., 4.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid., 2.
[34] Matthew 20:26 (NLT)
[35] Hill, Servantship, 4.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Seward Hiltner, Preface to Pastoral Theology (Nashville: Abingdon press, 1980).
[39] David Fisher, The 21st Century Pastor: A Vision Based on the Ministry of Paul (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1996), 1.
[40] Ibid., 2.
[41] James F Stitzinger, “Pastoral Ministry in History,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 6, no. 2 (1995): 175.
[42] Fisher, The 21st Century Pastor, 2.
[43] Kuhl, What Is Pastoral Leadership?, 1.
[44] Ibid., 3.
[45] Derek Prime and Alistair Begg, On Being A Pastor: Understanding Our Calling and Work (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006), 50.
[46] William H. Willimon, Pastor: The Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry, Revised Edition. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2016), 62-68.
[47] Eugene H. Peterson, Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1987), 2.
[48] John MacArthur, The Master’s Plan for the Church, Rev. ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2008), 9.
[49] James Woodward, Stephen Pattison, and John Patton, eds., The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology(Oxford, UK ; Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 285.
[50] Kuhl, What Is Pastoral Leadership?, 86.
[51] Ibid., 6.
[52] Ibid., 21.
[53] Fredric M. Jablin and Linda L. Putnam, eds., The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Nachdr. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publ, 2004).
[54] G. L. Forward, “Servant or CEO? A Metaphor Analysis of Leadership in a Nonprofit Context,” New Jersey Journal of Communication 9, no. 2 (September 1, 2001): 1.
[55] Ibid., 18.
[56] Kuhl, What Is Pastoral Leadership?, 6.
[57] Karl Inge Tangen, “Leadership as Participation in Christ: Paul’s Theology of Leadership in the Letter to the Philippians,” Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 3, no. 1 (2018): 277.
[58] Joseph H Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
[59] Stacy Rinehart, Upside down: The Paradox of Servant Leadership (Colorado Springs, Colo: NavPress, 1998), 20.
[60] Leighton Ford, Transforming Leadership: Jesus’ Way of Creating Vision, Shaping Values & Empowering Change(Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 11.
[61] Matthew 28:18 (ESV)
[62] Russell and College, “A Practical Theology of Servant Leadership,” 8.
[63] Forrest, Biblical Leadership, 319.
[64] Frank Damazio, The Making of a Leader (Portland, Or.: Bible Temple Pub., 1988), 18.
[65] Forrest, Biblical Leadership, 304.
[66] Ibid., 305.
[67] Mark 10:43, 45 (NLT)
[68] Donald E. Messer, Contemporary Images of Christian Ministry (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 106.