the drum|rob fairbanks

Should we use the word "Leader?"

While perusing FB today, I came across the below quote from Lance Ford. http://www.facebook.com/lncford

“Both “servant-leader” and “servanthood” are watered-down terms that fall short of the necessary gumption to overcome the leader-centric mentality that saturates the church world. They are but twists on a vague notion of semi-humility. In many evangelical leadership cultures the idea of a servant-leader is in reality tantamount to a benevolent dictatorship.”

I wholeheartedly agree with Lance on the statement (As a matter of fact, I come out of a denomination that actually uses the term “benevolent dictator” as a common descriptor of good pastoral leadership – I am not joking – wait, I just threw up in my mouth as I recalled that fact), but some of the dialogue that followed in the FB thread seemed to be more of a reaction to what I would call an unrestrained American version of what leadership means, which seeks to somehow extricate the term from our vernacular like that will make the throbbing desire for attention or power go away.

I haven't read Lance’s book (so he may deal with this in it), but the question I might have from the FB thread is how does it fit with Paul, while talking about spiritual gifting saying, "the one who leads, do with zeal..." The word means to have charge over or rule. I'm certainly not contesting the servant/slave model or the need to live as a follower under the Kingship of Christ, but to dismiss the term leader seems like it may be an overstatement that misses the point.  Look, leadership happens regardless if we say the word or not.  It can be very good or very bad. Why is there a line to listen to authors (like Lance) or pastors or conference speakers?  An aside: it probably wouldn’t hurt the American church to have moratorium on conferences and guest speakers for a year – any kind of big shot stuff. Revival might actually break out.

BTW – this is not to in anyway dismiss Lance or his book.  I have heard nothing but good things about him from friends I have that know him well. I hope to take a look at the book in the future (as usual, there are many in my queue right now – here is the Amazon link), but I am speaking to a general reactivity to the term that I have been picking up.

What do you think? How should we view the term "leader?"

Is there a legit leadership function that God empowers and uses to help His work in the word?

Are You Apostolic?

There has been much talk recently (at least in the Missional conversation) about the apostolic.  It's function is a critical and needed piece to reforming the church into what it is supposed to be in the world, a beautiful and radiant bride. A community of followers who actually look and act like Jesus. Unfortunately, like much of what happens in the church (particularly with the American, commercialized, hyper-entrepreneurial version) it looks like it may soon be overdone.  Similar to how the term “missional” has grown to mean almost  everything and almost nothing, it appears that the term "apostolic" may quickly move from the arena of being overly stigmatized to over-used (which usually translates to misused). 

Why do I say this? One of the main reasons is seeing how many people now self-identify as “apostolic.”  It’s a veritable contagion.  It seems like any one who actually cares about the world and the gospel fancies him or herself as apostolic.  I am not persuaded.  Case in point: While consulting with a large-ish church recently I had their entire leadership team (staff and elders) take the APEST test (found here).  The APEST is a test constructed by Alan Hirsch, et al that attempts to identify a persons location within the 5-fold leadership functions of Ephsians 4 - Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Shepherd and Teacher. One of the key leaders from this church whose sole role is to teach tested out as apostolic.  When the rest of his team were asked what they saw as his primary calling, to a person, they all cast him as shepherd/teacher.  If this were an isolated example, I would have just chalked it up to a “fluke,” but it hasn’t been.  There are more apostolic folks running around then ever.  You can hardly go to the Grocery store these days without running into an apostle (note sacrasm). Can this really the be?  Has it become the sexy…wanted gifting?  I’m just gonna say it; the church is often simply crazy in it’s panting for the new (or old in this case).

A little advice: If you think you may be called to the apostolic keep in mind at least these two things.

1)   Apostles were and ought to be required to have the recognition of their peers.

Others should be able to attest to the fact that a person is operating in the apostolic.  Like the person cited above, if everyone you are ministering to say that you aren’t, you aren’t (the converse is only potentially true). It is more than a personality assessment. Testing of this function should be done by those who are affected, not by the person thinking he might of might not be. It is really an assessment of impact, not of personal perspective or passion.

2)   Apostles must have specific fruit.

It must be demonstrable. The “proof is in the pudding” (not sure where that saying comes from).  In other words, there should be observable fruit such as established churches (starting one might not be enough), spiritual children in mission and penetrating the gospel into targeted areas.

There are more of these caveats, but these two alone will allow us to begin to parse out the throngs a bit and help us test all things.  We are supposed to be the… “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” Again, the "function" of the apostolic is pivotal to the church being who it is supposed to be. We desparately need the church to carry with it an apostolic impluse, but not necessarily a church full of apostles.

BTW - You can even get a cool apostolic button HERE. Check it out.