It has dawned on me lately that according to some "church leadership" experts, the #1 most important thing for a leader, is to have a great physical appearance. This is contrary to the message of the Bible. It is heresy. It is a toxic lie.
This is described as being "fit" or "healthy" but it becomes clear how much time and money is spent on gyms, personal trainers, food, clothes, watches, jewelry, makeup, and cars.
It should not need to be said for anyone who has read the Bible, but people with an obsession with outward appearance (1 Sam 16:7, 1 Tim 2:9), physical training (4:8), clothes (Matt 6:25), money (19:24), or asceticism with regard to food (Rom 14:20), are fools who destroy others.
The person fixated on their appearance cannot live in proximity to the poor. And they have no time for hospitality, for reading, or for serving others. Eating and drinking with others challenges their diet discipline and is awkward so they eventually stop eating with others.
Read the Bible and see if the emphasis is on being physically fit and disciplined or whether the Messiah "had no beauty to attract us to him" (Isa 53:2), Jesus was called a glutton (Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34), and Paul said to accept food when it is offered to you (1 Cor 10:25-27).
Here is a similar thread by me from January:
On why dieting and exercise and trying to look good and be fit and thin may not have as much to do with excellence as having a paunch, serving others, taking walks, and eating meals with people.
It is interesting that at the end of his book, Leaders: Myth and Reality (2018), after profiling 13 leaders, Stanley McChrystal becomes at least somewhat disillusioned with the concept of leadership and he concludes it is somewhat random that some people are followed.
McChrystal thinks that leaders are followed and there is not much else we can say. Followers *think* the leader is meaningful so he/she is.
McChrystal says he tried to answer: How do leaders lead? But he found there was no answer. He couldn’t find common traits among them. The leaders got lucky. And then “great leaders” often lost their leadership touch—became unlucky. It was bewildering.
I agree that “leadership” is an incoherent concept in terms of popular understanding. But his confusion is because he is trying to figure out how to live just based on observation. I think agency and choices matter but that is a presupposition—for me based on Jesus saying so.
I don’t really believe in the importance of leaders or leadership but I do think people’s decisions and actions matter. I’m not a fatalist or determinist because of a belief in human progress but because I have accepted the premise that God cares about human choices.
With the assumption of a God, we are not left at sea trying to figure out what seems to work. Instead, we are trying to discern how God would want us to act (because God wishes our good and the thriving of others and has given us direction).
With a grounded moral worldview, we have direction with regard to what traits to cultivate, how to work with others, and what goals to pursue. Without this, there is no way of evaluating how to live or how to lead.
A leader with a comprehensive (religious) worldview knows the moral ideals that they are trying to adhere to, and then trusts the results to God’s timing and God’s judgement of all involved.
Without that, a leader just says: “That didn’t seem to work. Did I mess up?”
McChrystal ends with an attempt at affirming leaders and leadership but what they actually affirm is the need for the moral coherence and hope that leaders offer.
A Christian leader gets that and intentionally points to God’s beautiful vision for the world.
McChrystal is correct to sense that people who want to be effective in working with others need to do more than giving orders and speeches. Rather they need to listen to those “beneath them” (especially those used to the military or other hierarchical institutions).
In conclusion, I was very surprised after listening to their 13 biographical portraits of leaders to find McChrystal and his co-authors try to make sense of what they had assembled and for them to admit their surprise that it is impossible to describe what effective leaders do.
It is indeed futile to make judgements about human behavior without a moral standpoint from which to judge. (See Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry by Alasdair MacIntyre).
It is fascinating to see General McChrystal admitting he did not know how to make sense of his own choices and failures. In all sincerity, I think he might find clarity about these questions and peace in listening to what Jesus had to say.
As I teach leadership to Christians, I teach largely without angst. I teach students to live according to God’s priorities and to leave the results to God. And I show them how history, leadership literature, history, and organizational psychology unintentionally affirm this way.
Our world struggles with violence, apathy, and lies. Human beings should be agents of good. That’s moral agency. And they should work well with others in this good cause. That is *good* leadership.
Without a good (moral) direction, human agency and leadership seems unnecessary, meddling, interfering, and patronizing. But if it is for good and done in a good way, well then, nothing is needed more in a violent, apathetic, lying world.
Thread of pep talk to pastors: (a) struggling with the difficult of decision-making amidst the uncertainty of the pandemic, (b) seeing high profile Christians act nothing like Jesus, (c) with members snippy and outraged about our world, (d) missing wholesome social interaction:
