Theology of Credible Leadership - Lesson 7

Dr. John Johnson
Theology of Credible Leadership
Arguments Against Leaders
Lesson Transcription

We've taken just a moment to look at the need for leadership and why we need leaders and what history it tells us and what people see and observe. And so we gravitate to people like Thomas Carlisle and, and this great man theory of leadership. But the question is that reality? Is that true?   

Some would say, actually on the other side, leaders are not essential. So this might be too strong, but I'll just put here against leaders, those who would say, yeah, there's some good arguments, but let's look at the counter arguments why we don't need leaders. So the first thing they might say is something like this.   

History is determined by events, not leaders. We tend to give leaders way too much credit for the inevitable forces of change that happen. There's no direction, no arc, no goal. Nothing is inevitable in history. Leaders play no compelling role.   

If anything, history is determined less by leaders and more by structural forces. Leaders, as some would say, are simply ponds on, a large chess board. Leaders are actually, as Tolstoy once put it are, but the slaves of history leaders, actually. And here's the second reason for this position.   

Leaders actually make a mess of things. This is why authority needs to rest more on the followers. The followers must decide if the authority of any one person is legitimate. History argues for this. Many of the great men of the past and present well in reality are not so compelling. A lot of it is, is, is is superficial.   

It's just, it's image. It's not reality at all. There's a tendency to elevate leaders to mythic proportions and make them idols and give them all authority, but the reality again is they rarely live up to such ideals. How a leader thinks of oneself and what reality shows us are far, are far different. There's a gulf between how followers think of their leaders And what is actual fact and fiction as McChrystal put it, bleed into one another.   

Leaders maybe in their enclosed enclaves like to think and imagine that they're critical to maintaining the order that they know everything and they, they know what's best and they see everything and influence the times. But in reality, others would argue it's history that's shaping them, not the reverse. A leader might think he or she has one's hand on the tiller of history, but one is at best, a star on the horizon to guide the collective leadership of followers.   

When one surveys some of these great men in history, one finds that many were not so great. And there's a certain truth to that. I, I find even as I'm just finishing this book on John F. Kennedy that years ago when I was a a kid, I, I sort of, I idolized him, romanticized his leadership.   

But I've realized just in many ways how corrupt and, and how ineffectual it was. But somehow we like to hold onto these things. We do it with presidents. We, we do it with pastors. We elevate to mythic proportion, a certain idealism, a perfection, if you will.   

But, but the reality is no one can live up to them. And so the reality is they often make a mess of things. One finds that off stage, off stage mini were abject failures. They might play the part of the elite, especially those with this authoritarian predisposition with their stiff posture and their pompous manner, and the things they wear viewing themselves as having the collective wisdom and foresight to be the saviors of the state, becoming paternalistic and coercive, treating those of the lower strata, they lead as as wards of their leadership.   

The truth is, these are the leaders who end up elevating themselves and asphyxiating a nation's potential.   

That's how George will put it. Hitler, Kadafi, Hussein, Kim, Putin, Z Well, the list could go on. It turns this grandiosity turns autocrats Ashley into quote, a small man, a frightened and delusional thug leading a criminal enterprise masquerading as a government who believes it's doing the will of God, but that's not reality.   

So leaders, do we really need them? No. History is determined by events, not them. They tend to make a mess of things, but we also find that we're not so sure we need leaders because of our egalitarian trend in today's world.   

Some see a post leadership age in which systems rather than individuals enable us to organize more and more. Social scientists see an evolution of world order towards a, what they call a political equality. The autonomy of each individual where leaders play a small and insignificant role, but are less relevant to the day to day.   

We are living in an age, some would say are more and more a flattening of hierarchies. We’re into an age more of participative decisions. We're in an age that really gives little relevance to the queen or the king or the crown. Making it more in vogue to participate.   

Almost expecting pastors in their preaching, not so much to declare, thus say it the Lord, who can really do that. What we really need is someone who in a collaborative way says, let's figure this out together. Let's see how the spirit of God leads us together and come to conclusion, conclusion rather than someone who stands up to say, this is what we must do.   

This is the kind of world we are living in. It’s not a world of great individuals. It's a world of great groups. And we see this in some of the protest movements that actually more and more we see all over the world. What we see are not protest movements led by someone. They are protest movements that are occurring, from bottom up rather than top down.   

And what we see therefore in this is that the, what really is leading protest movements is social media. It is people conversing with one another. There is, I think in my own city of Portland with a lot of the anarchy, if I could put it that way, or protest movements that seem to be almost, Characterized by anarchy because no one is leading, no one is in control. But some would say it's because that's the culture we live in today.   

We have moved from this propensity to have the person at the top to just being led by the group itself. So we're left with this question. Are leaders essential or are they non-essential? Even with the trends, we're still inclined to see leadership as an attribute of an individual. We still tend to say the, to understand the world through individuals who organize into various structures is a way of fulfilling collective needs.   

So we find ourselves, the point is we find ourselves rather confused. Do we need leaders? But are they really necessary? Aren’t they, more the subject of comedy? Late night routines?   

Don't they generally make a mess of things? Wouldn't we do better maybe in churches without a pastor, but being led by the people themselves? Have we come to this place or, or how do we sort this out? This is, again, purpose of this course is to say, well, which is it? Just like definitions.   

Let's come back to theology and see if theology gives us a centering voice. And I believe, again, we will find a centering answer, to this question.