Amen and amen!

hmm... not sure implying Jim Collins' research team are "crackerjacks" is such a great idea.

Amen!

I agree first that our faith is dangerous because Jesus was not a domesticated leader. I like the way you phrase that.

I also agree that we have in some cases rebelled against the wrong traditions for the right reasons.

Thank you, Chris, for a needed corrective. What amazes me in these books is how they ignore the biblical accounts of those who followed Jesus as "Leader." Faithfulness in following their "Leader" resulted in rejection and opposition, persecution and prison, exile and martyrdom. And for the most part, they didn't even whine about it.

Following Jesus today as always is a dangerous enterprise.

Amen...

But will the 80's and 90's evangelicals buy into this? Most Christians don't understand reading the bible in context. Most Christian leaders are not educated to truly read the book for themselves to get at the original meaning before letting the 'spirit' lead them.
Maybe it's too late for a that set. Maybe if we can get formation with our children right we can set them on a better foothold.
I mean Jesus isn't very marketable if you place him in the context. This old guy(remember average lifespan 29) dragging around teenagers trying to explain the kingdom of God to people downtrodden by Roman rule. Trying in vain to convince people that if we all shared our resources there is enough to go around.( remember the feeding of the 5k) That everyone has access to God and God doesn't care about who you are but that you seek him and love others.
These ideas don't market well and certainly don't work well in my context of corporate America. It makes leadership at best hard and many cases Sacraficial. It's hard to see God's outpouring of love in poverty when you see that God through American lenses.
But it is there. We have to set aside our bias and our cultural context to find it but it is there.

The tension you describe is spot on. The evangelical church has a leadership fetish. The Bible never speaks of leadership in a generic sense. It speaks of giftings and offices (particular roles to empower the giftings of the community). The problem is the church in America does not begin with the question: What does it look like for us to be faithful to Jesus in the 21st century. Instead they ask: How do we make Jesus relevant to the world today?

But that is what happens when business entrepreneurs become interpreters of the Bible (or they just hold up the Bible). You get wierd stuff like "Your Best Life Now" and "God Wants You to be Successful." Now it all depends on how you define "best" and "successful." Because biblically speaking I am quite positive they most likely will not look like what market-driven America means by those terms.

The grand irony is this. The more relevant the church seeks to become on the world's terms, the more irrelevant it will be. The more we let corporate leadership terms like "efficient" and "cost effective" guide our theology and ecclesiology the more our churches will continue to become places of isolated fragmentation with a circus performace for those in attendence. The more peculiar the church is as it becomes more faithful to God, the more the world get's to see who God is; taking care of the homeless, the poor, economic redistribution, rich people sharing their tables and homes with outcasts. But that is just too darn radical for comfortable Christians like me.

So how does this work?
CT regularly touts the very people responsible for the "leadership" dreck of the last 20 years--people who can find "secrets" of leadership and "indisputable laws", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, but apparently have developed church cultures that have done nothing to combat the widespread theologically ignorance and scripturally illiterate state of modern Christianity.

To be sure organizational leadership can help or hinder any given organization, but to see the Holy Scripture as some kind of technical manual really messes with Scripture.

And all the "apologists" for "leadership" will be sure to come out of the woodwork, I'm sure.

CT, too little, too late, I'm afraid.

Chris Blumhofer, you wrote:

"The Christian leadership books that get Jesus right operate in that realm, never assuming that there is a “leaders track” in discipleship . . .
...Let’s move back toward Christian leadership studies that move us this direction. Let me propose a few criteria for the next book any of us pick up (or write) about Jesus as a leader:
1. Try to find one in which Christ is not first-and-foremost a leader with a message for you, but rather a savior who loved the world enough to die for it.
2. Seek one that takes the Bible so seriously that it dare not misrepresent the teachings and actions of Jesus.
3. Make sure it is distinctly Christian—not full of principles that could have been thought up Jim Collins’s crackerjack research team.
4. Let it be consumed with the idea of servanthood."

Would you please list your 3 favorites? I'd like to check them out to get a better idea of what you mean. Thanks! God bless!!! :)

Exactly what is a CEO?
In organisational terms, it's a person who is responsible for overseeing the execution of the mission of the organisation. The key "executive" - ie. "doer of stuff."

Surely, when Jesus is said to be "sitting a the right hand of God" that is a phrase that indicates that he is not merely on the right hand side of God, but that he is "God's right hand man" - the one whom God has invested his authority in. He is, if you like, the one through whom God directs all his actions. He is, in that sense, the "CEO par excellence." Could anyone disagree theologically that Jesus is the single point of delegation through which the Godhead is directing the affairs of the Universe? (and thus, appropriately, he would be called God's CEO).

The term CEO does not necessarily imply arrogant, business-like, cruel, bottom-line focused or anything like that. The term is often denigrated in that way. Any organisation that has a single leader at the apex of its executive leadership has a "CEO" whatever else they are called.

God's government has a CEO. There are no rivals. There is no "shared power base" or anything like that. Jesus is that CEO.

Even in the Trinity, theologians talk about "functional subordination" where the Son submits to the Father, the Spirit to the Son etc. etc. As human beings made in God's image, it is therefore not "unbiblical" nor "theologically unsound" to comtemplate an organisational structure that has a single leader in the key executive role.

When we use the term "CEO" in a perjorative way, we should be clear what we are saying. Theologically speaking, we are excluding the very model under which the rule of God is being exercised.

Mikeb...interesting thoughts. I just can't go with the CEO thing, Jesus as King over the whole cosmos is quite different than CEO especially from a Jesus who challenged hierarchies, like who will be one and two in the kingdom. Actually there are many theologians today talking about "mutual self-giving" in regards to the trinity.

As mentioned above, it is rather ironic this post is on the blog for "Leadership Magazine."

Check out the cover for the subscription add on the left. "New Ways Teams Lead" is the front cover story. But are "teams" that lead any different than Jesus CEO? Are we not just replacing one business model with another one?

I don't mean those questions rhetorically. I will need to think on them myself...

Not sure if I agree with the arguments or not, because the only example given is Laurie Beth Jones' Jesus CEO, which is the single worst book I have ever read. She makes no attempt at legitimate scholarship and twists Bible passages beyond recognition. Surely there is another book more worthy of discussion.

The same goes for those who find psychology, health, or economics lessons embedded in every text. Our task as pastors and teachers is to teach the Bible in its historical context without trying to force the interpretation to fit our personal preference or persuasion.

Chris, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have written elsewhere that the Christian leadership literature is replete with three kinds of authors: (1) Academically rigorous but theologically flawed; (2) Academically weak but theologically sound, (3) Both academically weak and theologically flawed. Sadly, category #3 abounds in the crowded leadership shelves in many Christian bookstores.

What we need is the fourth category: Academically rigorous and theologically sound. I have a copy of the book "Jesus CEO" referred to by Blumhofer; which I think is not only theologically flawed, but very anthropocentric in its treatment of Christ Jesus, the Gospel, and the Word of God.

As a leadership researcher, I would rather recommend Christians to read 'secular' but academically sound leadership books (e.g., by Bass, Burns, Collins, Kouzes and Posner, Kotter, etc.) WHILE maintaining their spiritual diet on theological books (systematic, biblical, exegesis, etc.

On a more positive note, here are a few that I think float closer to Category #4, and are relevant for leaders in the church and non-church spheres (not in any order):

1. In the Name of Jesus by Henry Nouwen
(the kind that needs to be read at least once a year; not academic, but I think it's the best Christian leadership book there is).
2. Transforming Leadership by Leighton Ford
3. Spiritual Leadership by J Oswald Sanders
4. The Cross and Christian Ministry: Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians by D.A. Carson
5. Calling Christian Leaders by John Stott
6. Feeding and Leading by Kenneth O Gangel
7. The Making of a Leader by Robert Clinton
8. The Training of the Twelve by A.B. Bruce

ericpo said (of Jesus):
Trying in vain to convince people that if we all shared our resources there is enough to go around.( remember the feeding of the 5k)

No, you missed the point just like the people mentioned in the article. The point of that miracle was not, "Let's all share and be friends," as noble as that is; the point was that when you surrender all you have you get more than you ever expected.

Great! Thanks for the warning!

By the way Chris, i just need a little piece of advice from you.
Someone send me a book entitled, "The Bible on Leadership" by Lorin Woolfe. Is this a good one or dangerous?
Thanks a lot!

In regard to the statement, "I wholeheartedly believe that Jesus wants to control how I behave, think, and lead . . ."

I am not sure if this is Scripturally sound. See Matthew 28:18, "All AUTHORITY (emphasis mine) in heaven and earth has been given to me." Jesus has authority, not control. We have control, or lack thereof, over our behaviors, thoughts, and actions. We do not have the authority Jesus speaks of. I do not recall Jesus controlling anyone in the Gospel narratives. He declared principles, asked people to "Follow Me.", then let people make up their own minds, and hearts,

I agree. I was on staff at one of the largest in America. Any way, the rank and file were, by and large, beautiful people and the leaders, by and large, seemed to regard Seth Godin with more reverance than the Apostle Paul. You could cheat on your wife, father a child out of wedlock, tell filthy jokes, act like a hypocritical jerk...and your position at the church would be secure. On the other hand, challenge the corporate model they had borrowed from Dell (or maybe even the movie "Office Space") and you would suddenly be gone and the congregation would be told that you were pursuing other ventures. Finally, anytime the figurehead repeats over and over again how he "doesnt want the focus of the church to be on him"...you can be certain of one thing...he will accept nothing less than the focus being on him.

Regarding "domesticating Jesus," I am reminded that Aslan was not a "tame" lion. If our Lord is sovereign, then we should study to discover how HE wants us to "do church," which is pretty thoroughly explained in the Bible.

I think that a fundamental distinction needs to be made between the "leadership of the church" and the "leadership in the church." Leadership "of" is theological. Power and authority and responsibility that crosses time and denomination is uniquely and divinely given to the Church (big "C"). Jesus declared it and, therefore, nothing can change it. However, this is not the same as the leadership "in" the church, which is based on such factors as: learning, experience and calling, to name a few. Leadership "in" is about who occupies positions of leadership and how they exercise and live out their leadership. Of course, this leadership must be done following sound biblical principles and in response to the leading of the Holy Spirit as He directs what leadrship must do on a given setting and situation. Leadership "of" the church is eternal. Leadership "in" the church is situational. What do you think?

I am in the process of writing a masters thesis in which I am examining Jesus as a Transformative Leader; seking to discover any principles that can be codified so as to be able to be applied today. Would you be willing to provide feedback?(It won't be finished until sometime this fall.) I need to also let you know that I am writing very specifically and intentionally for an African-American context.

With regard to 'Jesus as CEO' and those who think Jesus was the 'greatest Leader of all time:'

Are you friends with your boss?
The hardest workers don't get promoted. The most likable people get promoted. Think about Idiot Bosses. These are the people that get ahead in life.

Jesus died [partly] because he didn't get along with the Big Wigs. He didn't come to make friends but to divide families and rule out the religious. He wasn't friends with the boss. Strike one.

Are you working on high-profile projects?
Do you work on the project that everyone else wanted? The key to making yourself useful is to work on the stuff that matters to your boss.

Jesus had his own agenda. The Jews wanted him to overthrow the Roman Empire -- it was 'prophesied.' He came proclaiming that 'the Kingdom of G-d is within.' Strike two.

Are you paid at the high end of the range for your position?
Investigate the salary range for your job. If you're at the low end, you were not highly valued to begin with, so getting people to switch their opinion of you is going to be hard. Do it by asking your boss to get you to the top of the range; back up your request by listing all your achievements.

In our culture, money = power. Jesus wasn't paid for what he did. In fact, he talked a whole lot about giving away everything you had. Strike three...

Do you work fewer hours than everyone else?
You should not be the hardest worker because that makes you look desperate. But you can't work the fewest hours either, because then you look like you don't care. And that's being a bad team player, even if you're getting the work done. If you find you have a lot of extra time because you're a total genius and finish everything early, spend more time networking at the office.

Jesus wanted us all to be servants. Servants are on the clock 24/7. They have no choice in who they serve, how they were treated, or if they were recognized. This whole Christian thing is suddenly not sounding too appealing...

Do you feel like you're due a promotion because of your experience?
Give yourself a point for setting aside time each day to let people know how great you are. Take a point away if you think people who do this are annoying.

I can see Christ on the cross thinking, "This will look great on my resume."

I'm taken aback by the apparent disregard for the author's intent in the criticism of Jesus CEO by Laurie Beth Jones. This author, far more than the negative author of this article, gives to us in Jesus CEO a model of leadership that honors and glorifies our Lord. And that is much more honorable than writing words that simply fill a column by an author who seems to take much glee in bashing work that is extremely helpful, practical, and always pointing to our Lord. In my view, this author's article misses the point entirely.

I have the book Jesus CEO at work right beside my dictionary and computer. I find it helpful to deal with the stresses of the workplace in a Christian manner.
I also have found that Jim Collins book Good to Great for the Social Sector is very helpful to people trying to serve God doing kingdom work in a community setting. For analytical action oriented people these types of approaches to help us live out our faith are actually helpful. I am also a big fan of Bill Hybels whose book Courageous Leadership is one of the best leadership books I have read. Jesus leads me by the holy spirit to use my gifts (leadership and administration) for the benefit of the kingdom. I am currently reading Phyllis Tickles book The Words Of Jesus which is a very interesting review of the many facets of our Lord.

Godd thoughts!! I'm challenged to reconsider my assumptions. For example, despite the "parable" of servant leadership in many books and articles, Jesus was NOT a servant leader!

The beautiful story of Jesus washing His disciples' feet is noteworthy only because Jesus did NOT usually wash them. The Leader symbolically took off His outer garment and washed their feet as a household servant in a teaching moment - call it interactive mentoring. We have no other record of Jesus ever doing this again.

"Jesus has much to say to leaders, but we (especially those of us who lead) can only hear him clearly when we remember that Jesus is not primarily a leader. He is God’s Anointed One, the Suffering Servant, the prophet greater than Moses."

Instead of "primarily" one perhaps should use "only." If memory serves me Jesus is also "Lord" and "King" which even in the Greek are powerful leadership designations.

Dunno about that comment Rev. Dr Gary. I reckon becoming the washing bowl for a whole world on the cross is reasonably servant-like. I reckon Paul, in Phillipians 2 and consistently elsewhere, in relation to Jesus and himself, sees leadership as servanthood. I reckon you may need to go back to your New Testament.

I appreciate Gary Downings comments that Jesus' act of washing the disciples' feet was noteworthy because it wasn't something He usually did, therefore they were not comfortable with it. I agree, so there's obviously something more to be seen in this, as His decision to lay His life down in numerous other ways, while still requiring of his guys (telling them to go get the donkey, prepare the room, fish on the other side of the boat) indicates that He had no problem giving commands.

However, the commands were in the context of His own choice to submit to the overarching decision to die for His people.

Leaders still need to lead, and doing the washing up at the pot luck dinner (as you Yanks call fellowship tea) maybe ok at times, but it is far more effective to be talking to the people who need to know that they are of value to you because of their willingness to be together in the vision with you.