“Leadership is a relational and heart[1] endeavor to align self and others behind God-honoring visions and empower them to accomplish it.” That definition was worked out practically and pragmatically. The focus of this work is to provide and substantiate the philosophical and biblical underpinnings of this definition. This will be done by providing a brief explanation of the definition, synthesizing natural principles of leadership from research, and examining the biblical data concerning leadership.

Heart Integrity

Leadership has been classically difficult to define and unpack. From the earliest times leadership had little difference from manipulation. Perhaps the only difference is that manipulation can thrive under the guile of deceit; whereas, leadership has to be recognized as such. Justin Irving and Mark Strauss combine their expertise of leadership research and biblical knowledge in their book Leadership in Christian Perspective. In it they write of leadership during this early period, “To lead meant to convince, cajole, coerce or compel others to do your bidding.”[2]

The classic example of manipulation is when Tom Sawyer convinces Ben that whitewashing a fence is great fun. Tom himself had a different goal in mind: rest and relaxation and various treasures, such as an apple. At the same time, he knew a certain task had to be accomplished because of his punishment. Tom was certainly a leader in this scenario, but what kind of leader was he? He was a manipulative leader because the goals he professed did not match up with his internalized goals. His talk did not match his walk. He was able to compel others to work so he could receive all the accolades (or in this case, trinkets).

This preunderstanding of coercion carried on in leadership models. So leading was primarily an action—convince or compel—that was later recognized as being backed up by certain traits: “intelligence, self-confidence, integrity, extraversion, and determination.”[3] So this action—coercion—was best attained by two separate means: minimizing human variance and discovering psychological human motivators.[4] Again, a great man coercing others to do his bidding. It seems the only thing that was rapidly developing at this point in history was the art of manipulation. When leadership is seen primarily as an action, it almost inevitably becomes synonymous with manipulation.

There was a general shift in the 20^th century from leader-focused models to follower-focused. One of these changes was known as the managerial grid. This puts the idea of a leader who is people focused on the y-axis and the leader who is production focused on the x-axis. The leader who only focuses on production without focusing on people Irving and Strauss call the “produce or perish” style. Whereas, the leader who focuses on people rather than production is called the “country club” style. In the former production is done, but ineffectively because it is under threat, essentially. In the latter, everyone feels accomplished, but gets nothing done. The ideal, of course, is to be both people and production focused.[5] This principle is correct, but again, if the principle is applied into action and not into the person of the leader himself, it can merely result in another tactic of manipulation.

Leadership principles have also been derived from the Bible. James Hunter in his book The Servant writes, “if you write business books or conduct business seminars talking about love and sprinkle a little Jesus in there, it will probably cost you some readers and clients, probably lots of them.”[6] He goes on to say that’s what he expected, but it was not the result. Of the many people who came to his books and seminars, 98% he estimates from secular institutions. Nearly anyone is willing to listen to sterilized principles that are promised to enhance his life as long as the source is hidden or perceived as positive. That worked for Jesus? Sure, why not try it too? That worked for Gandhi? Lots of positive things have been said about him too, why not try his principles?

It’s no stretch of the imagination to say that principles, even principles taken from Jesus, can be used for manipulative purposes. Michael Wilder and Timothy Jones critique this understanding of extracting and abstracting leadership principles from Jesus. They argue that it misses the main point, “What’s misplaced in such as process is the centeredness of Jesus’s leadership in the cross and resurrection, as well as the positioning of his story within the broader story line of God’s work with Israel and the world.”[7] In other words, these biblical principles of leadership are pragmatic and true. However, they are like tools: they work, but are designed with a specific purpose. Their purpose is to point to the centrality of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, not to manipulate followers to do one’s bidding. So even biblical principles can be used by manipulators.

In summary, there are three major focuses in leadership: production, people, and principle. However, all three focuses can result in manipulation. Tom Sawyer was focused on production; he knew that a fence had to be painted. He was also focused on people; he knew how to get the other boys his age excited and engaged in something. And certainly, both a people and production focus together is a principle of team style leadership that ended up in major results. However, Tom Sawyer did not himself believe in the goal, want to accomplish the goal, nor did he participate in completing the goal for the goal’s sake. He was a manipulator, not a leader.

So how does a leader lead without manipulation? Leadership must focus on being more than doing. Leadership was defined above with the primary verb endeavor. Endeavor is an attempt to achieve a goal. This goal is threefold: personal, relational, and institutional. That list is ordered with the proper priorities in line. The leader cannot relate to his followers or the institutional vision without first being the leader. Albert Mohler describes this person as a believer in his book The Conviction to Lead. He writes, “The Believers are driven by deep and passionate beliefs. They are heavily invested in knowledge, and they are passionate about the truth.”[8] He describes the inefficiency of leaders who are not believers as eventually running out of steam after running from one program to the next.

This is what is meant by leadership being a heart endeavor. It’s not just believing but more. A person can have deep convictions without acting on them. One can believe that God is real, that Jesus died and rose for him, but refuse to obey him. Leadership is a heart endeavor because it involves the integrity of the heart: the mind, the will, and the emotions. James depicts the disconnect between beliefs and actions when he says, “But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (James 2:18-19). A genuine faith, or belief in God is backed up with actions. Someone who professes faith, but does not act, shows his faith to be disingenuous.

Likewise, Jesus says the greatest command is: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:36b). This whole being integrity is commanded in one’s love of God. In the same way, this whole being integrity must be commanded of leaders. That is why leadership is primarily a heart endeavor. Is the leader and institutional vision conformed to the reality of Christ’s kingdom? Does the leader himself believe in the institutional vision? Does he personally desire to accomplish this vision? Does he actually do things to accomplish the vision? A leader who himself does not believe in the vision cannot be a leader but only a manipulative manager.

Relational Replication

Secondly, leadership is a relational endeavor. Leaders cannot lead with no one to lead; furthermore, leaders cannot lead without relating to their followers in some way. This would logically lead to asking how a leader should relate to his followers. Eric Geiger and Kevin Peck summarize this relationship as “replication.” In other words, not only does the leader himself have this heart integrity but seeks to replicate it in others. They write, “We have a cosmic destiny to see Jesus hailed as King across the whole world. God has designed us to accomplish His mission by demonstrating God’s Kingdom and declaring the gospel of Christ to the world.”[9] This overtly theological principle is certainly the primary application in leadership, but also has institutional implications. In other words, while the main goal of leadership is to lead others to the chief shepherd, institutional goals—those goals which fall under the creation mandate—can also be replicated in followers. Kingdom leadership places a lot of responsibility in leaders’ hands, but regeneration is not one of those responsibilities (cf. John 3:8). Although the institutional leader submits to Christ, all responsibilities for replication are in his hands.

This reinforces the importance of heart integrity. The leader who is not on board with the institutional vision in any area (mind, will, or emotions) will not be able to replicate followers to do the same. And although replication rests on who the leader is, it will never be accomplished apart from what the leader does. The leader cannot simply be for replication to take place, he must act and interact with his followers.

Communication is one of the primary things that a leader does. But again, this communication flows from who the leader is. Mohler summarizes this truth thusly, “If a leader has to look for a message, his leadership is doomed.”[10] This truth is reflected most recently by President Biden who, when addressing Israeli president Isaac Herzog, had to look down at a notecard the entire time; whereas, the Israeli president seemed to passionately speak from the heart.[11] The leader who has to “look for a message” is doomed because the followers immediately recognize that leader as a fraud who does not believe or want the vision that he communicates. Irving and Strauss stress that effective communication involves the message itself, who communicates it, distraction from that message, and feedback as well. “Effective communication,” they write, “requires good listening skills.”[12]

Relating to others also involves having relational skills such as basic interactions, resolving conflict, emotional intelligence, and intercultural intelligence. All of these interpersonal skills are brought out by Irving and Strauss characterized by the second great commandment, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). Conflict resolution involves balancing avoiding and confronting mentalities with peacemaking. Emotional intelligence involves understanding and assessing how self and others feel in any given situation. Intercultural intelligence involves being self-aware of one’s own and other’s cultures and their proclivities.[13]

Heart integrity, communication, and wise relational interaction should result in replication. The followers themselves will want to align themselves with the vision that is being communicated, while feeling empowered by their leader to do so. This replication is impossible without the leader’s relational intentionality.

Kingdom Visions

Dr. Irving in his lectures on leadership discusses the importance of vision. He says, “Vision is the main tool that leaders use to lead from the front. . . Vision allows leaders to inspire, attract, align, and energize their followers to empower them by encouraging them to become part of a common enterprise dedicated to achieving the vision.”[14] Vision, he argues, is checking the alignment of the institution to ensure it is going in the correct direction. Managers merely plan, program, and produce. Leaders cast the big picture and make sure he himself and his followers align with that big picture. Leaders who lead well have to know where they are going.

The kingdom vision is that all creation recognize and willingly submit to the Lordship of Christ. But what if one’s institutional goal is to produce tennis shoes? Do these visions conflict? The creation mandate given to Adam and Eve was to multiply over the earth, fill it, subdue it, and have dominion over it. This mandate can be fulfilled in a multiplicity of ways all of which cannot be fulfilled by one institution. People need government because anarchy leads to chaos. People need healthcare to continue to multiply. People need technology to better exercise dominion. All of these things, even the shoes on one’s feet, can be an aid to fulfill the creation mandate. So while all institutional visions may not be to specifically make disciples of Jesus Christ, all institutional visions can glorify God by fulfilling the creation mandate.

The goal is ensuring the vision is God honoring. Does this vision fulfill the creation mandate or detract from it? If Planned Parenthood continues the trajectory of being a vociferous advocate for abortion, it will be impossible for them to maintain a vision that is God honoring. The creation mandate has to take into account the fact that we are in God’s world and live by God’s standards—whether God is rejected or accepted by the followers and leaders. This is God’s reality, and that truth cannot be escaped. Alongside of Scripture, laws of logic and Natural Law can inform the God honoring nature of an institutional vision. An institution cannot accomplish two contradictory visions at the same time and in the same way (that’s illogical). An institutional vision cannot expect to treat others (institutions or individuals) in one way and expect to be treated in a different way (which goes against Natural Law). What forms the ultimate test of an institutional vision being God honoring is his revealed word.

The leader is responsible to align himself, his followers, and his institutional culture to this vision. First and foremost, the leader himself must be aligned to the vision. When the leader is not in line with it he must ask two important questions: “Is the leader in error?” or “Is the vision in error?” The leader obviously could be faced with a moment of failing to believe, want, or act on the vision. In that case he must identify the error and seek correction through accountability. Visions crafted and created by leaders—even those seeking to honor God—are not infallible, and thus can be refined.

One of the best ways to create and refine visions is through collaboration with followers. Not only does this help refine the vision, it also empowers the followers to make the vision their own. This in turn, helps align the followers behind the vision. Another way to align followers behind a vision is the leader being authentic. Authentic leaders model, not just by their actions, but from their hearts. Irving and Strauss write, “Modeling what matters involves identifying priorities for the organization and then translating these priorities into meaningful action.”

Finally, the leader is also responsible for aligning his organizational culture to the vision. Geiger and Peck write, “Every gathering of people, every organization has a culture.”[15] While organizations have formalized and written their rules and expectations, a culture is the unspoken values that each individual has. Geiger and Peck suggest to rejuvenate an organizational culture, the first step is to assess. Where are the stated goals misaligned with the actual practice? This misalignment has to be followed to the root of the problem rather than being ignored. This seeks to bring everything in the organization to the question: “What is the mission?”

Conclusion

Leadership begins in the heart and works itself out with definite action grounded in shared organizational goals. Leadership is not mysterious or wired into genetics. Leadership is not manipulation. The leader is able to empower his followers to get behind the shared vision by himself being genuinely behind it. Leadership is an endeavor within the leader’s own heart and in his relationship with his followers, to work together and accomplish a God-honoring vision. 

---

[1] “Heart” is an ontological reference to the concept that a human person’s identity is composed of the triad of mind, will, and emotions.

[2] Justin A Irving and Mark L Strauss, Leadership in Christian Perspective : Biblical Foundations and Contemporary Practices for Servant Leaders (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, A Division Of Baker Publishing Group, 2019), 5.

[3] Irving and Strauss, Leadership, 7.

[4] Irving and Strauss, Leadership, 7.

[5] Irving and Strauss, Leadership, 89.

[6] James C Hunter, The Servant : A Simple Story about the True Essence of Leadership (New York: Crown Business, 2012), xi.

[7] Michael S Wilder and Timothy Paul Jones, The God Who Goes before You : Pastoral Leadership as Christ-Centered Followership (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2018), 7.

[8] Albert Mohler, The Conviction to Lead (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2012), 19.

[9] Eric Geiger and Kevin Peck, Designed to Lead : The Church and Leadership Development (Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Publishing Group, 2016), 67.

[10] Mohler, Leadership, 92.

[11] CBS News, “President Biden Meets with Israeli President Isaac Herzog,” YouTube, last modified July 18, 2023, accessed July 24, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GurAj0LyJpw.

[12] Irving and Strauss, Leadership, 144-145.

[13] Irving and Strauss, Leadership, 124ff.

[14] Justin Irving, “Leadership Theory: Importance of Vision.” Lecture, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, N.d., online. Mp4, 00:20:46.

[15] Geiger and Peck, Designed to Lead, 101ff.