Reflections on Leadership

There are a few assumptions to incorporate in this reflection on leadership. Leadership is not something that is itself neutral, but is a dynamic tension in which an exertion is required to form order in the context of chaos. In this way, humanity in exercising leadership is reflecting the Creator who spoke to that which was formless and void and caused that which was chaos to become ordered and beautiful, indeed it became very good. In this way, I make the bold statement that one may find themselves in leadership and not be a Christian-Theist; however, one may not in that same situation account for the necessity and fact of leadership. It is something that is far more than merely moving people or ideas or functions. It is bound at the most primary level to how one understands theology connecting to athropology. For the moment, I will leave this bold claim suspended. Surely there are many objections one might have to such a claim. My purpose here is not to argue for Christian-Theism directly but rather to lay out clearly the framework from which I reflect.

What then is the purpose or function of leadership? It would seem that we as human beings all have innate leadership responsibilities. That is as the apex of the created order we are charged with expanding and developing that order. On the other hand, we can think of those who lead people and these we more readily think of as leaders. But what is leadership in this sense? Is it simply moving people? I alluded above that I do not think leadership is to be evaluated or contemplated in terms of movement alone; however, true leadership is a necessary cause of movement. If someone were to say that Adolf Hitler was a good leader, I think the claim would raise some eyebrows and certainly require qualification. Inevitably what we might intend in this statement is to comment on his charisma or ability to move a remarkable amount of people to do remarkable (and quite horrendous) things. However, if my criteria are correct, then we can say that at a fundamental level; Hitler was an abysmal failure as a leader because he neither expanded and improved the created order nor did he rightly estimate the connection between anthropology and theology.

Martin Luther King, Jr., on the other hand, proved in a broad picture analysis to be a good leader. Certainly he had his faults, all only-human leaders do; however, we can see chaos formed into an improved order. He moved into the tremendous tension between chaos and leadership and beat chaos back a significant degree.

[NEXT .... the idea of leadership as a tension]