Acknowledging Jesus as a Failed Leader

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/ruth-tucker on 18 Mar 2008
Leadership & Ruth Tucker

Comments (56)

Related Posts

• Acknowledging Jesus as a Failed Leader
• Male/Female Equality: A Plea for Honesty
• Salvation by Faith Alone: Was Luther Right?
• Mother Teresa’s Final Gift
• When Should Christians Expose Wrong Doing

56 Responses to “Acknowledging Jesus as a Failed Leader”

1. Sorryexcuse on 18 Mar 2008 at 5:25 pm #

   I thought you were going to say Jesus was a failed Messiah.

   He has 12 disciples and tradition says they had no idea what he was teaching until after he died. Was he trying to mislead them, was he a bad communicator or was it just part of the plan?

   It wasn’t until years later when Jesus had to appear in a vision to a murderous enemy that someone actually figured out that he was on earth to die for everybody’s sins and the content of his teaching was pretty much expendable.

2. Wes Ellis on 18 Mar 2008 at 5:27 pm #

   Great stuff. I don’t know that we should throw “leadership” out completely, but we do indeed need to find new ways of looking at it.

3. kolabok21 on 18 Mar 2008 at 6:35 pm #

   It was more than the 12, the seventy who were commisioned also went forth to tell of the earthly ministry of their teacher.

4. Gabriel Rodriguez on 18 Mar 2008 at 6:49 pm #

   Great post, it good to see leadership from another view. I’m sick of performance leadership. We are told today that if you don’t have immediate success you have failed as a leader.

5. C Michael Patton on 18 Mar 2008 at 7:00 pm #

   Very interesting. I would like to hear more about your criticism of modern church leadership presuppositions.

   Isn’t it possible to be a leader and have a legacy? Are you saying that we should not judge our success in following the Lord by how we are percieved as a leader?

6. K-Funk on 18 Mar 2008 at 7:34 pm #

   I try to stay open-minded, but I have a hard time thinking of Jesus as having “failed” at anything. If Jesus wanted to be a “better” leader, then he would have been.

7. Aaron on 18 Mar 2008 at 9:23 pm #

   I have a hard time with your supposition that Jesus simply had 12 weak followers. Certainly he did have 12 devoted disciples who stayed with him throughout his teaching. However, to say that none of them have a profile a military leader would accept is a vast understatement. Aside from Judas, all but one of the disciples were martyred for their belief and personal commitment to Christ’s leadership. I think any leader would love to have more than 90% of his followers ready to lay their life on the line at his command.

   Luke also tells of Jesus sending out 72 disciples in chapter 10, and then whenever Jesus talks, the gospels say that a crowd would gather around him. Several times he spoke to audiences of thousands that would follow him from one place to another so diligently that he was unable to rest.

   I haven’t read your full argument and I may be misunderstanding your definition of legacy, but I don’t see how focusing on a legacy isn’t self-serving. Leading simply so that people will remember you after you leave your leadership role seems very prideful and self-minded. I would think that an earthly legacy is that last thing a Christian leader should be focused on.

8. The Pastor As CEO/Leader/Insert Any Business Adjective Here « amazing grey city on 18 Mar 2008 at 9:26 pm #

   [...] weaknesses themselves?“ Read the excellent article here. {HT: DB}  Also, Ruth Tucker weighs in on Jesus’ “failed” leadership. Both articles are well worth reading since our church culture which values [...]

9. Keith B on 18 Mar 2008 at 11:01 pm #

   This was a very insightful blog. While I don’t agree fully with Ms. Tucker. I think she has brought up some very valuable points.
   First, I will admit, I would not say Jesus was a failure. He (God) had a mission/purpose and He accomplished that at the cross. He also, as a rabbi in the 1st century, set an example that others (mainly his group of 12 (11) disciples) would copy. He lead by example, as rabbis did in that time. The goal of disciples in that time period, by following their rabbis, was not to learn what the rabbi knows, but to become like the rabbi and live as he lived (and died in this case). Those rabbis then would make disciples who would follow them. From that point I also see Him as a great success as a leader.

   On the other hand, Ms. Tucker makes a great point regarding today’s standards of leadership, which I believe come from the thinking that a church should be run like a business and the pastor is a CEO.

   This might be a little bit off topic but, I have been wrestling with this church/business, pastor/CEO thing for a number of months and am coming more to the conclusion that the more a church tries to operate like a business and use business models to grow and function, the more they seem to go away from Scriptural principles in functioning as a church. While I would agree that many organization have similarities to other organizations: budgets, committees etc. A church is a unique organization, that should be led by God and which should be allowing God to move people, motivate people, and “market” the Gospel to the people. Today’s church (not all, but in many places) seems to look to do these things by leadership models and/or man centered ways.

   I am not against many of the leadership skills that make a great leader and the value these skills have. I think in the 21st century we have a tendency to take things and superimpose them back 2000 years on the people of Scripture.

   Thanks for a very good article.

10. koinoniaofgrace on 18 Mar 2008 at 11:17 pm #

    A direly needed article on the sorely abused topic of “leadership” within organized Christianity. I applaud Ms. Tucker the courage of her convictions. I’m reminded of Phineas, who was a biblical person of notable zeal for the honor of God.

    The “teaching” video left by Christ is the model of His ministry - past and present. He continues to grow His body of believers through His administration of spiritual gifts. These gifts are surely in conformity with His washing of the disciples feet. A washing He continues in His Intercession and Advocacy over His flock. As God responded to Balaam, He says in the present: “I see no iniquity in Jacob.”

    Thank you Ruth for sharing a timely piece of insight,
    Dave

11. Ed Kratz on 19 Mar 2008 at 6:58 am #

    This is an odd idea that Jesus’s primary role was to gather followers during his earthly ministry. How many followers does he have today? Isn’t Jesus alive today? Granted, Not physically, but if Jesus is not alive today, then he was an evil leader, but a tremendous leader none-the-less.

    A good leader will lead their followers to accomplish their purposes, didn’t Jesus do that? What exactly did Jesus fail to do? Were any of His purposes left undone before he left the earthly realm?

    Seems to me that perhaps defining success needs to be done in advance of determining whether a leader, in this case Jesus, is/was successful. If God’s plan was carried out exactly, then Jesus was a fantastic leader.

12. Lance on 19 Mar 2008 at 7:28 am #

    Thanks for this refreshing article. It encourages this “failing” leader.

    I have also noticed that Moses would have made a terrible leader, by today’s standards. He had lots of people walking behind him but only a handful of followers (maybe just two: Joshua and Caleb).

    See:
    http://scrawnypulpit.blogspot.com/2006/11/mosaic-leadership-part-1.html

    http://scrawnypulpit.blogspot.com/2006/12/perception-is-perception-mosaic.html

    It is interesting to me that the NT seems to say a lot more about following than leading.

    Perhaps we don’t need better leaders; we just need better followers.

13. terry on 19 Mar 2008 at 7:42 am #

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5646.htm
    I found this article that talks a bit about leadership and the manipulation of its followers ..it can be very strange how humans can take something good and use it in a bad way ,for a good cause ..chow

14. Dr Mike on 19 Mar 2008 at 7:51 am #

    Ruth:

    I’ve read most of Malphurs’ books, including his four on leadership. I’m curious what you think of him (assuming you’re familiar with him). I don’t recall him pointing to Jesus as our leader par excellence, but perhaps I’ve forgotten.

    Personally, I found his books to be quite profitable: practical, usable research and guidelines, no phony “baptizing-secular-concepts-to-make-them-acceptable,” and written by someone who has dedicated his life to studying and teaching principles that facilitate growth - both qualitative and quantitative - in local churches.

    What say you?

15. shane magee on 19 Mar 2008 at 8:20 am #

    excellent ruth. the point is timely and well-made. taking jesus as our example, we have absolutely no way of determining (in our lifetime) whether we are ’successful’ leaders or not. also, if we are practising a model which does not lead to our own physical martyrdom as well as that of our immediate followers, it is doubtful if we are following jesus’ leadership example at all.

    what kind of leader worth their salt today would preach a sermon so unpalatable and difficult to understand that thousands (perhaps more than 10,000) of would-be followers would leave with little or no attempt by the leader to explain further and call them back (a la john6)???

    jesus was definitely a failed leader in his lifetime by ANY present-day definition.

16. Ruth Tucker on 19 Mar 2008 at 8:56 am #

    #14 As to Malphurs. Yes, I have read him, but I would need something more specific to critique.

    #12 You’re right. Moses, though often used as a model for leadership, fails the test. So does the GREAT Apostle Paul. Read his resume’ (2 Cor. 11) about how many times he was imprisoned, stoned, beaten, etc.–not exactly the profile of an effective leader–nor do his words help, privileging the foolish and the weak.

    #11 That Jesus has so many followers today is what I chalk up to his legacy.

    #7 (and others) Yes, Jesus had many more followers than 12, but with the exception of the women at the cross, most had abandoned him. What occurred after Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances and after Pentecost are not directly part of his earthly “leadership.”

    #5 Yes, it’s possible to be a leader AND have a legacy. I’ll touch on that, but first some loose ends on Jesus.

    Of course, Jesus could have been the greatest leader this world has ever known if he had so willed. Likewise, he could have been the greatest musician, the greatest carpenter, etc. But Jesus seems to condemn many concepts of current leadership philosophy by focusing on the poor, the weak, treasure in heaven, etc. His parables that were designed to stir curiosity and his sending out disciples as virtual beggars fly in the face of contemporary leadership concepts.

    Yes, Michael, one can be a leader and have a legacy AND that can be a good thing. My post was only a tiny taste of what the book will present. In the book I depart from today’s leadership orthodoxy that leadership can be taught. Nonsense! Imagine Martin Luther King claiming that his leadership came from seminars and books. The same goes for any of the great leaders past and present. In my book I try to resurrect the much maligned “great man” (Oops!, and great woman!) theory that essentially states that great leaders rise up in a given time and place for a given purpose. I see the hand of God as a factor far more than someone’s stupid seminar. Leadership simply cannot be taught. Management skills yes, but not true “visionary” (I hate that term) leadership. (Let’s not get into the differences and debate on leadership vs. management.)

    #7 You make a good point that legacy can be as self-serving as leadership–though legacy is something that often comes, perhaps unexpectedly, after one’s death. This is the case with Jesus. Who could have possibly imagined as he was dying on the cross that he would have such an incredible legacy.

    To all of you, pro and con, this has been very helpful. A week from Friday I will be lecturing on this topic in the Chicago area, and you are helping me anticipate questions and issues. Many good wishes to you all. Keep the comments coming!

17. JohnT3 on 19 Mar 2008 at 9:17 am #

    At the risk of being told I missed the point Ruth, If you are saying that Jesus failed as a leader by the world’s and our current definition of leadership then I would whole heartedly agree.

    However, the leadership that falls short is our leadership model because we do not follow the biblical leadership model.

    We can’t follow in Jesus’s footsteps then we have a more attainable model of what a leader should be in I Timothy 3 we have a biblical model for leadership in the Church.

    Let me go out on a limb here, some place I have never been afraid to go before, The reason Jesus failed as a leader is because in our modern culture he doesn’t fit our profile of a leader.

    There are many leaders who don’t fit the biblical profile for a leader and they hold positions in churches and ministries and are best selling authors and so called academics.

    I wonder how many feet these sucsesfull leaders have washed.

    I aspire to the role of a leader and I am ashamedly aware that I myself fall short of that biblical profile. So while I am out here on this limb I am there fully aware that I am no better then the successful leaders of our day.

18. Lance on 19 Mar 2008 at 9:56 am #

    Is “leader” the proper biblical term for an elder or shepherd or disciplemaker?

    Why do we often refer to shepherds as leaders? Aren’t we setting ourselves up for a letdown that way?

    How many occurrences of any term that means, “leader” do we find in the Bible? (I’ve not done a study; just curious).

    NB: As much as laymen say they despise “organized religion,” methinks that any layman who refers to his/her shepherd as a “leader” is setting self up for viewing the Body of Christ as “organized.”

19. Josh on 19 Mar 2008 at 10:01 am #

    I think I echo the same thoughts of most of the people responding: Jesus only failed in his leadership role from the perspective of our culture. However, this says much more about our culture than about Jesus, because if God is somehow “failing” then we have an obscure and twisted definition of success.

    To me the defining characteristic of a leader is doing what is best for their followers. And this you certainly see in Jesus; rebuking disciples when they are out of line, probing their hearts and minds with questions and circumstances to see what they are really thinking/what’s in their heart, etc. In other words, genuinely caring about the followers themselves without the influences of personal gain choking out untainted love for the followers. I think this is beautifully illustrated in the garden, where Jesus is greatly distressed about the things that are about to happen, yet his disciples have little to no clue what is about to happen and they fall asleep! But He still instructs them to pray for their own sake that they do not fall into temptation.

    In my opinion it’s that kind of radical love, patience and compassion that makes someone a godly leader; not success nor the amount of followers but the quality and substance of those who follow you.

    Just my thoughts.

    Your brother in Christ,

    -Josh

20. C Michael Patton on 19 Mar 2008 at 11:57 am #

    Ruth said: “The same goes for any of the great leaders past and present. In my book I try to resurrect the much maligned “great man” (Oops!, and great woman!) theory that essentially states that great leaders rise up in a given time and place for a given purpose.”

    That is very helpful. God raises men up with purpose and passion, intent on creating a legacy. The wind blows where it will, so it is with the leaders of God.

21. Dying Church on 19 Mar 2008 at 12:01 pm #

    Jesus was a failed leader

    A provocative post by Ruth Tucker that challenges our emphasis on leadership: Leadership is a hot topic today. Colleges and universities and seminaries and churches and Christian organizations of all varieties are developing leadership programs… It w…

22. Ed Kratz on 19 Mar 2008 at 12:08 pm #

    Chalking up Jesus’s massive amounts of followers to His legacy has serious consequences though. The word itself is used for those who are dead.

    When you use the word in reference to Christ you relegate him to a mere human, and his mission and ministry to only his active years on earth. That just seems to be a really poor word to use; discounting the resurrection in relation to Christ to make a point is dangerous ground.

23. Andrew on 19 Mar 2008 at 12:55 pm #

    Great blog!

    Lance (#18) took the words right out my mouth. I’m not competent to analyse the Greek NT, but in translation (TNIV), there are almost no “leaders” in the church: there are lots of “Jewish Leaders”, one reference to leaders of the Church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2), and several references to leaders in Hebrews (interesting; c.f. those of the Jewish kind).

    And that’s it.

    Reference was made to 1 Timothy 3. I don’t know what the Greek of the time meant by episcopos, but the translation as “overseer” doesn’t immediately imply “leader” to me.

    Yup. Our contemporary notion of leadership, and its place in the church, seems pretty wide of the mark.

    In another age, the bishops of the church modelled themselves on secular princes; vestiges of the Pope as monarch remain. Many Christians reject that model today. How long before we manage to do the same for elder-as-executive?

24. Susan on 19 Mar 2008 at 1:19 pm #

    Perhaps leadership seminars are sought out by those seeking to be good leaders, when a better way to come at it is to consider what it is to be completely AVAILABLE to God to accomplish what HE purposes to do through me (not assuming that I know what that is). This is perhaps a more submissive and humble posture before God. The minute we seek leadership we are in a sense seeking position and influence….pride is often hiding around the corner. It was God who sought humble, insecure Moses to lead Israel. It was God who chose Saul…opposer of the gospel, to ultimately become the greatest proclaimer of it. God chose David the shepherd boy ……many examples in scripture.

    We can’t necessarily seek to have a great legacy either….it will be what it will be. Pride can creep into that way of thinking as well.
    I think that I get your drift about “legacy” however. I’ve been to a few funerals lately, which makes one think. I hope that at my funeral it will be reflected upon that I held the gospel in high regard, and proclaimed it boldly, inspiring others to do the same (not so that I’ll be thought of well, but that He will continue to accomplish His purposes through me). And I hope there’s an amazing preacher of the gospel to give my homily….and many nonbelievers present to hear it!… And of course that my children and others will carry the torch in my absence.

    I’m just wondering if focusing on the concept of AVAILABILITY to God might be a better way to frame the whole thing.
    ??? This is essentially what you and Michael touched on in #20.

25. Jesus As A Failed Leader « I Was Just Thinking… on 19 Mar 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    [...] As A Failed Leader This is a very interesting post on Jesus as a failed leader (but a very successful Savior) Let’s look at Jesus within the framework of this definition and [...]

26. Thomas Twitchell on 19 Mar 2008 at 3:42 pm #

    Poppycock!

    “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings…Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

    Jesus’ name is Archegos and Teleiotes. The first leader, chief prince and the finisher, perfector. What makes Jesus the perfect leader is that he goes first, does what he commands and gets to the place where he expects his followers to go, first. He is also honest. He tells his would be followers that they cannot follow. It is impossible for them, yet he commands them anyway. And, in the end he makes them to be what he has commanded that they should be. Of course this is impossible for an earthly leader, not being creators. Yet, the principles are still sound, found everywhere in Scripture.

    I was dismayed and amazed at the error, and though perhaps not intended, even heretical statements made by some in this thread:

    “someone actually figured out that he was on earth to die for everybody’s sins and the content of his teaching was pretty much expendable.”

    Really? This seems to fly in the face of the fact that Paul of all the apostles is chief expositor of the doctrines of Christ. It seems to fly in the face of the fact that the two on the road to Emmaus were instructed in all the OT, as it all had to do with Christ. Seems to me that his death is part of his teaching, hardly expendable, nor is it expendable that he did not come to die for everyone. But, for those who need an excuse for fornicate with his teaching, then his teaching is expendable.

    “Isn’t Jesus alive today? Granted, Not physically, but if Jesus is not alive today, then he was an evil leader, but a tremendous leader none-the-less.”

    Jesus is physically alive today. Was this just a mistatement? Because Jesus fulfilled prophecy perfectly, being raised from the dead physically, is forever the Son of Man. This is the promise of our resurrection, the redemption of our physical bodies. My hope is this was just a mistake, and not a serious belief.

    Ruth said-

    “We all know that, but we easily try to fix Jesus’ teachings or put the prefix servant in front of the word leadership. But the effort falls short.”

    What did Jesus say: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” It is not that people try to fix his title up. He is called Servant in Isaiah and also Lord, and in this John passage he makes himself servant-leader. To deny it is simply to deny Christ. Not only is servant-leadership the proper title it is the proper mode.

    “As for the leader, Jesus is executed in his early thirties. Not exactly a demonstration of leadership success.”

    Jesus came to do exactly what he did. Far from being an non-example of leadership success, this was the “triumph” having accomplished exactly what he said he would.

    “This model of leader/followers is hardly one that would serve today’s leadership seminars. Something is dramatically wrong with the picture. Plain and simple, Jesus was a failed
    leader—though it’s critical to point out that Jesus did not aspire to leadership.”

    Oh, yes he did. He declared himself as such. Now, if leadership training today included integrity they would more closely follow Jesus. For he taught what his purpose was and followed through regardless of who followed. That, again, is the true mark of a leader. That no one did follow and he still achieves his end, proves him the one true leader.

27. Thomas Twitchell on 19 Mar 2008 at 3:43 pm #

    “But Jesus has become the ultimate model for many christian leadership gurus today.”

    And so he should be, if only for the fact that it is not simply the principles he exuded, it is not simply that he ever failed, but more to the fact, that in every way HE fulfilled his Word.
    The principles of Scripture are sound, but they do not accomplish the end for which they are intended absent the one who spoke them. In fact, the Scripture curses those who would use the word of God to profit. The word of God is a strong tower. The righteous flee to it and are secure. But, to the wicked it is a snare and a trap.

    “Both the secular world and the Christian community have drifted far off course on the matter of leadership.”

    Who are you talking about? Those who call themselves christian and expoit the word for profit, like those of the social gospel cults, or fame like those who write books which use the terms but have no understanding of their meaning? Are there not legitimate leaders who are teaching proper principles of leadership as was mentioned in reference to Timothy?

    “#11 That Jesus has so many followers today is what I chalk up to his legacy.”

    Hmm… Well yes but no. There are those who follow because of who he was. Then there are those who follow because of who he is and the fact that he has chosen them to follow, not as a matter
    of legacy, but as the legacy of the gift of faith. So are you saying that his story is so well disseminated that people follow? Or, are you saying that his followers follow a myth? Just who or what is it they are following? Is there a distinction, and could that play to what is or is not true leadership?

    “#12 You’re right.”

    No. Christ’s chosen leadership fulfill all that they are sent to do. The true mark of true leadership.

    “Of course, Jesus could have been the greatest leader this world has ever known if he had so willed. Likewise, he could have been the greatest musician, the greatest carpenter, etc. But Jesus seems to condemn many concepts of current leadership philosophy by focusing on the poor, the weak, treasure in heaven, etc. His parables that were designed to stir curiosity and his sending out disciples as virtual beggars fly in the face of contemporary leadership concepts.”

    Wrong. He was and is the greatest leader the world has ever not known. The world does not know him, but only those to whom he has willed to reveal himself. No, he could not have been anything other than who he was. No he didn’t “seem” to do anything. He actually did what he did. He
    didn’t focus on the poor. Paul was not poor, Nicodemus was not poor, Joseph of Arimathea was not poor. In fact, Jesus himself would not have fit into the category that we consider poor. I would wonder then what you meant by weak. These two words are used as discriptors for all of mankind. So, I supposed this is just some social gospel gobbledygook nonsense statement. His parables were designed to be understood: “This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world,”

    but only by his disciples: ““To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” They were not meant to stir up anything. And again, he sent the disciples out in fulfillment of Scripture. Remember, as a prophet with his school of prophets, he was leading them exactly in the path that he was walking. That’s what it means to make disciples. It fulfills what was written. If a business man wants to complete business, then keeping with the philosophy and vision of the business, is merely prudence, do you not think?

28. Thomas Twitchell on 19 Mar 2008 at 3:49 pm #

    “I see the hand of God as a factor far more than someone’s stupid seminar. Leadership simply cannot be taught. Management skills yes, but not true “visionary” (I hate that term) leadership. (Let’s not get into the differences and debate on leadership vs. management.)”

    Well, half of this is true. But if Jesus didn’t run a seminar for three years then the Scripture is a fraud. You hate the term visionary, but Scripture says that without a vision the people

    perish. And visions can be taught, the Scripture is repleat with them being taught. Remember the parables, well how about the parable of the church as the bride? Leadership and management are taught in Scripture, so why not get into it… I mean the Scripture… and actually find out what it has to say about the business of leading the church?

29. Thomas Twitchell on 19 Mar 2008 at 3:54 pm #

    Sorry about that. If this response is too long, too Catholic, or too critically harsh just kill it.

    thanks

    tt

30. Lance on 19 Mar 2008 at 4:14 pm #

    #30: you are quoting Proverbs 29:18 from the KJV.
    (”Without vision, the people perish”).

    Many pastors today read 20th century marketing techniques into this verse, rather than study the original term for “vision,” which is not the same thing (and what’s interesting is that most of them would never think of preaching out of the KJV otherwise).

    Look up this verse in other English translations, and you will find better translations of the term, especially considering how it differs from the author’s intent.

    Here’s the footnote from the NET bible:
    The Hebrew word “vision” (from the verb חָזָה [khazah, “to see”]) refers to divine communication to prophets (as in 1 Sam 3:1) and not to individual goals or plans.

31. C Michael Patton on 19 Mar 2008 at 4:20 pm #

    Thomas, I think you misunderstood the post. She was not saying that Christ was not a servant, nor saying that he does not serve as our example, but that it is primarily the legacy that he left that we should seek to immulate.

32. Aaron on 19 Mar 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    “…it’s critical to point out that Jesus did not aspire to leadership.”

    I 100% disagree. The first thing Jesus says to his apostles is “Come, follow me.” That statement absolutely implies that Jesus was offering to be their leader. He cannot demand they follow him and at the same time not aspire to lead them. He did not say, “Come, lead me.” or even “Come, follow someone else.” he said, “Come, follow me.”

    Just like “The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers”, the only definition of a follower is someone who has a leader. Throughout Matthew alone there are 4 cases where Jesus asks to be followed. That is what a leader does, he asks to be followed, he offers to lead. To say that Jesus was not a leader is to say that the apostles were not followers. It is to deny the entire plot of the gospel narrative.

    “What occurred after Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances and after Pentecost are not directly part of his earthly “leadership.””

    Jesus’ resurrection was the verification of his earthly leadership. The disciples followed a man who claimed to be the Son of God and who demanded his followers deny themselves in order to follow him. He preached that he was bringing forth the kingdom of heaven. When he dies all those promises become lies. It makes perfect sense for the disciples to abandon him because while he is dead all his promises and earthly teachings have been reduced to a rotting corpse. Only when he is resurrected is his leadership authenticated. Only after he is risen can the apostles truly accept what he taught.

    For that period of time after the crucifixion before the resurrection, yes I will grant you that Jesus was a failed leader. Jesus’ corpse was like a military leader who never fought a battle, or a politician who never runs for election, or a usurper who never rebels. Leaders by nature have a purpose in mind. You can’t lead to nowhere, there must be a destination in sight. Jesus’ resurrection was the culmination of his entire leadership, it was the arriving at his destination.

    It’s like saying Napolean was a terrible leader because he lost at Waterloo, or Ghandi was a terrible leader because he left his country to become an English lawyer, or that Martin Luther King Jr. was a bad leader because he was thrown in jail and assassinated. You are simply choosing what parts of the story to tell to serve your own argument.

33. JoanieD on 19 Mar 2008 at 5:09 pm #

    In Dan Kimball’s Book, “They Like Jesus But Not the Church” Dan quotes the late Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson who said, “But historians of religion like to say that Christianity was born in the Middle East as a religion, moved to Greece and became a philosophy, journeyed to Rome and became a legal system, spread through Europe as a culture–and when it migrated to America, Christianity became big business.” I find that an interesting quotation.

    Do you think Jesus INTENDED for Christianity to become a religion? I think he intended to fulfill the Jewish scriptures which included dying, resurrecting, sending the Holy Spirit. I don’t know Greek so I don’t know if the word that gets translated as “church” in the gospels was also in the “Old Testament.” Even if Jesus talked about his church, does that mean he was starting a religion? Or is it more that Jesus was beginning the Kingdom of God on earth? Did his followers have to be part of a new religion? I think about these things.

    Joanie D.

34. C Michael Patton on 19 Mar 2008 at 5:22 pm #

    Aaron, I think she is just trying to redefine what it means to be a leader, separating it from the corperate-western mentality by focusing on legacy?

35. Aaron on 19 Mar 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    Michael,

    I understand her intent is to get a new perspective on leadership, but I read her main argument as a misrepresentation of the biblical story of Jesus. There must be another avenue of approach towards making her point than by portraying Jesus as a failed leader who didn’t aspire to lead. It’s also entirely possible that I have misunderstood her from my interpretation of this article. I’ll have to do some more research and get a greater understanding of her position.

36. Thomas Twitchell on 19 Mar 2008 at 6:15 pm #

    Lance-

    I did consider that. I considered also that the Scripture is a divine communication. I also considered that there is also this. Without knowledge the people perish. And I also considered that the principle still applies.

37. Thomas Twitchell on 19 Mar 2008 at 6:58 pm #

    chazah-to see, perceive, look, behold, prophesy, provide to see, behold to see as a seer in the ecstatic state
    to see, perceive with the intelligence to see (by experience)
    to provide

    The term has application, no?

    My point was simply that there is a practical application of visionary explanation, without which any enterprize is doomed to failure if it cannot be conveyed.

    CMP- but the point is that Jesus didn’t leave a legacy, he left commandments to be obeyed, not a mere example to be followed. The foot washing in particular is not about a legacy, but explicitly about servant leadership: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master…“Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great… shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant” These also go with it.

    I would whole heartily agree that this is counter-intuitive to modern corporate mentality. Still, the principles are founded in the commandments, and that being as Proverbs instructs that we purchase wisdom, and get her first of all, to become as harmless as doves, but as wise as serpents, to make friends with the unfriendly goods of the world which war against the things of the Spirit for this is were we must live.

    In Ruth’s thesis, if she is arguing against the abuse of the principles that is one thing, if it is against the principles that is quite another.

    Like Aaron…

38. koinoniaofgrace on 19 Mar 2008 at 7:02 pm #

    I’ve followed the commentary to Ms. Tucker’s article with a jaundiced eye. The all too common devolution of personalities once again presents itself.

    The disciples debated who would be the greatest and Peter asked, “What about him?” Jesus responded, “What is that to you?”

    Should anyone question the primacy and immediacy (which may or may not be contained in the comparison of leadership vs. legacy) of Christ Jesus, I would suggest a thoughtful re-read of His words to the seven churches in the last book of the NT.

    Thank you Ms. Tucker for your considered response,
    Dave

39. C Michael Patton on 19 Mar 2008 at 7:28 pm #

    Thomas,

    You said, “but the point is that Jesus didn’t leave a legacy, he left commandments to be obeyed, not a mere example to be followed.”

    Can you really separate the two?

40. Thomas Twitchell on 19 Mar 2008 at 8:50 pm #

    Yes I can.

    If what I am understanding Ruth to be saying is that a legacy is the story about someone, their accomplishment, et cetera, then that is quite different from Jesus. He doesn’t leave us with a story about him that we should try to emulate. But, commandments that we must keep. His example is encapsulated in his treatment of his bride. He lays down his life for her but she must work in his field. Which means that he does not do this thing because of the effect on them, per se, that is, meeting their needs. He does what he does because it is righteousness to do so. It is who he is. It is not profit/loss motivated, he is always victorious and we transcend being conquerors.

    How one might ask is this a good business principle. Our stewardship of the abundance of grace God gives is found in, “Each man should work with his hands so that he has to give to others.” The principle, our vocation is never us ward, but is to the glory of God. In doing good there is always benefit shared even with the stranger and sojourner, and always accountabillity to the law also for all who would feed upon him.

    As I said, this is quite different than the earthly paradigm where the reason for labor is accumulation, building of greater barns to store. The opposite is true of Scripture. Ecclesiastes speaks to us on this point. We work and leave it to others, there is no getting around it, all men die. What we are to do with what we’ve been given is summed up: The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

    Then, the perfecting of leadership skills for some will be the best good that they can do so that what they produce will be readily available for those who follow; whose labor is of a different kind. Yet each must work. But each has his gifts differing according to the gifting of the HS. We have been given teachers who by definition are leaders and their qualifications are different and their accountability also, accordingly. And the principle remains, and is sound business advice: “To hell with them if they don’t follow.”

41. abmo on 20 Mar 2008 at 2:34 am #

    Hi,

    I do not think Jesus was a leader. I think He wanted to be a friend. It took his disciples about three+ years to figure that out.

    Now the question for us is: “Do we follow our leader, or our Friend?”

42. JohnT3 on 20 Mar 2008 at 8:12 am #

    Let me add this to the discussion about Jesus Christ being a leader.

    He is Lord,
    He is King of Kings
    He is the Messiah
    He is God

    In that culture and time they understood these terms to be ones of leadership.

    So yes he was a leader and a friend. If you don’f consider him a leader you only have a partial picture or idea of who Jesus is.

43. Jesus as a Failed Leader? « Blogging With Poess on 20 Mar 2008 at 11:48 pm #

    [...] Jesus as a Failed Leader? Interesting Article. [...]

44. minnowspeaks on 21 Mar 2008 at 4:01 am #

    And all the time I thought Ruth Tucker’s point was that if Jesus (being fully who He is and doing what He does) went through our typical leadership training seminar (seminary, Bible college, ministry school) He’d flunk out which was a tongue in cheek slam at the seminar not at Jesus. Humm…

    Lance–#12 said: “Perhaps we don’t need better leaders; we just need better followers.” My first response was–ugh. more arrogant leadership stomping their feet and saying, “You aren’t following right.” But then I got to thinking maybe that’s what many emergers are saying only with a slightly different edge, “Hey, following Jesus instead of all those other guys might look a little different but it sure is easier on the brain.” Just a thought.

45. Ruth Tucker on 21 Mar 2008 at 7:41 am #

    I write this on the morning of Good Friday. It is a day in which we commemorate an end to the earthly pilgrimage (and all that entails) of Jesus–an ending that stands in diametric opposition to the profile of a leader. And I’m not referring only to the contemporary use of the term. Constantine was recognized as a leader in his day, so also Charlemagne, Pope Innocent III, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Pope John Paul II. For good or ill, they measure up to leadership standards. Jesus, on the other hand, exemplifies the Theology of the Cross (or Theology of Failure, as Michael Duncan has written). This is the opposite of a Theology of Triumphalism (see D.A. Carson, From Triumphalism to Maturity).

    Could Jesus—if the plan of God so prescribed—have become an earthly leader and established a kingdom that would overturn the Roman Empire? Of course. He did not. He died a shameful death—virtually abandoned—on a cross. It’s a totally upside-down and backwards story. It makes absolutely no sense in human terms. Jesus, our Savior and Lord, was a failed leader.

    Hebrews 12:2 says it all: Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

46. Truth Unites... and Divides on 21 Mar 2008 at 3:26 pm #

    Jesus was a wonderful servant-leader who was the unparalleled master of situational and transformational leadership.

    As Kenneth Boa writes:

    “Jesus chose 12 men and developed them into the church’s first leaders. Within a few short years from this event, he would delegate the continuance of his kingdom to them (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8).

    …

    Throughout Jesus’ ministry, it is difficult to detect a pattern in his behavior. Sometimes he heals people from a distance (John 4:46-53); sometimes he travels to see them (Luke 8:40-56). Sometimes he touches people (Mark 1:40-42); sometimes he spits on the ground and makes mud (John 9:6). Sometimes he runs away (John 6:14-15); sometimes he confronts (John 18:1-6). The one consistent theme is that we never know for sure how Jesus will act or react, but we can trust it will always be right for that specific situation.

    Even a casual study of the manner in which Jesus prepared the 12 apostles shows us how effectively he adapted his leadership activity to the realities of the situation. He instructed them when they were uninformed, directed them when they were confused, prodded them when they were reluctant, encouraged them when they were downhearted. When they were ready, he allotted them limited tasks and responsibilities and then participated with them, guiding them through their assignments. Finally, he empowered and commissioned them as his apostles.

    The Master Teacher shows us that effective leadership is situational. The leader’s whim or desire (even when that leader is Jesus) is not what drives intelligent action. Effectiveness in leadership is driven by what followers need. Jesus observed and understood what his followers needed, and he supplied it. He always interacted with them within the situation and responded appropriately to it. And within three years these obscure Galileans began to change the world.

    As we observe Jesus’ training of the 12 in the Gospels, we notice how consistently his actions were exactly appropriate to the situation. Jesus was very intentional about situational leadership. Leaders who can analyze a situation and adapt their leadership activity to address it can function as servant leaders and as transformational leaders, and they can profoundly affect the lives of their followers.”

    Excerpt from: http://www.kenboa.org/text_resources/free_articles/5387

47. dac on 21 Mar 2008 at 3:54 pm #

    If there was going to be an honest book on the Leadership truths of Jesus, it should be called:

    “Abandoned, Humiliated and Crucified - How YOUR
    Death will lead to Long Term Ministry Success”

    Somehow I don’t think there will be many takers on that

48. dac on 21 Mar 2008 at 3:57 pm #

    Although I wonder if this is a discussion where we are arguing over semantics to some extent

    on a (somewhat) unrelated point, Ruth - have you read Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome? I am reading it now and I think there are some parallels to your concept. If you have read it, what do you think?

49. Thomas Twitchell on 21 Mar 2008 at 5:10 pm #

    Thanks TUAD.

    Dac your point well taken.

    Ruth- just whose shame was it, His, or those who esteemed him sticken and forsaken? I think somewhere it says that he put them to an open shame. Seeing that he was accomplishing exactly what they “needed” and doing so was accomplished through the glorification of His Father, did he or did he not lead his people exactly where he told them they must follow him, that is the Cross, and do his people follow?

    Then he failed at nothing.

    As I said before, if what you mean is that in the eyes of the world he is a failure, so be it, who cares. But, he is above all the archegos, the Perfect Leader.

50. Ruth Tucker on 21 Mar 2008 at 8:37 pm #

    dac,

    No, I haven’t read Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome. I see it was just re-published 2 months ago. There are a number of books out there with similar themes and warnings, some of which I present in my 2006 book, “Left Behind in A Megachurch World.”

51. Minnowspeaks on 23 Mar 2008 at 5:47 pm #

    TU…&D–#46
    You’re scaring me–I actually agree with most of what you said.

    Jusus did/does what he was/is supposed to do. Sadly, many try to turn what He did into a 12-Step program. We simply have to have a formula–listening to the Spirit (prayer) is much too complicated/difficult. The wisdom of man is foolishness to God and visa versa.

52. Brian on 26 Mar 2008 at 2:31 pm #

    Is the leadership example of Jesus the
    same as the example of 21st-century,
    corporate-America secular leadership,
    which from what I can see is what tends
    to be peddled at these “leadership”
    seminars?

53. Phillip Ross on 26 Mar 2008 at 4:41 pm #

    Informal Christianity — Refining Christ’s Church
    http://www.pilgrim-platform.org

    First Edition, 134 pages, 2007.
    Informal Christianity reviews the personal and informal realities involved in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that provide the foundation of Christianity. It deals with personal discipleship, what it means to be born again, to live in regeneration through the Holy Spirit in a way that produces a genuine spiritual life in Christ. If spiritual discipline does not begin in one’s own heart, it doesn’t begin at all.

    While great effort is being poured into the administrative expansion of churches (church growth), the very heart of personal faithfulness is being ignored, denied, denigrated and trivialized by the very principles that have been adopted to generate such growth. The proper priorities and first things (Matthew 6:33) are giving way to the “wisdom of men” (1 Corinthians 2:5). Informal Christianity cuts through the trees that have become veritable logs in the eyes of contemporary Christians to reveal again the forest of faithfulness in which the life of Christianity dwells.

54. Alyssa B-D on 27 Mar 2008 at 12:58 pm #

    Ruth wrote:
    “It was not until I was teaching through the course a second time that I realized what a crock this whole topic is. It’s phony from beginning to end—especially as it relates to biblical models.”

    THAT is what I love about Ruth Tucker — your candor cracks me up!

    On the serious side (and I know I’m late for the bandwagon here — long story)I’ve been thinking a lot about influence and change. Can we really change people?

    I was hugely struck by the parable of the seed recently. So some of it falls on the rocks and we just… give up? No change of strategy, no running after them, no new outreach?

    This is a difficult line for me to see. We are sent to “make disciples of all nations” and yet Jesus seemed to not worry about how many followers He had at a given time, and He accepted that some people would just not accept the gospel. He didn’t seem to regard that as a personal failure.

    Interesting topic, as I’m involved in my third church plant right now and my parents have burned out of full-time ministry this year, wondering if they did any good.

55. Phillip Ross on 27 Mar 2008 at 3:05 pm #

    Alyssa,

    Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.
    John 6:59-71

56. Weekend Reading « The Blog Prophet on 04 Apr 2008 at 6:29 am #

    [...] Acknowledging Jesus as a Failed Leader (Gasp! What? Heresy!) “Legacy is what matters. Obviously no one will every match Jesus in the realm of legacy. But as we contemplate our pilgrimage in life, we must get over the self-serving concept of leadership and set our hearts and minds on legacy.” [...]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail