Urban Leadership Development Is Representation

[Don Davis]

As time goes on, I am concerned about the kind of leadership development that trains leaders outside of the context of a tradition. By "tradition" I do not necessarily mean denomination or historical church movement, but a coherent, answerable community where authorized leaders are charged with serving a Christ-centered community. By this definition, it could be an individual congregation, a network of associations, all the way up to a denomination. Yet, it seems in a lot of leadership development discussions, whether or not a leader is grounded in a community is neither relevant or even asked.

In my judgment, leadership is representation. As a leader in World Impact, I am answerable to the conviction, vision, and commitment to the World Impact Christian community of which I am a part. I would define representation as "being selected to stand in the place of another, and thereby fulfill the assigned duties, exercise the rights and serve as deputy for, as well as to speak and act with another’s authority on behalf of their interests and reputation.”

As a concept, it seems to me that all forms of Christian leadership are forms of representation. In Scripture, an apostle is called "apostolos" (apostle): “one who is sent out by another,” cf. Acts 1.2, 26; 6.2; 8.1; 14.4, 14; cf. 1 Cor. 12.28-29. Evanggelistes (an evangelist) is “someone who brings good news, to make known a word to others that s/he has been given Acts 21.8; Eph. 4.11; 2 Tim. 4.5. A herald (keryx) “denotes the person who is commissioned by his ruler or the state to call out with a clear voice some item of news and so to make it known” (David Bennett, Metaphors of Ministry, p.135); cf. 1 Tim. 2.7; 2 Tim. 1.11. The other terms in Scripture for leaders, including ambassador, servant, bondslave, etc. all carry the conotation of a leader not representing himself or herself, but a duly constituted Other who has called them into service.

I think all urban Christian leadership development must begin, therefore, not with the person but with the authorizing congregation or community. A leader is a follower in a community, and if we want to train leaders and not mavericks we are going to have to give more time to helping identify the communities that our leadership trainees represent. This is precisely why we here at TUMI do not train individuals who cannot verify their place, standing, and role in a Christian church community. We refuse to define leadership as self-improvement; leadership development, in essence, is a form of stewardship under another's appointment.

How can we impact our current leadership development efforts for urban Christian leaders by highlighting and emphasizing leadership as representation? Do we have this right?

[Terry Cornett]

Don, I believe that your ability to articulate the concept of "leadership as representation" is a great gift not only to WI but also to the whole church.

I have often reflected on Philip's ministry to the Samaritans in light of this concept. Philip's preaching there resulted in conversions, miracles, exorcisms, and water baptisms (Acts 8:4-8, 12).

In the midst of this remarkable success, something interesting happens: (Acts 8:14-17) "14Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit."

This passage has been the subject of much heated debate, controversy, and convoluted exegesis concerning "baptism in the Holy Spirit." Whatever one is to make of that aspect of the passage, the clearer point seems to me that Philip's ministry is conceived of in this story entirely in terms of representation. Even under conditions of spectacular success, Philip's ministry needs oversight, confirmation, and incorporation because he is not acting on his own but as a representative of the whole church and in particular of the "apostolic leadership" of the church. The idea that somehow God was simply "doing a great work" through Philip is foreign to the sensibilities of the author. Instead mission takes place in the context of representation and accountability and even profound spiritual realities (the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit) are in some way linked to that fact.

[Jason Phelps]

if we want to train leaders and not mavericks we are going to have to give more time to helping identify the communities that our leadership trainees represent.

What does "helping identify the communties that our leadership trainees represent" mean? or entail?

Is it simply a pastoral reference form? Or is it having a "tradition" to formally bring them in to? (Either ours, one that's being assembled, or one that we know of) It seems much easier to stress our own tradition, and disciple leaders within that tradition, then mess around with others. Side note.

If we can identify them (the communites/tradition), is it enough to define leadership within the context of representation? Or are you advocating in some fashion, leadership training for the community/tradition?

I believe that leadeship is vital to see as representation. Especially within the context of the Church. Leadership has become so isolated to the individual, i.e. I lead - others follow, and my name is who I represent. I do not think that this is the correct understanding of leadership, or the Biblical understanding of leadership.

First, I would define the above interpretation as influence, not leadership. This attitude can have successful results, huge results. However, I would hypothesize and argue that they would not be lasting results, or lasting, positive, and/or sustainable results.

Second, besides the examples that you and Terry gave, which are really insightful. I tried to think of examples of people that started a tradition, and if you're a founder what or whom do you represent? I thought of Moses, who once he accepted the call of leader, never confused his own name for that of the Lord's. In other words, I don't think he ever represented himself - if he thought that way he would have been crushed pretty quickly.

Also, I was thinking about the kings of Israel and Judah, and in my opinion, those who understood their position/leadership to be in context of representation; representing God and the people - they were good kings. Those who understood their name to be the buisness card, not simply on it, were not good kings.

If we want to see the ultimate fulfillment of leadership as representation, it would be in the person of Jesus Christ. John 1.14-18, tell us that Jesus reveals the very person of God:

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth... 18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Even Jesus did not seek to elevate his name, that is for the One he represents to do (Phil 2.8-11).

Christ perfected the faulty leadership of the OT, and gives us the pen-ultimate example in the NT, one of perfect representation.
Completely seperate question: [I just learned about typology, does this qualify? Or is it just simply a picture? If you guys could give me a little coaching - you can do a private message if you want]

So, I guess I would say to your last question Don; "Do we have this right?" I don't know if I think of it as a right anymore - rather it's our responsibility. Especially, if we want dynamic spiritual leadership.

[Don Davis]

What does "helping identify the communties that our leadership trainees represent" mean? or entail?

Is it simply a pastoral reference form? Or is it having a "tradition" to formally bring them in to? (Either ours, one that's being assembled, or one that we know of) It seems much easier to stress our own tradition, and disciple leaders within that tradition, then mess around with others. Side note.

If we can identify them (the communites/tradition), is it enough to define leadership within the context of representation? Or are you advocating in some fashion, leadership training for the community/tradition?

I loved your examples of the kings of Israel, Moses, and ultimately Jesus as the heart of all "leadership as representation" models of oversight. Simply stated, leaders do not find their credential and validation in themselves per se. No leader can claim authority who is not authorized, validated, underwritten, and recognized. Communities follow their leaders, or more poignantly said, they obey the leaders they have authorized. This is why leaders cannot make followers follow them Of course, a gun to the head can motivate others to act, but voluntary submission must be rooted in the perception that "this person represents me, what I stand for, and those to whom I belong."

This could be why there is so much schism and heresy in Protestant sectarianism; many so-called leaders have authorized themselves. Based on their own self-validation, they assert that God has called them to act in his name. They belong to no community, have submitted to no authority, and recognize themselves alone as ultimate determiner of their legitimacy. I believe that this kind of "leadership" is not only unbiblical, it is also highly unedifying. It is destructive, abusive, and leads to splintering and disunity.

What I trust is that we can find a way to help identify leaders who have been dug out of a quarry of authentic Christian faith and practice, and who through faithful submission to officially recognized leaders have earned the right to be equipped for ministry.

We do not aid urban candidates for leadership by looking at them alone. We must see them vis-a-vis their grounding and rootedness in a community which has experienced their service and potential.

Much is at stake in defining this question, especially for urban church planting and ministry.

Don

[Andrew Lee]

I have read the threads on this topic a few times as I have been challenged in the idea of Leadership as Representation and have been contemplating what that looks like and what that does not look like. I especially am intriged by the idea of representation going "both ways", a leader both representing his/her authority as well as those he/she is leading.

I do have some thoughts that I am sorting through and will post them once I get them more organized, but in the meantime, I am interested to know if there are any other resources out there (books, lectures, etc...) that explores the idea of leadership as representation.

As I think back to the books that I have read over the years on leadership, some of them imply representation without saying it. I was curious to know if there was anything specific to representation as a crucial aspect of leadership.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.