11 February 2026

The Ai Train is leaving the station. Do we get on board?

Picture this. You are on a crowded platform at Central station waiting for an inbound train with an unknown destination - even the driver doesn't know where it's ultimately headed. You're at the station because you've been hearing for some time that a new train is going to a wonderful place and absolutely everyone will want to, indeed need to go there eventually. The FOMO has overloaded both your senses and the platform with eager travellers - even though you have heard one or two rumours that the train still had some technical issues to iron out.

You assumed the train was still a long way off and you'd have time to ask around,  find out where the train is really headed. Then all of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere,  the  train arrives - a gleaming sleek marvel of technology met by "oohs and aahs" from excited onlookers holding up their phones to take selfies and live-stream the advent of this futuristic machine. The doors glide open and the mesmerised crowd begin pushing and shuffling their way onboard hopeful and anxious to secure their seat on this journey of a lifetime. 

But you hesitate. Some tiny alarm bell sounds in your soul, still unclear where this train is taking you and if you want to get on board. Your thoughts race - "perhaps it is headed for some utopian dream destination, surely it must be? Or then again, is this the train to some dystopian nightmare or will it derail somewhere along the way and plummet down a cliff killing everyone onboard!" You panic and freeze as the crowd happily shuffles around you. "C'mon mate", one man says, "you don't want to be left behind do you?" 

Maybe you do? Or maybe you are just being overly dramatic?

A train conductor leans out the carriage door and looks at you with a reassuring beckoning saying "keep up or miss out young man." But that makes you more suspicious because he works for the train so you suspect he is benefiting more by getting you on the train than leaving you at the station. 

You don't want to get on, but everyone else is and you don't want to be left behind either. You hear a familiar voice behind you, it's your boss. Is he getting on the train too? "If you want a job young man, you better join me. If you stay behind you won't be much use to the company anymore." 

Your anxiety turns to panic.

So what choice do you have? Let the train depart without you and bear untold social and economic consequences?  Or follow the crowd, put your faith in the conductors, and pray that the destination will be worth the risk? 

_______________________________________


I feel like this will be the defining choice of our world in the next few years - only it won't be a choice because the Ai revolution is already inevitable. It feels as though, to coin a phrase from the Borg in Star Trek - "resistance is futile." Perhaps the only real choice is what kind of revolution it will be and how will we embrace it without betraying our humanity and life as we know it?

This dilemma has been faced by people throughout the ages. New technologies are introduced, some are early adopters and others resist - sometimes for fear of change, but not always. Sometimes that resistance is out of concern for what the innovation might do to virtue, vocation, and life as they know it. For example; 

  • Some monastic communities of the 6th-12th C resisted mechanical aids like water-powered mills because manual labour was seen as spiritually formative; efficiency threatened not productivity, but discipline, humility, and prayerful dependence.
  • And between the 12th–15th centuries medieval craft guilds routinely restricted new tools and production methods, not because they hated innovation, but because unchecked efficiency threatened skilled labour, social stability, and the dignity of the craft. 
  • In the 17th century, despite early mastery of gunpowder weapons, Japan’s Tokugawa shogunate intentionally limited firearm usage and foreign technologies to preserve social order and moral hierarchy, choosing cultural stability, and the art of swordplay over technological superiority.
  • More recently in the early 19th.C, the Luddites in England, who were skilled textile workers, sabotaged mechanised looms that threatened their livelihoods. They weren’t anti-technology in principle, but they opposed how industrial technology was deployed—without protections for workers. Many of those Luddites would become guests of the British penal system, transported to Australia for life. One notable example was John Slater, a notorious Luddite, who arrived in Sydney in 1818 after being sentenced to life for his role in a 1817 factory raid. And their name, Luddite, would become synonymous with techno resistance without due consideration of the consequences.
Long before Ai, societies recognised that tools are never neutral—they form us, reorder loves, and quietly reshape what we call ‘the good life.’ And perhaps in our time, reshape what it means to be human at all.

I think I can safely say I am no luddite or technophobe,  nor is the majority of my generation (GenX). We've straddled the analogue and digital worlds quite well. I'm old enough to remember when:

  • the contact list was a Teledex by the bed and a mobile phone was a landline with a really long cord.
  • car windows had winders, seatbelts were optional and the only way to navigate was maps on your lap.
  • the tv remote was my big toe and 5 channels was just fine.  
  • Thunderbirds at 5am on Saturdays, and Hogan's Heroes or Gilligan's Island after school were essential viewing -  but after that, you had trees to climb and streets to ride. 
  • your playlist was a  mixtape pirated off the radio,  your Sony walkman needed 4 xAAs and Betamax was still an option at the video store. 
  • everyone wanted a Commodore 64, when floppy disks shrank from 5 inches to 3 inches and we first heard the sound of a dial up modem. 
  • scanning the trading post every fortnight was exciting as was getting physical letters in the mailbox from grandparents or pen friends. 
  • you almost never took photos of yourself, and the only way to see them was to get the rolls processed at the local Kodak  film shop when you got home.
  • my mum told me to keep my distance from that new appliance in the kitchen that might be radioactive...the microwave. And "worth a google" was that prized set of Encyclopedias  displayed in the good room and the yellow pages in the kitchen.

I'm so thankful for these comical memories because they remind me that an analogue life worked quite well. It was a time when life was less instant, anxious and distracted, less polarised and entitled. A time when you would get bored, where you had to be patient, where knowledge never came without a price and you didn't have to keep asking yourself, "is this real or fake?" This is a perspective I know my genZ kids sadly can't know. They are "digital natives" and I'm clearly a digital immigrant. 

We GenXers grew up in a wide eyed, Star Trek generation where Man had already walked on the moon and everything new was embraced as one more giant leap for mankind toward a better future.  And as I reflect on all those small incremental changes, they've all felt as though the were offering some benevolent service to the human race. (Perhaps that's why for the past 15 years we've all been so willing to give away the valuable personal data of every minute part of our lives to a machine that never forgets it and creates algorithms from it - in exchange for funny cat videos, social media, shopping and google maps).

But up until very recently, I've never felt afraid of the next big thing because whatever that was, it was probably going to make life better or easier. And for the most part it has, till now. 

Let's be clear, the Ai revolution is nothing like anything that has come before. It is not one more incremental shift to make life easier - it will permanently redefine life as we know it. I am now genuinely worried that techno-utopia is more anti-Christ than anti-dote to the problems of the world. Yes of course, Ai will offer some wonderful outcomes for humanity, perhaps even solving some big problems. And techno humanists would have us believe Ai will solve the biggest problem of them all -  death itself. Wow look at us go!

But for how long? Elon Musk in recent 60minutes interview believes that Ai and robotics are our only hope for keeping the globe out of economic bankruptcy. But when asked about the future of work, admits he doesn't like dwelling on the high probability of a future where any kind of repeatable mental labour (this has started already) and eventually any kind of physical labour (when robotics become mass market) - will have minimal need for humans. Humans will all be redundant - surgeons, lawyers, bankers, accountants, consultants, managers, journalists etc and one day even truck drivers and tradies will struggle to compete with driverless trucks and 3d printed homes.

And this isn't just Elon being Elon. If you read the mission statement of Sam Altman's OpenAi (makers of ChatGPT) it says "OpenAI's mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) - by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work - benefits all of humanity."

How can this logic actually "benefit all of humanity?" How can a global economy function if half of its workforce has been superseded  - not by cheaper labour in a developing nation, but by Agentic Ai or robotaxis (both here now) or Tesla Optimus robots (coming very soon)? The deep lie here is that the good life is a life without toil. But what if we need to toil? Work is not a curse on humanity, it is integral to humanity and our collective flourishing. 

And will there be a tipping point sometime all of a sudden where AGI, self reproducing humanoid robots and quantum computing converge in a way that may make homo-sapiens more akin to the way we view primates now - cute, endangered, exhibits in a zoo - surpassed in every way by a far more advanced species, only this time, of our own making?*  

It's like raising a grizzly bear cub in your home. At first its all cute, cuddly and fun to play with (like ChatGPT & GROK). But when it grows up, you have to hope that it doesn't  become an untameable beast who looks at you the same way - fun to play with, or eat!

____________________________________

My point is, that this is not about incremental changes in technology which we can  decide to take or leave. The difference this time is that we may be handing over our sovereignty as a species.

Human history is a record of conflict and competition. Yet despite our prideful scrambling for perceived superiority over others, we've somehow collectively maintained limits to that impulse in the belief that an equilibrium of competing desires must eventually be reached. We've come together to end conflict, we've established agreements around trade, human rights, anti-slavery, nuclear-non proliferation, around chemical warfare and environmental protection and so on. Covid exemplified our desire to bring a global response to a global problem.  Solidarity and cooperation is our greatest weapon against self destruction. Humans for the most part honour the dignity of human life. We fight but we also love peace. We hate but we also heal. We've always  guarded our agency and desire  to return to some equilibrium of life together. 

But what if humans were no longer the apex species? What happens when we can't just pull the plug out of the wall and delete the program? What happens when the AGI no longer needs human programmers, resists human interventions and writes its own ethics? You can kill a virus like covid but what if we are creating a future in which, to AGI, we become the virus. 

I know this is sounding all very Matrixy but even if there was a 10% probability of such and outcome, would we take the risk?

____________________________________

So back to the train analogy. What do we do? Do become neo-luddites, exit the platform and flee to Tasmania (sorry Tasmanians). Or do we just get on board with the Ai revolution and let it take us to whatever trans-human fate that awaits?

The truth is, I really don't know. It feels like the titans of Ai are evangelical about the upside and ambiguous about the shadow side - and us mere mortals are simply following blindly. 

I'm writing this from that space on the train platform, in anxious indecision and theological caution. Not to solve it but to express it, to remember life as it was, to mark a time stamp of life before the "Ai revolution" deletes me, and my future self has to say to my current self "I told you so." 

As I said earlier, our choice is not whether the Ai revolution happens - it already has. The only real choice is what kind of revolution it will be, will there be any guard rails at all, and how will we embrace it without betraying our humanity and life as we know it? 

And who will influence that outcome? And will Christians be as indifferent as the rest of the population? Will we be mute on what might become the mother of all issues in human history? I hope not. Feeling neither responsible nor powerful to do anything would be to believe a lie.

Where might we begin? Perhaps just make a choice to sincerely engage with the news and commentary already available and become vocal in the public domain (see resource links below).  And lets all agree....

RESISTANCE IS NOT FUTILE

In one of my favourite sci-fi films of all time, Christopher Nolan's, Interstellar,  Dylan Thomas's poem offers a sobering refrain both to the fight for our humanity and against the enemy of death. 

Perhaps it's to be our refrain too.  

DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT

RAGE, RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT. 



Resources to explore:

Read

  • ISCAST - Christianity and Science in Conversation website here 
  • Yuval Noah Harari's book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow
  • Catholic discourse on the subject here
Listen
Watch
  • Praxis' discussion on Redemptive Ai here 
  • *Go (re)watch Pierre Boulle's The Planet of the Apes series and think about what it says about the nature of humanity and the fate of whoever has dominion. 

27 January 2026

A safer Church - what we must learn from the Bolz-Bethel bombshell?

It’s embarrassing to write about massive leadership failures in the church because we all expect Christian leaders to be better than that, and because we all know we all aren’t.

Speaking as one of those leaders, it’s not just that we make mistakes or have more to learn, it’s that we also are broken sinful people in constant need of grace and transformation. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put so well, “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart - and through all human hearts.” (The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956).

We know this. We know the flaws in our hearts and the planks in our eyes. We hear the words of Jesus’ to the pharisees in John 8.8 to the woman they dragged before him “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” We don’t want to be the whistleblowers or stone throwers, but if we were, the truth is, we’d be throwing them at ourselves. We get torn between our own failings and calling out those in others. And yet, silence is even more problematic.

This past Sunday Kris Vallotton, Bill Johnson and Dann Farrelly, some of the most familiar and influential leaders in the global charismatic movement finally stood before their church, and a global streaming audience to acknowledge both the grievous misconduct of Shawn Bolz, and confess their own failure as church leaders in calling it out (you can check it out by watching the YouTube recording of their Sunday service on Sunday January 25th here).

I say finally because the evidence compiled by Mike Winger (https://www.youtube.com/@MikeWinger) is irrefutable that Bolz was not only a fraud but Bethel leadership, the people who arguably gave Bolz a global platform, had known of allegations against Bolz since 2019, which they investigated and verified, but then not only failed to discredit him publicly in the past 6 years, but even on occasion continued to publicly endorse him. 

This was not an issue of ignorance but of negligence.

Kris Vallotton, expressed how he failed in his responsibility to protect victims of Bolz because “I struggled with what is our responsibility.” After all says Vallotton, “he (Shawn) was on many platforms, we weren’t on his board, and we went to his board on a couple of occasions, and they did nothing. And I wasn’t thinking of it like I was thinking of a staff member….if that happens on our staff that’s not going to go.” So Vallotton’s fresh realisation is that the responsibility for the church leader doesn’t end in the church carpark. 

He now recognises, “We put him on a global platform and as soon as we did that, other people believed in him because we believed in him and consequently when he failed and then failed to repent after giving him time to repent, it was our responsibility to tell the people that we told to trust this man to tell them we don’t trust this man…… and that didn’t happen and that’s on me and I made that decision.”

Bolz has a long list of allegations against him which are not my focus here. His, are sins of commission – intentional, premeditated actions that were blatantly fraudulent and harmful. But Kris and Bill rightly point out that their sin is that which is far more ubiquitous – negligence, the sin of omission. It’s what they did not do – which was to protect the vulnerable and champion truth. Vallotton admitted he not only didn’t do this publicly, but stonewalled individual victims who had previously come to him for help. 

As James 4.17 says “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.”

Kris also acknowledged that his apology to the church was years too late and may not have ever happened if not for the work of whistleblowers like Mike Winger. Kris points this out in his apology saying “and by the way it’s so sad that somebody (Mike Winger) has to put out a video, that creates a firestorm to get someone who is 70 years old to do something…that’s an inditement against my leadership. I should have known better and if I didn’t know better I should have went and got counsel and I didn’t do that and I’m very sorry. I take full responsibility for that.. I’m very sorry.”

Bill Johnson’s apology was more personal, admitting he was “blinded by loyalty and friendship (with Bolz)” such that he did not believe the allegations or the issues to be addressed. That “believing in people” when they don’t deserve it can move into “unsanctified mercy.” And as a result, Bill Johnson, the most senior leader of the church, slowed or even stalled the process which might have brought Bolz to account.

I’m glad that the truth is out there and that Bill and Kris have publicly owned their mishandling of the truth and insensitivity to the victims. They know they screwed up and I felt like they were both sincere and repentant. But as Kris rightly pointed out, sorry is not enough. What must come from this is a “shift in cultural values on safety and security of people.” For Bethel, the opportunity now is to identify and shift the systemic and cultural issues that got them here.

I'm sure plenty of people will offer their own judgements over the coming weeks as this news spreads. I will say that Bill and Kris' leadership negligence reflects badly on the whole church and will harm some who deeply trusted Bethel. But what they do next is really critical, and we need to give them and their leadership time to work that out, hopefully with independent external advisors. This is not a quick fix.

So as I process this news today, I'm pondering what all church leaders must learn, or be reminded of from this tragedy? To keep it short, here are just a few of my initial reflections as a leader about making Churches genuinely safer. And I say safer, because you  can never get it all right nor you can mitigate 100% of the risk. But you can be way wiser and more prepared to keep people in your care safe:
  1. The priority of safety is not optional or tangental to gospel work.
  2. Cultural values of accountability, transparency and truth telling are essential for a safer church. Without them conflicts go unresolved, people remain hurt and the wrong people get empowered.
  3. Wanting to be Spirit led doesn't mean you can't also be informed by good policies and procedures.
  4. Safe church policies and processes don’t fix a culture but they undergird the one you want to build. 
  5. Good policies and processes are useless if leaders don't endorse  and apply them in practice.
  6. When something goes wrong, trust the process and stick to it. But if you don't have a process in place you make the problem exponentially more complex to begin with as you try and play catch up on how you will manage it. 
  7. Healthy, effective church governance  empowers church leaders to respond well to incidents. When your governance is unskilled or disorganised, your church and all its people are far more vulnerable.
  8. Dual relationships in leadership (like friend and pastor,  friend and employee, pastor and spouse) are inevitable but create probable conflicts of interest that must be acknowledged and managed. Affection and accountability must coexist without compromising the other cultural values.
  9. Showing compassion, grace, or a desire to restore doesn't negate accountability, confession, repentance and disciplinary consequences, even disqualification from particular ministry. 
  10. Where possible don't be the point person in disciplinary action, delegate that to an independent team so you can retain a role with all parties. An outside independent team can eliminate bias and subjectivity in the process so the outcome or decision is more just.
  11. Only give people a voice in your context who you can personally vouch for. Character must always trump gifting and if you don't know someone personally, do your homework, seek references from their home church or others you trust within their movement.  And if you can't find that, simply don't host them.
  12. Being a wonderful wise older leader doesn't necessarily make you a competent leader in todays complex Church environment. Times have changed with or without you. Keep learning and as Kris said, when you don't know, seek advice, augment your leadership with skilled others or professional  consultants. And if you won't do that then maybe its time to transition out of your role!
  13. Avoiding confrontation or conflict in the hope that time will fix it is foolhardy. All you are doing is giving opportunity for even more harm to accrue. If you don't know how to address it, again, seek the counsel of scripture (eg Matthew 18:15-20),  or engage an organisation like PeaceWise to help you work it through.
  14. When you are overwhelmed or burning out (as it appears Kris was in 2019), admit it and bring independent help to deal with major pastoral matters. You do this for the sake of those involved, your own mental health and those you love. 
  15. Finally this is why church leaders all need professional supervisors (at least in Australia). These are trained people  outside your system, able to ask good questions, enable you to safely process your inner life and work life, and offer wise counsel or a pathway through. If you are reading this and don't have a supervisor/coach/mentor, no matter your age in pastoral ministry, engage one this year! Reach out to me at Partners in Ministry if you like and I can help source you a qualified multi-modal supervisor (Australia and NZ).
Caveat to all these thoughts, some of them I learned late, after I went through a pastoral crisis in my own context, and others I only wish I implemented better. These are all hard, but the alternative, as we have seen with Bethel, is certainly harder. 

On the bright side, this crisis at Bethel can be redemptive if it catalyses deep cultural change. God can use it to bring reformation to dysfunctional theology, culture and systems and hope to the body of Christ. 

I hope the apology truly was the beginning of so much more.

20 January 2026

7 reasons why Church Leadership is it's own thing.


I recently quizzed ChatGPT on how many leadership books have been published in the past 50 years. Its answer was essentially a shoulder shrug and: “Nobody really knows,” followed by an estimate of “many hundreds of thousands” of books and articles. It never ceases to amaze me how this genre never seems to run out of things to say. The leadership onion has endless layers—and plenty of tears.

In my doctoral research, I was specifically exploring the overlaps and distinctions between generic leadership theory and Christian leadership. What quickly became clear is that there has been significant cross-pollination. Popular leadership theory has deeply influenced Christian leadership—its language, frameworks, corporatised principles, and culture. At the same time, Christian and biblical ideas have influenced popular leadership discourse, particularly around servant leadership, ethics, power, and workplace spirituality.

Good leadership practice applies in any context. And yet, I am convinced that Christian leadership—and specifically church leadership—is far more layered and nuanced. It is a particular kind of leadership exercised in a particular kind of community under particular theological and spiritual conditions. As such it deserves its own space within the leadership conversation.

Here are seven reasons why I think church leadership warrants being a distinct field of learning and practice.

1. The Bible is the authoritative pretext
For church leaders, the biblical text is not merely inspirational; it is the authoritative pretext for the church leadership context. Church leadership rests on, and works from, a biblically derived worldview shaped by Scripture’s grand narrative and exemplars—especially Jesus.

The Bible locates leaders within God’s story, grounding their identity in Christ and framing leadership within God’s creational and redemptive purposes. Scripture functions as a theocentric reference point for how leaders lead and where, in principle, they lead others. As Paul reminds Timothy:“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16–17).

At the same time, Scripture is both unifying and complex. Church leaders must navigate theological diversity, hermeneutical disagreement, and contested convictions. Which doctrines are non-negotiable? Where can tensions be held? When must a leader be prophetic, and when diplomatic?

CEOs operate under constitutions and policy manuals. Church leaders are accountable to all of those—and the Bible, a transcendent authority that both guides and constrains leadership practice.

2. Authority Is Always Delegated
Robert Clinton writes,“A Christian leader is a person with God-given capacity and God-given responsibility to influence a specific group of God’s people toward His purposes for the group.”1

At the heart of this definition is delegation. Church leaders do not self-authorise; they lead as God’s delegates. Their authority is derivative, rooted in calling, gifting, and communal discernment. Leadership flows from abiding in Christ—the true Vine (John 15)—and fruitfulness emerges from that dependence.

While human processes appoint leaders, church leadership is more calling than career. Without an ongoing personal and communal sense of God’s endorsement, authority collapses into mere positional power (remember King Saul?)

Generic leadership theory assumes authority is conferred primarily through role, expertise, or performance. Church leadership by contrast understands authority as entrusted, contingent, and answerable beyond the organisation itself. Church leaders therefore live in a precarious space—held between divine calling and human recognition.

3. Leaders must embody their message
The implications of the first two points are unavoidable: church leaders must practise what they preach. Ethics matter in every leadership role. But in most professions, private life and professional competence are largely separable. In church leadership, they are not. Personal and public life are assumed to be integrated. The leader must embody, however imperfectly, their message.

Embodiment is vital in church leadership not simply for ethical reasons but because the spiritual formation  of those they lead (fundamental to the role) occurs to some extent through proximity to the leader. Leaders shape communities not only by what they design,  or present from platforms, but by who they are becoming in plain sight. This means that church leaders are always discipling, even when they are unaware of it. Their prayer life, emotional regulation, conflict posture, Sabbath practices, humility, and repentance all quietly catechise the community. 

The way a leader embodies Scripture in the totality of life will be scrutinised by those they lead. Small inconsistencies may be overlooked; major ones will not. Character ultimately trumps competence, and when character fails, a sacred trust is often shattered. Recent examples—such as Philip Yancey’s public confession and withdrawal from ministry—remind us that even deeply respected leaders are neither immune from the temptation of dis-integrated living, nor protected from its consequences.


Embodiment is not only about moral restraint or formation; it is also about love. Church leaders are not managing clients but shepherding a community that often functions as family. The church is more organism than organisation. This requires vulnerability, relational presence, grace, and forbearance. Where secular leadership can remain professional and detached, church leadership demands personal, costly love.

Generic leadership theory permits functional separation between role and self. Church leadership assumes congruence between message, life, and leadership.

4. Power management is crucial
Barbara Kellerman in her book The End of Leadership distinguishes between power, authority, and influence—power as force, authority as position, and influence as relational persuasion.2 It is a helpful framework, yet in practice all leadership involves power in various forms.

Church leadership, however, carries a uniquely potent form: spiritual power. A leader’s influence is often amplified by perceived divine authority because, “This leader is called by God.” This significantly increases vulnerability in both the leader and those they lead. In religious contexts, far more is at stake: faith, belonging, righteousness, community, and even eternal destiny.

As Graham Hill notes in his recent reflection on Philip Yancey,"when a Christian leader with a significant platform and influence enters into a sexual relationship with someone in their ministry orbit, the power dynamics make genuine consent impossible. This is always an abuse of power....a consensual affair is a misnomer."3 Downplaying power does not neutralise it—it intensifies harm. Church leaders therefore carry an elevated responsibility to recognise, name, and steward their power carefully.

In contrast, generic leadership theory often treats power as neutral or instrumental. Church leadership must reckon with power as spiritually amplified and ethically inseparable.

5. Effectiveness and success are harder to define
Every church leader wants to be effective—but effective by whose definition? Church leadership lives in tension between objective and subjective measures of success. Quantitative metrics like attendance, giving, baptisms matter. But so do qualitative realities: spiritual maturity, relational health, emotional depth, and communal integrity.

Numbers may indicate attraction, but not necessarily a measure of health and rarely a measure of transformation. Inner change resists quantification, yet it becomes visible through stories, patterns, and long-term fruit.

Generic leadership theory privileges measurable outcomes and performance indicators. Church leadership must hold formation, faithfulness, and fruitfulness together. Thes leaders must lead without the comfort of clear dashboards. Wisdom and discernment matter more than targets alone.

6. Exponential complexity and role fluidity
Church leaders operate in an exponentially complex environment. Their work is layered with personal, pastoral, organisational, legal, cultural, inter-generational, and existential demands.

Communities are voluntarily engaged. Resources are fragile. Churches carry the same regulatory, governance, and financial responsibilities as secular entities—often with fewer supports. And in the midst of this, leaders are expected to be preacher, pastor, strategist, manager, counsellor, and visionary.

As Darren Nelson in a recent Substack writes:"Pastors expecting to drop a new 30-50 minute monologue every 7 days that’s engaging, insightful, funny, accurate, deep, rich, thought-provoking, faith-inspiring, and unpacks the gospel in a way that’s helpful for long-time believers and new visitors—while not neglecting counselling, leadership development, budget decisions, care calls, 15 unexpected tasks during the week, and being a godly husband and dad—is a particular kind of crazy."4

He is not exaggerating. Church leadership requires constant hat-switching and sustained emotional labour. It is ultimately impossible for one person to do well alone. Where generic leadership theory assumes role clarity and bounded responsibility, Church leadership is marked by role fluidity and overlapping expectations.

7. An “Anti-Professional” Profession
John Piper described pastoral ministry as an “anti-professional” profession. In his 2013 book Brothers, We Are Not Professionals, he laments the trend toward  substituting spiritual depth with professional polish. He writes:

"We pastors are being killed by the professionalizing of the pastoral ministry. The mentality of the professional is not the mentality of the prophet. It is not the mentality of the slave of Christ. Professionalism has nothing to do with the essence and heart of the Christian ministry. The more professional we long to be, the more spiritual death we will leave in our wake. For there is no professional childlikeness (Matt. 18:3); there is no professional tender-heartedness (Eph. 4:32); there is no professional panting after God (Ps. 42:1)….. We are God-besotted lovers of Christ. How can you be drunk with Jesus professionally? Then, wonder of wonders, we were given the gospel treasure to carry in clay pots to show that the transcendent power belongs to God (2 Cor. 4:7). Is there a way to be a professional clay pot?" 5

I'm not sure I entirely agree, and I wonder if Piper really understands what it’s like to lead a local church today. He rightly resists under-spiritualising church leadership yet his framing risks reviving what Charles Taylor called the “two-tiered distortion” and A.W Tozer named the old sacred secular antithesis” 6 with an artificial divide between spiritual depth and practical competence.

Piper is right, the great leaders of the bible didn’t need to read Covey, Collins or Greenleaf to be effective leaders….but it wouldn’t have hurt either. We can under-spiritualise church leadership by treating it as merely another profession. But we can also over-spiritualise it by pretending leaders have no agency, skills to develop, or responsibility to improve as if somehow the fruit of the Spirit have nothing to say to how we work.  It’s a paradoxical “both-and.” Some of the most “useless” leaders I’ve known have been wonderfully spiritual people who, in their lane, made an incredible impact. 

Christian leadership is animated by Christ in us. But wisdom, skill, and formation are not enemies of spirituality—they are expressions of stewardship. Generic leadership theory professionalises leadership minus transcendence. Church leadership must integrate spiritual depth with disciplined competence.

__________


So, church leadership is not simply leadership with Christian language layered on top. It is leadership shaped by Scripture, animated by the Spirit, constrained by love, accountable to God, and exercised among people whose participation is voluntary and whose formation is at stake.  It sits at the intersection of theology and organisation, calling and competence, vulnerability and authority, love and power. It involves souls as well as systems, formation as well as function.

This does not make church leadership superior—but it does make it different. As such, church leadership requires more than borrowed frameworks from generic leadership theory. It demands wisdom—biblically grounded, theologically informed, psychologically aware, and spiritually formed. If we want church leaders to be healthy and effective, we must take seriously the distinctiveness of the task they are called to carry. 

_____________

And to that end I recognise the immense value of organisations seeking to meet this need. Which is why one of my "day jobs" at the moment is working for Partners In Ministry - an Australian organisation dedicated to church leadership health and effectiveness. There are many very good leadership training options available today, but what I most appreciate about this organisation is the way their frameworks are deeply integrated into the church context by people who personally understand the complexities and nuances of Church leadership.  I'm delighted to be contributing to the shaping and delivery of this and if you'd like to know more reach out to me personally or see the PIM link here.



___________

Notes:
1. Robert, Clinton, The Making of a Leader: Recognizing the Lessons and Stages of Leadership Development, Second edition. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012), p12
2. Barbara Kellerman, The End of Leadership. 1st ed. New York: Harper Business, 2012. p13
3. Graham Hill, "Philip Yancey, Celebrity, Brokenness, and Me" Spirituality and Society with Hilly, Substack, January 8, 2026. https://open.substack.com/pub/grahamjosephhill/p/philip-yancey-celebrity-brokenness?r=3uoaui&utm_medium=ios
4. Darren Nelson, Teaching for Change, Substack, January 2, 2026. https://substack.com/@darrenanelson?r=3uoaui&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
5. John Piper Brothers we are not professionals, Nashville, Tennessee.  B&H Publishing Group, 2013. p1 
6 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, First Harvard University Press paperback edition. (Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2018), 36. And A. W. Tozer, Pursuit of God, Updated edition. (Abbotsford, WI: Aneko Press, 2015), 27
On this topic see also:
Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, Ninth Edition. (Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing,
2022). page 10-11
Henry and Richard Blackaby, Spiritual Leadership: Moving People on to God’sAgenda. Rev. & Expanded. Nashville, Tenn: B & H Pub. Group, 2011.






05 September 2025

Succession Part 2 - Planning to finish well

Earlier this year I walked the French Camino. According to my pedometer app I took 1.25 million steps over the course of 33 days from St Jean Pied de Port in the south of France to Santiago in the west of Spain (officially its about 800km). The preparation for that  journey required  some physical conditioning, some soul searching and literally hundreds of planning tasks.  I reckon I developed a type of OCD in the months prior to the walk which I called "Obsessive Camino Disorder." I developed a neurotic concern for backpack, footwear and clothing selection and their weight (down to the gram). I agonised over weather protection, hydration, first aid supplies, security, communications, navigation, transportation, insurance, finance and on and on. If you need a camino coach, I'm your guy!

But all that preparation made for a wonderful journey that profoundly impacted my life. Most of my fellow pilgrims were equally prepared but not all, in fact some people seemed to be clueless about everything I'd obsessed over - no physical conditioning, dodgy shoes, denim jeans, no hat and a backpack from junior high school! Miraculously, most of these amazing people also made it to Santiago, but golly they had a rough journey and lots of blisters.

If one metric of good leadership is a healthy succession, then the journey to that outcome needs careful, intentional planning. So where do you begin in planning to finish well? Here in part 2 I want to explore lets call it, the leadership mindset and planning sequence. In part 3 I'll conclude by exploring the personal journey. 

I'm going to offer a number of suggestions about this planning process but I acknowledge that there are many variables and assumptions at play. Firstly I am thinking primarily about organisational contexts though the principles apply in many settings, even for instance, the family business. Also I am assuming you are in a position of senior leadership within that organisation. You may not be the head of entity, but you might be one day and you have influence now.  Lastly I'm writing with an underlying value for longevity in the organisation. I know people are now far less likely to stay in one organisational context for decades, but the shorter the tenure the harder it is to both shape culture and do succession planning well. Regardless of how long you'll be there, or wherever you sit in the organisation, if you love something enough to want it to continue on after you, then read on.

Start at the beginning. In part 1 I asked you to estimate how many years out you think you are from leaving your current role or organisation. If you just arrived you are not off the hook. The early years of a role are about establishing the mission (if its not already there), the culture you want to outlast you, and developing a stewardship and succession mindset. This might include thoughts like:
  • I am choosing to be here for the long haul,  but I am not here forever.
  • I want to leave the organisation healthier and more fruitful than I found it. 
  • It's not all about me and I am not indispensable.
It is also a good time to be asking:
  • How do I build (or contribute to building) an organisation that is so desirable to work in?
  • Who do I have in my leadership pipeline and where are the gaps?
  • How can I prioritise the emerging generation now?
Leadership development will be a priority at all stages and while age is not always a factor, typically the priority is  developing people younger or those whom you lead. Your organisational context will dictate this to some degree.  For example, in the naturally multi-generational church space, we have a unique opportunity to start really early giving children and teens invaluable leadership opportunities. But in most organisational settings you are only working with employees or adult volunteers so in reality these people may be anywhere from 5 to 25 years younger. They may not report to you directly but you are intentional about engaging with them, listening to them and observing their work, and where possible creating opportunities to stretch them.

5+ years out - Continue culture building and leadership development plus a focus on organisational fundamentals - mission, vision, governance and structure. In as much as you have authority, these need to be a high priority to ensure organisational resilience. So here are a few suggestions:
  • Do the important collaborative work of forming or renewing the 'Why' of the organisation - its mission and vision. This serves not only to bring clarity and unity to the existing team but engage those who may be the ones to champion it into the future.
  • Optimise your governance effectiveness. Is board renewal needed?  Is upskilling needed? Are they relationally healthy and effective in their work? How about core documentation - constitutions, policies and procedures etc? Are there leaders you need to expose to the governance environment? A strong board is vital to a healthy leadership transition and they will need the capacity and skill to guide the process to its conclusion in the future. This all takes a lot of time so start now. Finally, start talking about the principle and value of succession planning across the whole organisation. As I've been suggesting, succession is your responsibility, but ultimately it is the board or bishop or governing authority that has the task of preparing and executing succession processes for its senior leaders. They need to know not only their responsibilities, but how to carry them out. 
  • What about your organisational chart? Does the structure of your organisation need renewing? Does your structure support your mission and vision? Does it encourage staff leadership development? Does it create room for people to advance and does it provide a way in for new recruits?
48-24 months out - Focus on organisational health and development of key people.
  • How is the atmosphere? Are there lingering staff issues? How about the finances? Are the key performance indicators trending down or up? Are there major projects that could become major problems or distractions if not completed?  
  • This is the time when you are becoming clear on who your potential replacements are and if you don't have them, it's getting late to source them so you better get cracking. Raise the bar of responsibility with your key staff. Work more closely with a few and delegate more. Modify your role in ways that begin to take your hands off the wheel and place other hands on it.
36-12 months out - Beginning the conversation
  • Your planing is now becoming concrete and you are beginning to think about the transition
  • You have one or two people now carrying significant responsibility. 
  • You have the conversation with your board about your eventual succession intentions without being specific about timing. This gives them time to both acclimate the prospect of change without having to suddenly fly into action. Note this is a delicate moment and wisdom is needed here as to if, and how you have this conversation without it backfiring. 
  • Personally you are now considering timing in more deliberate ways, discussing it with a spouse, mentor or close friends. Perhaps you are praying for guidance and wisdom around when to press 'go'. It's soon but not yet. 
  • In this period you may also be considering what you might like to do after you finish (like walk the Camino!)
12-6 months out - Shifting from succession planning to transition planning
  • Going public - At some point you have to inform your board of your intention to formally resign and how much time you are prepared to stay on after the announcement. In some contexts it may be the minimum requirement whilst in others you may offer the board as much time as they need to affect a smooth handover to a successor. This is ideal but not always practical.
  • You can give too long and too short notice. Too long and it drags out for everyone and you become a caretaker leader. Too little time and you create unnecessary chaos somewhat souring the good finish. Any way you look at it, once you go public, everything quickly changes. 
  • You are now shifting from succession planning to transition planning. This  phase relates specifically to the detailed sequence of communications and preparation the organisation needs for your departure as well as the recruitment of your successor. And to be clear, in most organisational settings this is not your responsibility. In fact you will increasingly step out of the room at this point because the board or its delegated group will now engage their  own search and recruitment processes. Anticipate that their focus is going to quickly shift away from you as the leader to the critical task of finding your replacement. Don't take this personally.
  • Your leadership of the organisation will take on a different posture now as people process both the emotion and the implications of your announcement. You still have influence but you do not have the same positional power you had prior to the announcement.
  • You will focus now on continuity and the key people ensuring that, as best as you can, the incumbent has what they need to start well. You'll need to work out now what a good handover will look like.
  • And finally, don't skip the actual finish. This is a significant moment for everyone so say what you need to say, thank those you need to thank, repair any relationships you need to repair, and celebrate all that you are able to be thankful for.
I can already hear you say "it's all way more complicated in my context!" - to which I totally agree. If nothing else, my goal in writing down this retrospective on my own very imperfect journey is to encourage you to think about your succession journey. And whether its a year or a decade away, to avoid the blisters of a lack of preparation, and recognise that you can be intentional from day one, till your farewell party. Your organisation will thank you for it and you will expereience the elation of a job well finished.

31 August 2025

Succession Part 1 - Letting go.



'What’s become of my ring, Frodo, that you took away?’‘I have lost it, Bilbo dear,’ said Frodo. ‘I got rid of it, you know.’ ‘What a pity!’ said Bilbo. ‘I should have liked to see it again. But no, how silly of me!

In the last scenes of the LOTR trilogy a frail Bilbo Baggins is wistful about "the precious" Ring of Power, that he'd spent so much of his life coveting. The ring, infused with dark power would corrupt and distort the heart of its bearer, even almost, an ordinary hobbit. And though now destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom, it's lore still bore a magnetic power over the failing memory of Bilbo.

Power sometimes has a beastly way of doing that to ordinary people - it takes a hold of us and then we can't let it go.

Now power and leadership are not the same thing but leadership involves many kinds of power. No matter its form, the challenge of all power, and by association leadership, is not merely in the attaining or managing, but in the relinquishing - casting it aside, letting it and yourself be unplugged from it.

Which brings me to a subject I've been personally close to in the past few years, that of leadership succession. We typically think about leadership in terms of ascension, more likely to celebrate that upwardly mobile promotion than the demotion. People never seem to post on their LinkedIn profiles that they gave up their senior role for something less commanding. We are told to climb corporate ladders, not leap from them because by nature, we esteem that courageous climber, the celebrity, the winner.

It all looks like a one way street but the further I get into the middle third of life the more I think planning your replacement, is essential, not optional to good leadership. 

I think, the last great gift you give those you are leading, is to get out of their way!

Yet in the thick of our lives, and leadership roles, we tend to ignore our replacement like we ignore our death, somewhere in the distant future and we have too many urgent things to do in the present to concern ourselves with the important stuff that isn't happening any time this year. But then, all of a sudden, its too late. We miss the window of opportunity to leave well and those we led bear the consequences.

Pope Francis apparently had his resignation letter written long before his death, though his intention was always to die in the role as is papal tradition. I loved that till the day before his death Francis was greeting world leaders and common folk in church, and then he went home to Jesus, with the affairs of his replacement a very distant concern.

Maybe a pope can get away with this but for the rest of us, it poses an important question around planning our endings and succession. As leaders we usually don't plan to die in the role, but neither do we think much about handing it on to the right person at the right time through the right process.

When it comes to succession, I think I've been more deeply formed by those who did not do it well, than those rare individuals who did. I've watched admired pastors lead their churches into decline or stagnation because they did not make succession a priority. Maybe it was a bit of a messiah complex, maybe they just loved their work, maybe they were afraid of what comes next, or maybe it was good intentions mixed with bad planning. Whatever the reason, this culture of non-succession is one of the greatest blindspots in leadership. Much focus is on professional development of leaders to lead well, but we don't develop them to leave well.

And what might leaving well look like? 
For starters, it may very well look like 1. a clear, well paced and communicated plan,  2. ideally with real internal successor option(s) in the wings, 3. in a fundamentally healthy organisation. Of course its never that simple and every context will demand some variation within these three aims.

I love how in LOTR, the story doesn't end with Frodo destroying the ring of power and then The End. The ending feels especially long and unhurried as the reader comes to terms with not only the rings final destruction but the ending of its fellowship. Frodo was leaving with Bilbo, and Sam's story would continue without him. It is as though Tolkien wanted his reader to end well also.

I also love how, as Tim Keller illustrated in one of his stellar sermons, J R R Tolkien, saturated in Christian thought, chose to make a radical departure from the historical plot line of all other great legends  and quest stories in antiquity. Tolkien does this in Lord of the Rings by making the central figure at the heart of of the story (Frodo), triumphant not because he was powerful nor won something precious at the tale's climax, but because he gave up something precious, even if it cost him his life, for the sake of others. And by letting go he truly won. That is of course the heart of the gospel story, and the kind of counter cultural vision of power, leadership and success that Jesus exemplifies - and the template for in all of us who aspire to lead.

In this past week I've felt the deep gladness of completing my own succession journey, gathering with my church to commission my replacement, Ben, a young(er) man who I've had a role in nurturing for the past decade. He is in my estimation a superior leader in every way and he will, under Christ, take the church further than I ever could have. 

And isn't that a great thing!  Isn't that the kind of KPI we leaders should be judged by? At the right time, letting go, casting off our power so that something or someone greater than us can truly flourish. My succession journey was in no way perfect, but it is such a joy to  let go, and finish well. 

May you finish well too.

.......

In part 2 I'll get more specific about good succession planning but for now, if you are a leader in your context, have a go at answering the following questions:
1. If you had to guess, in how many years will you be departing your current role?
2. Have you started thinking about your succession? If not why not?
3. If hypothetically, you left your organisation on this day in three years time, what steps would you take from today to ensure both leadership continuity and momentum in your organisation?
4. Who are you actively training to potentially replace you?
5. If you weren't doing what you are doing what else could you do?



 

Image: Unsplash

28 July 2025

Do Disciples need Disciplines?

As a Christian, I've been living in or around the theme of spiritual practices since I was a boy. As a pastor, I've been spruiking rhythms of prayer, scripture reading, gathering, serving, giving and a smorgasbord of other practices for half a lifetime! These activities are the bread and butter of Christian spirituality - as in many other religions.

Despite my love-tolerate relationship, I still know spiritual practices are essential to Christian vitality and becoming. Though, I do feel the need to qualify such a claim because the same spiritual practices that animate one person's life, may be hollow rituals to another. The power of the spiritual practice is not simply in the activity but in the way it allows the Spirit to access the head and heart.

I think about spiritual practices as intentional actions with internal consequences..... resulting in external consequences. Animated by the Spirit of God, spiritual practices, do three basic things:
  • embed the love of God in our hearts (Psalm 18,139)
  • move us toward greater self awareness and awareness of others (Psalm 139)
  • illuminate the way of God for our everyday lives and direct our responses (Psalm 25:1-5)
The first is the most important. Spiritual practices are not an end in themselves, but exist to nurture familiarity with the God who makes himself personally knowable. Not "the universe", not some animistic force or amorphous mishmash of all religions, but the divine person of Jesus who really lived with us, really died for us and overcame real death so we could have real life. 

And Jesus promises his disciples that even though he will leave, he will not leave them like orphans. Jesus says "I will come to you"..."I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever"...."the Spirit of truth who Jesus says lives with and within you" (John 14.17) It is the Holy Spirit who makes the relationship personal and the spiritual practice more than self-help or trying harder because in Christianity, we simply can't think our way to God or work our way to holiness. Real change and renewal of the heart and soul is the work of the Holy Spirit.

And yet, there is no avoiding the personal commitment necessary to embracing a life of spiritual practices with God. Perhaps thats why more historically we've referred to "spiritual disciplines" implying something more deliberate, committed and costly. Though not an obligation, authentic Christian spirituality is undoubtedly a (shared) commitment to a way of living regardless of the ebb and flow of my feelings and gratifications. Spiritual practices are a structure we build for all those times in life when our feelings falter and the benefits don't flow our way.

All this to say YES disciples do need the discipline of spiritual practices. Thats the principle at least.  

But my experience  personally, and as a pastor is that a large proportion of Christians experience ongoing cycles of confusion, frustration and guilt associated with their misapplication of this principle. For example prayer may feel hollow, scripture confusing and Sabbath rest an impossibility. If our spirituality needs spiritual practices, what becomes of all the people for whom they are so hard to establish or maintain? Are they just not trying hard enough or is there more to this? 

My own conclusion is that there is no universal technique or curriculum for Christian formation and spirituality.  Indeed there are many kinds of spiritual practices because there are many kinds of people living at many stages of life and faith. To illustrate, around 5% of Australians have been diagnosed with some form of ADHD and God knows how many people are undiagnosed. So for all those people who struggle to focus for more than 5 minutes, how do they navigate conventional spiritual practices that are typically contemplative and stationary? What about rambunctious teenage boys or just anyone born in the past 20 years who only know life through a digital lens?  What about tradies who leave for work before the sun rises, or mothers juggling work, marriage and three kids? How about people with ASD or those with social anxiety? What about those with learning difficulties or  Downs Syndrome? What if you just aren't wired for rhythms and disciplines? You might think I'm only highlighting minorities but all those minorities add up quickly.

Sometimes I wonder if we do more harm than good corralling people onto generic programs and pathways. I'm  slowly figuring out that:

Connection with God matters 
but prayer takes many forms. 

Belief matters 
but learning takes many forms. 

Serving matters 
but "ministry" takes many forms. 

Thankfulness matters 
but worship takes many forms. 

Immanence matters 
but encounter takes many forms.

Confession matters 
but accountability takes may forms.

Faith matters 
but courage takes many forms.

Obedience matters 
but  sacrifice takes many forms.

Koinonia matters 
but community takes many forms.

Self-awareness mattes 
but examen takes many forms.

Self-denial matters 
but fasting takes many forms.

Rest matters 
but Sabbath time takes many forms.

And in their exploring lies our adventure.

My point is there is a distinction between  essential principles and ultimate forms. I'm not arguing against the principle just the overly prescriptive definition of the form. I know well the tension between getting clear and becoming prescriptive. In research I conducted in 2024 with 20 evangelical pastors across several denominations I found about half had a rough plan for their congregations discipleship and a further 30% said they had a clear plan that was "more in theory than practice." But, when asked, all wanted a clear executable plan recognising that neither ambiguity nor hollow aspirations represent good leadership. Which is true! I've been that leader for years tinkering with these tensions and the dream of cracking some ultimate discipleship code.  

As pastors we are all attempting to find the best way to lead the largest number of people into deeper waters. And the larger your church the more you want to systematise your discipleship models so that they are concrete enough to communicate and deliver to everyone you are shepherding. But the shepherding analogy falls short in as much as people are not in fact sheep who all think and act the same way. Every person is unique and this makes the whole enterprise of discipleship so much more challenging, especially today in a hyper individualistic culture. 

Ok so what's the alternative genius? It'd be a bit hypocritical to now offer a sure fire solution to this discipleship dilemma, and I don't have one. But if I was a pastor starting out or starting again I'd think about reframing the practices and rethinking the strategy. Such as....

When it comes to spiritual practices:
  • Continually normalise the diversity in how people connect and experience God.
  • Offer people more options than you think they need - and look beyond your denomination.
  • Celebrate curiosity and experimentation with regular storytelling.
  • Embed spiritual practices in ordinary daily life as its happening.
  • Prioritise relational connection over content delivery... as Jesus did with his disciples.

When it comes to discipling people more generally:
  • Scrutinise any and all sacred-secular language, structures or practices in your context.
  • Prioritise empathic understanding of the lived experiences of people in your context.
  • Normalise the challenges and struggles people face in life, and as disciples.
  • Make everyday life the principal context and curriculum of Christian spirituality, not Sunday. 
  • Communicate the vision of discipleship but resist prescribing all the steps to get there.
  • Customise discipleship for every individual but minus the vibe of individualism.
  • Reinforce the vital role of commitment to the body of Christ in spiritual formation.
  • Invest more effort into coaching and storytelling, than preaching the theory.
  • More tools less techniques. More permission less prescription.
  • Curate contexts for catalytic experiences.

03 May 2025

From Popes to Politicians - What is good leadership?

 

I voted yesterday at the local pre-polling booth and it seemed like half the electorate had the same idea.  While I waited, two men stood together in a small pop up cabana near the front of the line handing out flyers as the endless line of voters shuffled impatiently past them, looking away, suddenly fascinated by their phones or maybe a glance saying "no thanks mate" or muttering something else less kind. 

These two men were not your regular volunteers, they were the sitting Liberal member and his young gun Labour counterpart. I've known the Liberal member for many years, a good man,  and I've also met  with his younger Labor rival. They both looked utterly shattered, pale and pasty in the late afternoon rush, as though both had run a two month marathon of smiles, handshakes and smalltalk. When I reached them in the line, I had 30 seconds to  shake their hands, thank them for their work and wished them well.....before I went to cast my vote on their political fate. Thats democracy!

In this unique week between a Papal funeral and a federal election a lot of us are pondering the nature of good leadership and how to get it. Seems most of the world judged Pope Francis to have been a good leader, and today we will make a judgement about our political leaders who, for weeks have been magically appearing in strange places, pumping petrol or cuddling kids at childcare centres hoping that by doing so, public opinion may tip in their favour as the best leadership option for the electorate.  

But we are a cynical mob when it comes to leadership, especially political. We carry unbelievably high expectations of leaders and low confidence they will deliver. We critique them more than we praise them, as if we could do a better job fulfilling the one utilitarian task we assign them all - raise our standard of living right now!

People rightly want good leaders in all spheres of life, be they Popes, PM's, principals or pastors. But it is worth pausing on this election day to recognise that good leadership is neither comfortable nor easy, for both the leader and the led. If you want a high approval rating, getting a job as a Santa or selling ice cream may be a better option. And if you want to be led well, anticipate discomfort.

Good leadership is tough for the leader and the led and perhaps thats why the leadership genre is a bit of a bottomless pit. The classical idea of leadership was leader-centric. By that I mean the power dynamic was almost entirely tipped toward the hero, warlord, commander & chief  or CEO  who autocratically influences people to do what they probably don't want to do (there are a few world leaders who seem to like this style at the moment). 

But in more recent decades, leadership has become increasingly follower-centric where the power dynamic has shifted toward the follower. Barbara Kellerman says that the social contract in the 21st Century, between leader and led has changed from “have to” to “want to” be led - though she admits this is still dependent on context and “carrot and stick” leadership will always be a factor in many organisational settings.1 

The digital age, particularly  social media, has been emancipatory for the majority handing people power and knowledge they could never have imagined in previous generations. As a consequence Kellerman writes "there is less respect for authority across the board—in government and business, in the academy and in the professions, even in religion. Power and influence have continued to devolve from the top down—those at the top having less power and influence; those in the middle and at the bottom having more. For their part, followers, ordinary people, have an expanded sense of entitlement—demanding more and giving less."2 

I think what Kellerman is saying is that everyone today wants to live like they are in charge, only without the burden leadership. 

Perhaps the art of good leadership is in stewarding power in both a directive and collective way simultaneously. 
  • Peter Northouse in Leadership Theory and Practice, notes four characteristics generally present in leadership. Leadership is a process, involves influence, occurs in groups and involves common goals.3
  • Similarly, Tod Bolsinger in Canoeing the Mountains writes “Leadership is energizing a community of people toward their own transformation in order to accomplish a shared mission in the face of a changing world.”4
  • Joseph Rost, defined leadership as “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.” In this Robert Banks et.al  notes the four essential leadership elements: 1. that the influence relationship is multidirectional, 2. the influence is non-coercive,  3. it involves meaningful change toward a purpose, and 4. followers are active participants.5
The thing I note about these conceptions is the role of both leader and led toward common or shared goals. Good leadership is something we want but also something we participate in, and cultivate by prioritising mutuality over individuality. And in the political context, the role of a local member is to synthesise the goals, aspirations and needs of thousands of individuals into a collective vision and action plan which they all participate in. I think for all our negativity, our politicians are making a genuine attempt to do something infinitely difficult at a societal level.

By the time you read this, the election will likely be decided, but spare a thought for all those local members and candidates  - for every happy winner  there are many more feeling deflated. These men and women all show great courage I think, to put themselves in a highly vulnerable position where their local community can explicitly reject them. They should all be congratulated and encouraged no matter the side of politics. 

We all want good leaders but I wonder, do you have a shortlist of things you'd look for? As I ponder both new popes and parliamentarians, I can think of 9 qualities I'd like to experience as a follower (in no particular order):
  1. Vision - a compelling idea of where they want to take people.
  2. Credibility - the technical skills and life experiences that engender confidence in followers.
  3. Courage - to lead with conviction in the face of inevitable opposition.
  4. Consistency - an integrity between their personal and public life.
  5. Compassion- to truly see people and work for their flourishing regardless of status.
  6. Wisdom - navigating complexity and competing priorities with acumen.
  7. Maturity- to emotionally manage themselves and their relationships well.
  8. Values - an epistemological foundation for the wisdom that orients and guides their life and leadership. 
  9. Humility - to selflessly serve and steward power always for the common good.
Much more could be said, but thinking about Pope Francis' exemplary life helped me focus in on a few key things.  And while I sure don't want the next pope to lead the country, I do hope all our incumbent leaders might express, just as imperfectly as even Francis, the same qualities of good leadership. 
I reckon only Jesus expressed these perfectly, but every leader has unavoidable choices around the kind of person  and therefor leader, they want to be becoming. As do we all because in the end, we all share in the vocation of leadership, even if only of ourselves and those close to us. 

_______________________________________

1&2 Kellerman, Barbara. The End of Leadership. 1st ed. New York: Harper Business, 2012.

3 Northouse, Peter G. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Ninth Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing, 2022.

4 Bolsinger, Tod E. Canoeing the Mountains: Christian Leadership in Uncharted Territory. Expanded Edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2018.

5 Ledbetter, Bernice M., Robert Banks, and David C. Greenhalgh. Reviewing Leadership: A Christian Evaluation of Current Approaches. Second edition. Engaging culture. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2016.

20 April 2025

Maybe Church?


I write these words as the sun dawns on Good Friday morning 2025. For as long as I can remember this day, and Easter Sunday has been a profound and special moment in the annual rhythm of Christian life for me. It is a time to gather with community, to reflect on the death and resurrection of Jesus and how our lives together are caught up in the great gospel invitation of redemption and resurrection through Christ. It's also been a day of adrenalin for me, and needing to be on point as hundreds gather to participate in something inspiring, creative and beautiful.

But this Good Friday and Easter Sunday I'm at a bit of a lose end. On purpose that is,  giving my church and old staff team vital time to find their feet apart from its old Senior Pastor, and if I am honest, myself time to find my own feet apart from the role. I finished my role at the start of the year and for most of the year I'm choosing a kind of social obscurity, stepping away from the platforms I've lived on, handing back the keys, and the microphones. It's weird, but I think wise.

Actually, I'm not missing much at all about my old role 3 months down the track. What I feel the most acutely is the intentional dislocation from community and community gathered in moments like Easter. I will visit a mate's church today and some friendly faces will be there, but they aren't my community so it always feels a bit like rocking up to a birthday party of your friend's close group of friends.  

Absence from my church community will last for much of the year while a new leader is appointed, and in the meantime I have an opportunity to experience first hand what dislocation feels like. Over the years I've witnessed so many people disconnect from church communities, deconstruct and sometimes destruct their faith. Covid catalysed much soul searching for people and for many, the search ended in ending their commitments to gathering with a specific community in a specific rhythm. 

And there were lots of reasons. In the thick of those Covid years I remember sitting down to write a list of all the reasons I'd been given by people for why our church was no longer necessary and in about 30 minutes I'd rattled off 50 reasons that my bruised heart has squirrelled away over the years. Some really valid of course, and some just sad.

I still think a lot about those who deconstructed or just reprioritised life away from the rhythm and discipline of gathering. Sometimes I blame myself, but mostly I just feel sadness, and sometimes a little anger if they had young children who then missed out on the profoundly formative gift of faith development in community.

In a recent NCLS aritcle exploring findings from their annual Australian Community Survey and research from the Scanlon Foundation found that people who worship together have
• Higher social cohesion across all domains
• Higher levels of civic engagement,
• Higher levels of subjective wellbeing.

People think more collectively, they behave more selflessly and the feel more positive about life. Im not surprised about these findings because they are precisely what I've witnessed throughout my life in faith community.

Its easy to miss the forest of goodness for the few trees of challenge in the rhythm of Sunday church. Yes people can be irritating, pastors can disappoint, relationships strained, Sundays may not do it for you, and serving can be a drag sometimes. Yes the preacher may be not be all that engaging and the band off key. Yes the coffee might be weak and the parking lot full. Yes a sleep in sounds brilliant and a room full of people sounds stressful. 

Yes church might be all that. But its much more than that, and indeed all those niggles are not problems to resist but parts of the curriculum for our formation and maturation. Sure things can to some extent be done better, but the point of being church is being a community of people whose entwined lives and loves are being progressively reoriented away from self toward the love of God, one another and world. And in that place, people experience a different kind of flourishing and goodness in life that your sporting team or smashed avo at the cafe or sleep in can only try and mimic.

Some of the latest research from McCrindle is indicating a quiet return to Christianity by people who had walked away in recent years (see also here). Nearly 785,000 Australians who identified as having no religion in the 2016 Census listed Christianity in 2021. The statistical decline in Christianity in the past few decades is often presented as evidence for a societal shift away from faith toward secularity. But perhaps all it really reveals is that cultural Christianity is finally dead in Australia and people only tick the Christian box because they have a genuine conviction to identify as Christian.

Over 55's, according to McCrindle, are the largest age bracket returning to churches as are millennials and younger who are becoming increasingly disillusioned with post-modern relativism, the limitations of science and technology, and dwindling hope of economic prosperity in their generation. McCrindle notes that the majority of young people want to have spiritual conversations as they search for a sense of identity, meaning and purpose beyond these. 

Anecdotally I'm constantly hearing pastors say that new people keep showing up on Sunday and many are returning after a hiatus of several years of non attending any church.  I suspect the social cohesion of community, the engagement of purpose beyond self, and the reorientation of life around a commitment to spiritual formation and worship - is something the church uniquely offers and with it a life of renewed significance, purpose and  flourishing. 

Perhaps going it alone wears off.  It's already worn off for me and Ive only been absent for 12 weeks! Absence makes my heart grow fonder.

Hey if you've read this far in my Easter ramble, maybe this weekend is a good time to take a chance on a local evangelical church near you? Maybe it's one you left long ago, or its one you've driven by a hundred times? I guarantee it wont tick all your boxes, and it will feel awkward. 
But it might also be the start of something beautiful.