There is much recent discussion about the nature and importance of leadership. Let’s be honest. Much of this discussion has been generated because we face the election of our next Archbishop in two years from now. For many, the discussion is an attempt to genuinely think in advance about the type of leader they desire, and his qualities.

Leadership is one of the issues being spoken about. What does Biblical leadership look like? How does this compare to ‘secular’ leadership? Are the two, by nature, opposed? What even is leadership? And ought it be an important dimension as we think about such issues?

Not too long ago, I attended two meetings within the space of 24 hours that presented the opposing view points. I will endeavour to accurately paint the big strokes of each broader argument.

On the one hand – to begin with the theological argument - it is pointed out that God has made foolish the wisdom of the world. The power of God comes through the Gospel of Christ, and it is just wrong to pursue anything else. Paul’s method intended that ‘faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power’ (1 Cor 2:5). In addition, there is a great danger in employing ‘pragmatic’ methods, for history teaches us that human nature will gradually elevate these means to an inappropriate level as the pendulum swings too far.

On the other hand – again to begin with the theological argument - it is argued that God has embedded wisdom in the creation of the world (Proverbs 8:22ff), and there is a place for us to ‘plunder from Egyptians’ whatever may be helpful, building on and filtered by one’s theological convictions. Furthermore, the stereotype that the world promotes egocentric leadership is false. Gurus such as Jim Collins, for example, promote leadership as a ‘paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will’ (Jim Collins, Good to Great, p39). And indeed, this is said to have tremendous similarities with Biblical leadership. Whatever Christian leadership is, it is at least equivalent to leadership of anything else.

In a nutshell, these are the respective arguments. Brevity means that of course I will miss the nuances of each, and the interaction they have with one another. I must admit that I am somewhat baffled that these views are presented as opposing: are they really in opposition to one another?