The Catholic intellectual Joseph de Maistre wrote in the early 19^th century that ‘every nation gets the government it deserves,’^[1] a sentiment that has been restated repeatedly over the last two hundred years and is no less relevant today as we experience widespread despair at the calibre of our leaders, and anger at how we have been ‘let down.’^[2] Might de Maistre’s quip prompt us to self-reflection both with regards to the polis (our political leadership) and the polis tou theou (the church)?^[3]

What do we most want from our political leaders? The dominant demand is that they increase our short-term prosperity (or rather, that they increase my prosperity), so that much of our politics is now reduced to ‘how much I get.’ I still remember my incredulity before the Brexit vote when the local Labour representative knocked on my door and encouraged me to vote ‘remain’ because their analysis had concluded that this would be slightly better for my wallet. As if such a significant decision about whether or not to withdraw from a union established primarily to prevent war should be determined by a few hundred quid of personal income. Yet this is in keeping with our times and priorities. Now we must be ‘sold’ manifestos, in which our key analytical task is to discern whether or not we (as a household, not as a wider community) will be better off.

We also demand that our leaders are confident and clear at all times. When our politicians attempt to provide nuanced views they are accused of either not understanding the ‘essential points’ or of obfuscating. We demand that they make it clear what they mean, which means in practice: ‘say something simple.’ This is a hopeless situation for very little of importance can be reduced to the sound-bite catchphrases or twitter-length comments that count as ‘clarity.’

We must also note what we most certainly do not want – which is a leader who will challenge our beliefs or require us to change. We have managed to corporately achieve an infantile mindset in which we consider all of our problems to have nothing to do with our own actions. It is always ‘the system’ or ‘the institution,’ or in the last resort ‘someone else’ (the rich, poor, immigrant, Tories, liberals, etc…) – and it is that which needs sorting out, never me. This has become so entrenched that now even statements of fact are unwelcome. This was strikingly demonstrated when the chief economist of the Bank of England stated that due to a lengthy period of high inflation people had to accept that they were poorer.^[4] That was a simple statement of fact, but it was attacked by all the major political parties and mocked by the media. The idea that I may need to change my spending habits in response to reality is deemed unacceptable. We are narcissistic and immature in equal measure.

Why then should we complain about our political leaders? Given our unwillingness to face up to reality and our lack of attention to anything beyond short-term, self-focused issues, we should not be surprised to get opportunistic leaders for whom deception is the default modus operandi and who will inevitably be unable to solve our real problems because we will not tolerate real solutions. We get the leaders we deserve.

Much of what we seek from our politicians we also expect from our church leaders, although the forms in which we demand it may be slightly more subtle. We want leaders who will increase our prosperity, only in this case the demand to ‘make my life better’ is not usually about money, but about meeting my felt emotional, psychological or spiritual needs. We want them to make our spiritual lives easier – to provide us (somehow) with a clear path to intimacy with God, a meaningful life and spiritual vitality.

A clear path is important – we are just as impatient with our church leaders when they are nuanced, uncertain or change their minds. In our insecurity we demand their certainty. And we want it quickly.

The kicker, once again, is that along with all this the one thing we don’t want is to be required to change. Of all things this seems the most unlikely to be replicated in the church, for are we not those who are being changed from glory to glory?^[5] Is not ongoing change the normal Christian life? So it should be, but we still struggle to accept leaders who require this change from us. We may welcome being told stories of change or even being advised to change in sermons, but when our leaders look us in the eye and ask us directly to change our defences rise as high as ever.^[6] Is this not why we perceive most deficiencies in church life as a problem of the institution (or the leaders), rather than something that we are partly culpable for and thus requires us to change? Give us leaders with a clear and simple plan to solve such problems in a way that successfully meets my felt needs whilst requiring little or nothing from me! These are the leaders we want, but they are not the leaders we need.

The picture of church leadership that we find in the New Testament is a far cry from what I have just described. Instead, the heart of church leadership may be summed up in Paul’s expression in his letter to the Galatians where he said that he was in anguish ‘until Christ is formed in you.’^[7] That is what it is all about – seeing men and women formed into the image of Jesus – becoming like him in character, mature in faith, walking in the ‘obedience of the gospel of Jesus Christ.’

What then does this mean for our church leaders? If they are truly to pursue the formation of people into the image of Jesus, then they will have to repeatedly require us to change. It is ‘built in’ to the vocation: ‘teach them to obey everything I have commanded you’ said Jesus;^[8] those with particular responsibility to do that are lashed to the mast: they cannot but require us to change. Moreover, far from making our lives easier such leaders will make them harder, because following Jesus is hard! He warned us that ‘whoever would come after me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me…’^[9]

The process of formation is by its nature slow work. It is often hard to see and progress is inconsistent. It is impossible to measure in any truly meaningful way and is irreducible to a system. People cannot be programmed or organised into the image of Jesus – they must be formed. Obviously, then, a totally different definition of ‘success’ is called for that has far less to do with meeting felt needs, numerical growth or having lots of activity (which are the things we most naturally seek). There is nothing wrong with these things, but they are subservient to the formation of people. Thus church leadership, if it is to be consistent in pursuing its true goal, will be inconsistent on another level. Sometimes busyness is called for, at other times quiet; sometimes directive teaching is necessary, at other times space must be opened for discussion and exploration. One person must take responsibility within the life of the church family, another must refrain from doing so. We must learn to think about the work of God in years and decades, not just days and weeks. The bigger picture matters far more than the perceived urgencies of today.

The leaders we need will be those who will lead by example. As they labour in anguish that Christ might be formed in us, they must walk before us in that journey. To state this is to expect, therefore, our leaders to walk into failure, uncertainty and change over time. We may want infallible leaders, but anyone seeking the transformation of God will be shown to be weak, broken and wrong – many times over! To lead by example is to face the necessity of change, to repent, to lack answers; to be obedient enough to risk enough to fail. To lead by example is to become vulnerable.

If we are to be formed into the image of God, we need leaders who will pursue this good as their chief task. Who will refuse to promise what we want but do not need, or to accept simple and easy lies over difficult truth. We need leaders who will require us to change, and do so with integrity because they are walking these paths themselves. Leaders who are willing to disregard our immediate wants, where necessary, in order to help us pursue our most profound flourishing. Are these the leaders we deserve? Probably not. Our hope then is firmly set on the grace of God, for ‘even when we are faithless he remains faithful.’^[10] If he always gave us what we deserved we would all be lost – let us pray that he be graceful to us in the leaders he gives us

References

1. Joseph de Maistre, Lettres et opuscules inédits, 2nd ed., ed. Rodolphe de Maistre, vol. 1 (A. Vaton, 1853), 264. ↑

2. In this article the ‘we’ refers primarily to those who live, like me, in the United Kingdom. That being said, I would argue that the posture towards leadership I describe holds fairly accurately across much of contemporary western culture. ↑

3. Although in this article I suggest a few ways in which our postures toward these two spheres of leadership are alike (and deficient), I focus on a positive vision of leadership only with regard to the church for reasons of space and personal priority, not because there are no biblical and theological resources for a positive vision of political leadership. ↑

4. See, for example, Michael Race and Vishala Sri-Pathma, “Bank of England Economist Says People Need to Accept They Are Poorer,” BBC News, April 26, 2023, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65308769. ↑

5. 2 Corinthians 3:18. ↑

6. By using the language of ‘requirement’ here I do not mean to describe or validate abusive or authoritarian church leadership, as I hope the rest of the article indicates. Rather, I mean pastors who are honest enough to present an uncompromised vision of the Christian life and directly encourage us to live it. ↑

7. Galatians 4:19. ↑

8. Matthew 28:20. ↑

9. Matthew 16:24. ↑

10. 2 Timothy 2:13.