By: R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Are leaders made or are they born? Are they forged by destiny or are they made by events? Do leaders volunteer for service, or are they summoned by a call? The reality is that these questions are unanswerable. But they point to the fact that leadership is still something of a mystery for mortals. It is clear that we cannot do without leaders, and it is clear that leadership is absolutely essential for every dimension of human society. And yet, there is no single agreed upon definition of leadership. To put it in intuitional terms, we’re not sure how to define it, but we know it when we see it.
Christians understand that questions about leadership are deeply rooted in the biblical tradition itself. For one thing, the Bible is absolutely clear about the fact that God’s people require leadership. In the Old Testament, it was clear that God appointed Moses as the great general of his people to lead the children of Israel out of captivity to Pharaoh in Egypt. This magnificent display of the providence of God was translated into human history in such a way that Moses became a singular figure in the history of the entire nation of Israel. For that reason, the children of Israel are often referred to as the children of Moses, even more than they are referred to as the children of Abraham.
The example of Moses raises some of the most important questions about leadership. It is clear that Moses was not a volunteer. He was summoned, and in the most inescapable way. God spoke to him out of the bush that burned and was not consumed. And God made clear that he had a purpose for Moses and that it was the duty of Moses to respond to the call. The history of the Exodus from Egypt is itself a demonstration of the necessity of leadership and of the difficulties of leadership.
If we fast forward to the New Testament, models of leadership are found everywhere we look. In one sense, the first reference to leadership in the New Testament story takes us to the role of Caesar and to the responsibility of kings. But very quickly, we come to understand that all of these human leaders, regardless of their title and claims to glory, are merely servants of the Most High, whether they know it or not. And in the storyline of the New Testament, Caesar in Rome and various kings on their thrones, turned out to be just set pieces in order for God to make clear His glory in the incarnation of the Son of God, as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But human leadership is valued and it is essential, so much so that by the time we get to the formation of the early church in the book of Acts, leadership is one of the first issues addressed.
First of all, leadership was represented among the disciples and by the disciples. By the time the New Testament church came unto a revealed consciousness of itself, it knew that the church was established upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets—all leaders. Some of the most intense energy invested in the New Testament church was in the development of leaders, the calling out of leaders, and in understanding the criteria for godly leadership in the church.
In this sense, the church is a microcosm of creation. Leadership, in its essence, is best understood as part of the dominion mandate in the first chapter of the Bible. Leadership is not merely an adaptation or adjustment to the reality of human sin, it was part of God’s plan for humanity from the very beginning. In other words, leadership would have been an issue in the garden of Eden.
Nevertheless, east of Eden, we are now even more dependent upon human leaders, and Christians understand this with a gravity unique to those who are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. We think of the leadership examples from the Old Testament, like Joshua and King David, and we add to that the leadership responsibilities invested in early church leaders, such as the Apostles Peter, James, and Paul. Together, we come to understand that the early church, as the church today, is largely identified with its leaders, and faithfulness or unfaithfulness often comes down to the character and conviction of the one who leads.
The church has also been defined by leadership and by its leaders throughout the nearly twenty centuries of Christian experience. We think of the early leaders of the church in its first few centuries, commonly referred to as the Fathers of the church. Moving through church history, we cannot help but to mark milestones by so many of the leaders who defined Christianity and Christian faithfulness for their times. We think of figures such as Augustine, the great Bishop of Hippo, and then move forward to the Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. We should note that all three of these leaders were known first and foremost for their preaching of the Word of God, but they were also known for the leadership they exerted through the establishment of Christian ministries, the furtherance of Christian learning, and the expansion of Christianity by the preaching of the gospel. In more recent centuries, the long line of leadership succession has continued. But if anything, we arrive at the present age with the understanding that the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ currently has no surplus of faithful leaders. We face a situation that can only be described as a leadership deficit. And the faithfulness of the Christian Church in the coming generations will require a corps of leaders who are marked by character, conviction, and courage.
Character
The biblical emphasis upon character at the center of leadership is so pervasive that it is absolutely systemic. Everywhere you look, the model of leadership found in the Scripture is tied to the character of the leader. This certainly does not mean that the leader is perfect, because the leader is himself a sinner, marked by all the effects and motivations of sin. But, as noted earlier, a sinful world is in a situation of even more dramatic need when it comes to leaders. If leaders would have been found in Eden, they are far more essential once sin enters the picture. But this also means that leadership gets very complicated. Christians know that at the end of the day, there is no clean separation between the moral qualities of a leader and the long-term influence of a leader.
King David is presented in the Scriptures in all of his glory, but also in all of his tragic sinfulness. And yet, he’s also described as a man after God’s own heart. As Paul instructs the church concerning those men who will serve as elders and teachers of the church, we should note that character is marked as an essential criterion. One of the reasons so many leaders fail in our times—even in the church—is that their leadership abilities outstripped their moral qualities. As Christians understand, that is a story that will eventually end in disaster. On the other hand, a leader after God’s own heart may be used to transform a church, an institution, and even an age.
Conviction
I have long argued that conviction is the missing ingredient in almost all secular definitions of leadership. In a managerial age, the world wants to define leadership almost exclusively in technical terms. But the Christian Church must surely understand that leadership cannot be reduced to technique. Just consider the Apostle Paul’s admonitions to Timothy, and the repeated emphasis upon conviction in the New Testament. There can be no question that conviction stands at the very heart of a biblical conception of leadership. Of course, convictional leadership is disastrous if the convictions are not true. We are reminded of the biblical truth that the convictions of the Church, and of the Christian leader, must be the convictions set out in God’s Word, consistent with the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Leaders are not those who manufacture the right convictions; leaders after God’s own heart are those who are passionate advocates of the convictions revealed in the Word of God. But the essence of leadership comes down not only to the leader’s passionate adherence to those convictions, but the leader’s ability to convey those convictions to others, who will respond with a faithfulness that would otherwise never happen.
Courage
A third component of leadership is courage. Once again, our immediate thoughts are drawn to Scripture where demonstrations of courage are revealed in the leaders of Israel, and in the leaders of the early church. The courage of these leaders was the courage unto death.
Without question, they were driven by conviction and forged by character in such a way that they responded with unprecedented courage as they led God’s people out of captivity to Pharaoh in Egypt, into the land of promise, through centuries of struggle and building, and eventually in the establishment of congregations, in the feeding of the flock of God, and in the establishment of great works and ministries to the glory of Christ. Leaders who lack courage never truly lead, but the courage that counts is the courage that is based in conviction and character.
The secular world is frantic as it seeks to understand leadership in a way that can be replicated, multiplied, and even manufactured. Over the course of the last forty years, countless leadership development programs, graduate schools, and professional methods have been proposed. Bestselling books have been published and speakers and consultants have reaped a considerable harvest by promising leadership selection, development, and success.
But Christians really do understand that the leadership that is most important is the leadership of the Christian Church. There’s nothing more important than the leadership defined in Scripture as exercised by parents in the home, by preachers and leaders in the church, and by those who are determined to further the purposes of God through the exercise of leadership among men and women who are faithful followers of Christ.
The best leaders are also understood as hinges in the turning of history. Henry Kissinger, who served as secretary of state of the United States during some of the most transformative years of the twentieth century, once stated: “Leadership is most essential during periods of transition, when values and institutions are losing their relevance, and the outlines of a worthy future are in controversy.” Kissinger knew leadership firsthand as he had met over the course of decades with the most famous and powerful leaders on the planet. Our interests should be directed towards Kissinger’s understanding that a time of transition is the most important context of leadership. In this sense, leaders are those who take charge during a transition, set a great work aright, and then lead faithful people into even greater and unprecedented levels of faithfulness.
This brings me to Jason K. Allen on the tenth anniversary of his election as president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Jason Allen represents the qualities of leadership that make for greatness. Over the course of the last ten years, observers have certainly asked whether Jason Allen had been born for this role as president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary or had been made by his experiences and the context of serving an important theological institution at one of the most significant turning points in history.
In fact, Christians are those who understand that our sovereign God accomplishes both of these dimensions of leadership simultaneously—his timing is perfect in the birth of leaders, for they arrive at just the right time in human history. But God also makes leaders, and Scripture offers pervasive evidence of how leaders are made and forged in the crucible of a challenge.
Jason Allen arrived at Midwestern Seminary as president at a time when the very existence of the institution was questioned. The future of the seminary was threatened, and these challenges came at the very time that the larger context of theological education and the community of theological seminaries were experiencing common strains and facing the headwinds of institutional challenges.
The leadership of Jason Allen at Midwestern Seminary must be understood in multiple contexts. First, we consider his leadership at Midwestern Seminary. He walked into a situation in which few believed that a bold, flourishing, and exciting future existed for the institution. It was his vision, backed up with his administrative ability, fueled by his conviction, that provided the context for the remarkable transformation that has taken place within the life of Midwestern Seminary.
As is often acknowledged, leadership requires vision. Jason Allen possessed the vision to see in Midwestern Seminary not only what those who were a part of the institution at the time could see, but what no one in the history of the seminary had ever seen. His vision for Midwestern was not that it be restored to a level of some stability, but that it be thrust into greatness.
Consider this: At the very time that most theological institutions are in decline and in an age when the very existence of theological seminaries is being questioned (especially in the declining liberal mainline churches), Jason Allen saw an opportunity to forge an institution of greatness—an institution that would exceed most others in enrollment, influence, innovation, and faithfulness.
The three criteria of leadership that I consider to be most important—character, conviction, and courage—are demonstrated wonderfully in Jason Allen as a man and in President Allen’s leadership at Midwestern Seminary as an institution. I use the word institution intentionally, for leaders must understand that institutions are essential in the furtherance of mission and purpose. Institutions can last much longer than a human lifetime, and a succession of faithful leaders can produce an institution that will exert transformative influence not only through generations, but through centuries.
In the end, seminaries exist to serve the singular eternal institution, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. But as a servant to the Church, theological seminaries have a very important task. Jason Allen’s leadership at Midwestern Seminary is based upon his passion for that task and his ability to translate that passion into the hearts of others.
Those who are interested in leadership as technique will find the techniques of leadership in Jason Allen and in superlative form. But there is no way to reduce the leadership of President Allen to technique. His passion is theological, and his leadership is transformational, precisely because it is rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in a passion to produce leaders who will teach and preach the Word of God until Jesus comes.
The Bible makes clear that leaders are human beings, with all the frailties and limitations that come with being a part of sinful humanity. And leaders never stand alone. As the great British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once remarked, “If you are so certain you are a leader, where are your followers?” The leadership of Jason Allen at Midwestern Seminary must be put in the context of an institution that was ready for such a leader, and a community of leaders and learners and teachers who came together under his leadership to build a great institution, and to counter the declining theological vigor of the age with renewed conviction and passion. The ultimate evidence of leadership is the fact that true and powerful leaders surround themselves with even younger leaders who will carry on a line of succession, and, we pray, will exceed us in faithfulness to Christ and in service to the Church in years to come.
You see this on the campus at Midwestern Seminary, where you see leaders in the making, learning from leaders who are learners, who are able to communicate conviction and passion into the hearts and minds of others.
I must also note that the leadership of Jason Allen would be far less, and Jason Allen would be far less of a man, without the faithfulness of his wife, Karen. I say that as one who knows full well that my own dear wife has sacrificed more for the leadership to which I am called than I could ever sacrifice myself. On this tenth anniversary, it must be remembered that Jason Allen’s most important place of leadership is in his home, and that his wife and wonderful children have helped to propel him into the leadership that he has demonstrated so capably over the last ten years.
Are leaders made or born? In the providence of God, the only answer to this question is yes. At the same time, we are still astounded when God, for His glory, raises up leaders who demonstrate the very qualities of passion, joy, faithfulness, and enthusiasm that have marked Jason Allen during the decade he has served as the president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Of all people on the planet, I’m among the least surprised. I came to know Jason Allen when he was just a very young man and had just graduated from college. He came to Southern Seminary, fueled with a passion to serve Christ. Recognizing his leadership ability, I was quick to bring him into the leadership ranks of this institution. We lost him to a worthy call as our sister school in Kansas City called him as president.
When God called Jason Allen to Midwestern Seminary, the man, the mission, and the moment combined.
We claim no responsibility for making Jason Allen the leader that he is, but we do count it a joy that we can celebrate his transformative leadership at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I am incredibly thankful for Jason Allen as colleague and as friend, and I look forward, God willing, to future service together in the great calling to which we have been called.
No one should underestimate the headwinds into which we are sailing. A secularizing age in an increasingly hostile environment to Christianity underlines the urgency of our task at this hour. I’m thankful that Jason Allen stands at the helm of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I join Southern Baptists in looking with pride and thankfulness for the faithfulness of his service and the quality of his example.
