Paul and leadership

If the number of conferences and books addressing an issue is any indication of the level of interest or importance of a matter, then ‘leadership’ is the flavour of the moment, both in the secular world and in Christian circles. This interest is, of course, not just theoretical. Many people share a deep desire to improve, shape, strengthen, critique or replace the leadership we have—whether it be secular, sporting, political, Christian or whatever.

In this article I am going to focus in on one biblical perspective that might help us to make sense of the current ‘leadership’ fascination—and that is the leadership of the apostle Paul. And given the breadth even of that topic, I’m going to be selective. I am not going to consider what Paul says about leadership in theory, or the leadership of others. I’m going to attempt to paint a picture of Paul’s own leadership: his practice rather than his teaching. And this picture will be painted using only his own words. I’ll be leaving aside the material in Acts, not because I have any doubts about the historicity of Luke’s account, but because there is benefit to be found in observing Paul on his own terms using what his own letters say about his leadership.

It’s not in a vacuum, however—I’m also going to reflect on three current challenges to the portrayal of leadership seen in Paul’s letters: (1) the view that Paul did not believe in ‘leadership’ and that Christian communities were to be led by the Spirit as egalitarian fellowships; (2) the view that Paul’s leadership was malevolent and self-interested; and (3) the view that Christian leadership is built on the ‘best practice’ of secular (or corporate) leadership.

My hope is that this brief glimpse will stimulate thought and shed light on Christian leadership—not the hypothetical ideal of Christian leadership, but the embodiment of it, albeit through a somewhat unique example.

Was Paul into ‘leadership’?

The first step is to clarify the term ‘leadership’. What would we mean if we said that Paul exercised ‘leadership’?

A popular definition is that leadership is “a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task”.¹

Similarly, Wade Berry, in an article about Paul’s practice of leadership, writes:

‘Leadership’ is understood here not as dealing with how a particular leader understands and develops the organizational structure of her or his group, but as how a leader interacts with the members of the group in order to get individuals within the group or the group as a whole to adopt certain values, goals, practices, or behaviors.²

This seems a reasonable way to think about ‘leadership’—as the process of drawing people together to influence and ‘lead’ them in a certain direction (often to accomplish a particular task). If this is what we mean by ‘leadership’, Paul was certainly a leader.

For starters, he wrote at least thirteen letters to churches or individuals, in which he greeted, taught, encouraged and corrected the recipients. In those letters we read of his visits to those churches and others. We read of their welcome and response to him—albeit from his perspective (1 Thess 1:9). We see Paul giving directions for the public reading of his letters (Col 4:16), and arranging for the collection of aid for Christians in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:3). We see him sending people on errands (1 Cor 4:17); asking and accepting support for himself and his mission (1 Cor 16:6; Phil 4:15; 2 Tim 4:11–13); and warning, disciplining, and shaming his readers to change their conduct (1 Cor 4:14, 5:3, 6:5).

In short, the depiction of Paul in his letters has him exercising social influence towards particular goals or behaviours—how we judge that social influence is another question, but social influence it plainly is.

In addition to this, the descriptions and titles Paul uses for his ministry make it clear that he was interested in the social influence of a particular group: the early Christian movement. It was not leadership in general that occupied Paul, but leadership within the Christian movement, especially, but not exclusively, in churches he had founded.

Consider the descriptions and titles he uses for himself and his ministry: he is an apostle (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1, 4:9), a herald and teacher (1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11), a father ‘in the Lord’ to whole churches (1 Cor 4:15; 2 Cor 6:13, 12:14–15; Gal 4:19; 1 Thess 2:11) and to individuals—Timothy, Titus, and Onesimus (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 2:22; 1 Tim 1:18; Titus 1:4; Phlm 10).

In these descriptions and titles we see at least two aspects of Paul’s leadership—it involved social influence, and of the Christian community.

Yet these descriptions and titles sit alongside others with a different perspective: he is a brother to all believers (Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 1:1, 8:13, 16:12; 2 Cor 1:1, 2:13, 8:22; Phil 2:25; 1 Thess 3:2); a menial manual labourer (1 Cor 3:6); placed last in line by God (1 Cor 4:13, 15); one among many entrusted with similar work (cf. Peter, Apollos, 1 Cor 1 and 3).

He is like a nursing mother (1 Thess 2:7); he knows the frailty of old age (Phlm 9), the vulnerability and opprobrium of being a prisoner of Christ (Eph 3:1, 4:1; 2 Tim 1:8; Phlm 1, 9); he regards himself a debtor to Greeks and barbarians, the wise and the foolish (Rom 1:14); he is a slave of Christ and of the Corinthian Christians (Gal 1:10; 2 Cor 4:5); the chief of sinners (1 Tim 1:15); the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:9); the very least of all the saints (Eph 3:8); and the scum of the world (1 Cor 4:13).

On this evidence there can be little doubt Paul considered himself a leader, at the very least of those communities and individuals to which he wrote. But he was not a one-dimensional leader. He says things about himself that we might not expect from a leader by twenty-first century standards, and certainly not by those of the first century Graeco-Roman world.

Of course, Paul’s letters are only one half of a conversation. Did others consider him a leader? Several factors suggest the recipients of his letters did regard him as a leader—indeed, as their leader.

Firstly, there is the historical fact that his letters were preserved and gained the significance they did in the early church. Secondly, there is the evidence of the letters themselves: in that churches experienced his leadership firsthand as he lived, worked and preached among them (1 Cor 1:16, 2:2–3; 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7–9). Thirdly, these churches also turned to Paul to answer questions and to give them advice (1 Cor 1:11, 7:1). Finally, a number of churches also gave material support for his mission (Phil 4:15–16; cf. 1 Cor 16:6).

So we have seen that Paul regarded himself as a leader, and other Christians likewise regarded him as a leader, even their leader. But what sort of leader? What did his leadership look like?

Paul’s leadership was God-enabled and Spirit-led

Key to Paul’s self-identity as a leader was his role as ‘an apostle’, and key to that role was the fact that it was a divine appointment and that it involved a mission commanded and enabled by God and governed by the Spirit of God.

No less than seven of Paul’s thirteen letters begin with him introducing himself as ‘an apostle of Christ Jesus’ (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1), and he refers to himself as an apostle in all but three (Philippians, 2 Thessalonians and Philemon). Furthermore, he claimed he received his apostleship through Jesus Christ (Rom 1:5), and had been ‘called’ and ‘set apart’ by God for the special task of taking the gospel to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5, 11:13; Gal 1:16).

Paul’s leadership, then, rested on a divine appointment. It was part of the eternal plan and purpose of God (Titus 1:1–3). Paul did not appoint himself to the role. He did not seek it. He did not deserve it. It came to him, not as a human appointment, but as a gracious gift of God, a divine appointment (Rom 15:15–16; Gal 1:1).

But it is not quite that simple. Paul’s leadership and authority did not just rest on ‘being’ (to use the category I mentioned earlier), on his divine commission as an apostle; they also rested on ‘doing’.

His apostolic role and authority were only as good as his ministry was faithful to the gospel with which he had been entrusted. As he says to the Galatians “even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). That is, Paul’s ‘doing’, his faithfulness to the task of his apostleship, was a necessary part of his leadership.

But his faithfulness to that task did not depend entirely on him, because all his efforts had their ultimate source in the work of God in and through him (Rom 15:18–19; Gal 2:8; 2 Tim 4:17). In Paul’s words: “For this I toil, struggling with all his [God’s] energy that he powerfully works within me” (Col 1:29).

Both Paul’s apostolic appointment came from God (his ‘being’), and his apostolic task (his ‘doing’) was assigned and accomplished by God.³ This is why Paul’s letters are woven through with thanksgivings, prayers and doxologies praising God. There was a God-ward orientation to his leadership and ministry, because he knew he had been appointed by God to do a task of God’s choosing, through God’s enabling, under God’s direction, and for God’s glory (Rom 11:36, 16:27; 1 Cor 10:31; 2 Cor 4:15; 2 Tim 4:18).

Paul’s leadership was word based and cross-centred

The chief characteristic of Paul’s leadership, then, is the primacy of the gospel and its faithful proclamation.⁴ This is evident also in the vocabulary of Paul’s epistles. Of the eighty-four times he uses vocabulary related to the Greek word for ‘gospel’ (εὐαγγέλιον), sixty-four relate to his own ministry (i.e. more than 75%).⁵

He also explicitly nominates gospel proclamation as his chief task. He was not sent to baptize (1 Cor 1:17), or even to minister to existing churches where others had preached, but he was sent to break new ground for the gospel (Rom 15:20).

His leadership was principally exercised through preaching, and his preaching had to be true to the gospel, the message of ‘Christ crucified’—his substitutionary death for sins, bodily resurrection and heavenly ascension (Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 1:23, 15:3–8; Eph 1:20; 1 Thess 1:10). In other words, Paul’s leadership was gospel leadership: speaking it, spreading it, defending it, explaining it, helping it grow.

His life was a life of words, whether spoken or written, and primarily words about the cross of Christ. This meant faithfulness to the ‘word’ of the gospel Paul received by revelation (Gal 1:12; Eph 3:3), and to the God-inspired Scriptures we know as the Old Testament.

In short, Paul’s leadership was word-based and cross-centred. The gospel of Christ crucified was his passion and raison d’être. He was ambitious to preach Christ (Rom 15:20), unashamed of the gospel (Rom 1:16), and willingly became “all things to all people… for the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor 9:22-23). This was the result of both heavenly commission and inner compulsion. As Paul says:

For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! (1 Cor 9:16)

But it was not just his words. His own life functioned as a testimony to the power of the gospel, since his whole life’s direction was turned around by one divine encounter on the way to Damascus (Gal 1:11–17; Phil 3:4–11) and it functioned as an example of the wide embrace of Christ’s mercy, where even a zealous persecutor of Christ and his people, like Paul, might be saved (1 Tim 1:15).

Paul’s leadership was cross-shaped—‘cruciform’

As his leadership was focused on the gospel and its proclamation, so too were the manner and method of Paul’s leadership cross-shaped or ‘cruciform’.

This is what lies behind the problem that the status-conscious Corinthian believers had with Paul’s way of operating.⁶ They wanted someone to be proud of, who was impressive according to the ‘leadership’ standards of the day. They wanted a great rhetorician with a following, who used all the tricks of the trade to impress, who earned praise and personal gain, and whose worth was plain to all by the status of their supporters. They wanted a leader whose manner and method were a source of honour, not shame—something not less than secular leadership.

But if Paul was clear that he was sent to preach, and not to baptize, he was also clear he was not to preach in a way that emptied the cross of its power (1 Cor 1:17). This is what would have happened had he adopted the manner and methods of non-Christian speakers and the socially elite. But not only did he not adopt these things, he went a step further (a step too far for the Corinthians) and adopted a style of leadership that was the antithesis of that of his opponents, reflecting the weak and foolish and lowly message of the cross.

His leadership was “in weakness and in fear and much trembling” and his speech was a “demonstration of the Spirit and of power”, not impressive human arguments or techniques (1 Cor 2:3-4). Worse still, he and the other apostles lived lives not of triumph and power, but of shame, weakness and foolishness (1 Cor 4:11–13).

In this regard, Paul’s own life and ministry were an object lesson of the way of the cross, where God’s strength and wisdom were demonstrated and his purposes achieved through what the world judged to be weak, foolish, and lowly.

Following the way of ‘Christ crucified’, Paul sacrificed his own rights for the benefit of others. This is what is on view in 1 Corinthians 9, sandwiched between chapters dealing with the Corinthians’ insistence on their own rights to the detriment of others (1 Cor 8–14). Paul sacrificed his apostolic ‘rights’ to material assistance, and any comfort or prestige they might have brought him, for the sake of others and of the gospel. Though he was free from all, he made himself a servant to all, in order to win them for Christ (1 Cor 9:19). He tried not to offend Jews or Greeks or the church of God, but to please everyone in everything, not seeking his own advantage, so that many may be saved (1 Cor 10:32–33).

Moreover, as a messenger of the gospel of the suffering Christ, Paul’s experience was also one of suffering. He was afflicted in every way, perplexed, persecuted, imprisoned, beaten, often near death, lashed, stoned, shipwrecked, hungry, cold, and without shelter (2 Cor 4:8–9, 11:23–27). Almost everywhere he went he faced opposition and threats from Jews, Gentiles, and governing officials (1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 11:26–32; 2 Tim 4:15).

In all this Paul regarded himself as a captive, a former enemy of Christ being led in Christ’s triumphal procession (2 Cor 2:14), daily being given over to death for the sake of Christ (2 Cor 4:11). Accordingly, he rejoiced and boasted in his sufferings (2 Cor 11:30, 12:10; Phil 1:19–26). Such experiences were proof of his apostleship (Gal 6:17; 2 Cor 11:23‑29; 2 Tim 1:11–12, 2:9), a role that necessarily entailed sharing in the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor 1:5, 4:10; Phil 3:10–11; Col 1:24).⁷

Paul’s leadership, then, was the antithesis of the leadership models prevalent in Graeco-Roman society.⁸ By his own admission and intention, his leadership reflected the weakness, foolishness, lowliness, humiliation, self-sacrifice, self-denial, and suffering of his Lord. Indeed, it is on the basis of this necessary comparison with Christ that the super and false apostles were exposed as impostors. They were leaders in terms of social influence, but their message and lifestyle indicated that they were not Christian leaders but servants of Satan (2 Cor 11:13–15).⁹

Paul’s leadership was deeply relational

What we have seen, then, is that Paul clearly believed in leadership, and exercised it in person in the churches he visited and established, and in absentia through the sending of his letters or his co-workers (1 Cor 4:17; 2 Cor 8:18; Eph 6:22; Phil 2:23; Col 4:8–9; 1 Thess 3:2; Titus 3:12). His leadership was not simply adapted or adopted from contemporary pagan models, but was distinctively Christian, in purpose, content, manner, and method.

But even so, it could still be argued that Paul’s leadership was manipulative, self-interested and malevolent. In answering this charge, two remaining aspects of his leadership are decisive.

The first is that Paul’s leadership was deeply relational.

Admittedly, if leadership is about social influence perhaps it is not saying much to note that Paul’s leadership was relational. But the quality of those relationships is decisive. His relationships were not one-sided. Despite his divinely appointed role and authority, there is reciprocity in his relationships, and his leadership took place in the context of relationships that he valued and fostered, and where he sought others’ benefit.

Paul frequently locates himself within relationships that are based on the closest of human bonds, the family. Most notably, he has mutual ‘sibling’ relationships with brothers and sisters, who with him are all equally children of God (Rom 8:29). And there are other family-shaped relationships: Timothy and Titus are his ‘sons’ (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 2:22; 1 Tim 1:18; Titus 1:4). The mother of Rufus was a mother to him (Rom 16:13). The Galatians were his ‘little children’, for whom he was in the pains of childbirth (Gal 4:19). He was a ‘father’ to the Corinthians, and to Onesimus (1 Cor 4:15; Phlm 10). He was like a ‘nursing mother’ and a ‘father’ to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 2:7, 11). These were relationships with familial affection, in which Paul acted for the benefit of others—often at personal cost.

Then there are the many other relationships in which he locates himself: with other apostles (1 Cor 4:9, 9:5, 15:9; Gal 1:17), male and female co-workers (Rom 16:3, 9; Phil 2:25, 4:3; Col 4:11), and fellow ministers or servants (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6, 6:4; Col 1:7). He has patrons or benefactors (Rom 16:1-2), and together with all believers he is one of the saints (1 Cor 1:2; Eph 3:8).

Moreover, Paul valued the relationships the gospel created for him. Those he was in relationship with brought him joy (2 Cor 2:3; Phil 1:4), and great comfort and encouragement (Rom 1:12; 2 Cor 7:6–7; Col 4:11; Phlm 7). They helped him through their prayers, and generosity (Rom 16:2; 1 Cor 16:6; 2 Cor 1:11; Phil 2:30; 2 Tim 1:18). They were a source of pride, and grief (2 Cor 7:4, 8, 14; 1 Thess 2:19), and the subject of his own prayers (2 Cor 13:7; Eph 1:16; Phil 1:4).

In addition to this, Paul took active steps to foster relationships. His letters were themselves a means of being present with those from whom he was physically absent. The goal of his missionary journeys was not simply to preach but to establish relationships, relationships in which he was a genuine participant.

As Marion Carson says of his ministry to the Thessalonians:

The message itself may have been powerful, but Paul did not hold a mass rally and… immediately move on to the next venue. Had he done so, an unrealistic reputation might have built up, even while he remained a largely unknown quantity to his new converts. He might even have become some sort of hero—idealised and revered. Instead, he stayed, working at his trade while teaching them the basics of the faith, acting as their leader, guiding them as to how they should conduct their lives… He made himself vulnerable to charges of being a liar or a charlatan, of being exposed, at worst, as a fraud, and at best, as one whose life did not match up to the high ideals he preached.¹⁰

And he did not just live and work and preach to those he led, but he also had heart-felt love and affection for them (1 Cor 4:17; 2 Cor 2:4; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:8)—love and affection he desired would be returned by them (2 Cor 7:2, 7). Accordingly, his leadership was directed at particular people.

His letters depict countless personal connections. Romans 16 alone mentions thirty-five people by name, and several others through their associations with those named. More broadly, his letters were not ‘form letters’ but targeted letters, written to specific people in specific churches in specific locations and in differing cultural settings. This is true even for the letter to the Ephesians.¹¹

Indeed, Paul’s ability to understand different cultures and contexts gave him the adaptability he needed to target his life and teaching to the needs of those he led (1 Cor 9:20). He changed his leadership style to meet different needs. For example, he wanted to deal with the Galatians face-to-face so they could know the full force of his apostolic concern (Gal 4:20), but he spared the Corinthians a painful visit, preferring to write (2 Cor 1:23–2:4). This shows that while his leadership was not manipulative, he did understand people, and did adapt his leadership to fit different situations.¹²

It is this commitment to personal relationships that lies behind his appeals and exhortations for certain beliefs and conduct in those to whom he writes. They are not manipulative or coercive power plays, but instead demonstrate Paul coming alongside people who know him and whom he knows, using those benevolent relationships to elicit the right response to gospel truths by persuasive appeal.¹³

Paul’s leadership was relational, personal, and directed towards the good of others. It was located and exercised within a network of relationships, which he valued and fostered. Some of these relationships were asymmetrical—where he had a role and authority that set him apart. Significantly, all relationships also had symmetrical elements, where he was one among many—fathers, apostles, workers, servants—and where he shared a mutual identity and bond with all believers—as both sinner and saint.

Paul’s leadership had exemplary benefit for all believers

This relational aspect of Paul’s leadership is the key to understanding the place of imitation in his leadership. Those he led would be unable to imitate him unless they had personal knowledge of him, and outside the context of positive and benevolent relationships his appeal to imitation would be unattractive and unpersuasive. This is reflected in the fact that Paul’s calls for imitation of himself were only issued to communities that he was instrumental in establishing.¹⁴

Moreover, the content of imitation was not a blanket command covering the whole of Paul’s life, but of specific aspects of his life, which explains why, despite the many non-repeatable elements of Paul’s leadership, he could present himself as a model for others to imitate, and commend others for imitating him.

For instance, Paul calls for the Corinthians to imitate his cruciform life of shame, weakness and foolishness, and to forego personal rights for the sake of the salvation of others (1 Cor 4:16, 11:1). In Philippians, it is the cross-shaped life of suffering lived in hope of future glory that Paul urges (Phil 3:17). With the Thessalonians, imitation involved self-sacrificial faithfulness to Christ in the face of opposition, and resulted in both the gospel going forth (1 Thess 1:6, cf. 2:14)¹⁵ and in productive living for the sake of others (2 Thess 3:7–9). Also, as the chief of sinners, Paul provides an example of the extent of the mercy of Christ (1 Tim 1:16).

However, it is only the correspondence between Paul’s life and the way of Christ that provides the basis for imitation—a link he makes explicitly on several occasions (1 Cor 4:16–17, 11:1; Phil 2:5–11, cf. 3:10; 1 Thess 1:6; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Rom 15:2–3).¹⁶ As Andrew Clarke puts it: “Paul’s model of leadership (the model or example which he sets) is his own, albeit imperfect, ‘imitation of Christ’”.¹⁷ He also presents other people as worthy models for imitation, which also undermines the charge that his calls for imitation were manipulative and self-seeking (2 Cor 8:1–7; Phil 3:17).

Personal reflection on Paul’s leadership

Paul’s leadership was God-enabled, Spirit-led, word-based, cross-shaped and deeply relational. It provided an example for believers to follow.

These distinctives are not unrelated, and the common factor is the gospel: the message of the life, death and resurrection of God’s Son, Jesus Christ; the power of God for the salvation of all people, and the means by which God is gathering a people to himself. Paul was a servant in that task (1 Cor 3:5).

This is why Paul was appointed as an apostle; why God equipped him and directed him in that task; why Paul’s message had to conform to the gospel first preached; why his life conformed to the self-sacrificial, weak and foolish cross of Christ; and why his leadership could not conform to the models in the world around him but be exercised only for the sake of others and for the glory of God.

Even though our circumstances are different to Paul’s, these are the very things that should shape our own exercise of leadership in whatever sphere God gives us; the goals and ambitions that should motivate us; and the measures we should use when assessing the leadership or leadership potential of others. At the heart of it all is the glorious cross of Christ.