Of Stalin, Church Leaders and Revolution

Today is the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National Liberation Movement of Mongolia.  This was the revolution which took place prior to the Socialist Revolution of 1921, in which the Mongolian people became Independent of the Qing Empire of China. It was actually an odd and sort of “in-between” time in Mongolian history, which makes it somewhat controversial. So much so that this year’s  Parliament made it  a “one-time” holiday (to celebrate the 100 year anniversary).  Whatever the politics behind it, I’m grateful for a day, and with the Christmas parties over and the New Year’s Holiday upon us, even a week of slow and loose schedules.  This is a good week (and a good time of the year!) to think, write and plan.

Since leadership training is now one of my main tasks, the “why”, “how”, “what” of leadership, and more particularly church leadership, has been large on my personal radar. Article reading, journal writing, teaching weekly classes with our own leadership training program and some recent life encounters has afforded opportunity for this important subject to be at the top of all my lists.

The men behind the 1911 National Liberation Movement ended up failing in their attempts to lead Mongolia (as evidenced by reverting back to Chinese rule and the subsequent Socialist revolution a little over a decade later).  While movements and parties and revolutions can not be simplified to one hinge on which success and failure turn, I am fairly sure that revolutionary failure has much to do with a leadership gap.  I’m relatively certain (this is a blog and not a research dissertation - so, again, things are much more complicated. However...) that many, if not most, if not all movements, revolutions and organizations only rise to the level of the type of leadership they contain. I will leave the defense or rebuttal of that statement to someone who has done the research on the subject.  However, in light of this, I would like to make one simple observation.

John Maxwell defines leadership as “influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.” While I’m not a Maxwell fanboy, I do agree with that definition.  The real question is what kind of influence is being exerted on people? I haven’t finalized my thinking on this yet, but I’m beginning to come to a conclusion that there are essentially two kinds of influence (leadership).  One is that of power and control.  The second is that of example and service.  Revolutions and Liberation Movements tend to have “for the people” rhetoric, but inevitably leadership practice is still more about influence by control than influence by example and service.

I’m fairly certain that influence by service and example was first introduced by Jesus, which is why it’s truly unique and revolutionary.

“But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

(Matthew 20:25-28 ESV)

This kind of leadership is flat out weird.  Who does this? Some Mongolian friends told me one time that the leader of their “Christian” organization once boasted that he “leads like Stalin”, as if this is a good thing.  Stalin was a power/control influencer, not a servant/example influencer. Yet, this naive leader believed this to be the “right way” to lead. The problem is that he is not alone in his leadership opinions. While not every one would put it into such crass terms, the fact is that the world still leads with power and control and the church has embraced this worldly leadership style of “lording it over”.  I believe this is a huge issue for the church around the world and it needs to face with courage and a heart of repentance.

Westerners are often culturally more subtle than my Mongolian friends.  We tend to be less straightforward with our declarations.  However, we’ve all seen it for sure in others.  If we’re honest, we’ve seen it in ourselves. Oh, we have the civility to not say “I will lead like Stalin” - but the “Stalin-like” tendencies come out when those we influence don’t respond to us the way we like.  When the church board or business partners or employees or our children don’t do or act the way we think they should, the human bent is to “lead like Stalin”. It’s so easy to resort to power, control and manipulation rather than seeking to understand, serve, shepherd and influence by example.

In 1911, Mongolia moved from one form of “Stalin-like” leadership to another form of “Stalin-like” leadership to actually being led by Stalin (at least in a vicarious sense - if not directly).  Today it's still the leadership model of this country and in the Mongolian church.  Obedience. Control. Power. They learned the model from Stalin. They continue to practice this model because of what they learn from the church of the West. From us. From me.

I repent.

In 2012, I dream that there will be another revolution in Mongolia (and in my own heart and lifestyle).  I dream there will be a leadership revolution.  I pray that the leaders of the Church in Mongolia will learn to shepherd like Jesus.  Serve like Jesus. Lay down their lives like Jesus.

I pray they will learn this not merely from words and teaching.  I pray they will learn this from the example they see in me.

So for 2012, may God give grace, not to lead ... but to serve and to lay down my life.  I am convinced that’s the kind of influence which will lead to a revolution of which there will be no controversy celebrating in about a million years.

And I look forward to that more than this week’s days of relative leisure.