So what kind of leaders do we need? If not driven by ambition, ideology or expediency, what other drive is there? Mission.

Every week, it seems there is another religious leader revealed to have a hidden shadow life of immorality, a ruthless approach to power and control, or a narcissistic personality. Is it just that social media is affording more awareness for what has always been a rampant problem? Is it that a religious leader’s failings are of more interest to the press? There is, after all, an old line in journalism that says, “Dog bites man” is not news, but “Man bites dog” is. A person without faith having moral flaws is not news; a person of moral faith having flaws is.

But I sense that something else is afoot that is not being considered, and it has to do with the motivations for entering into leadership roles. Or perhaps, more to the point, the motivation for pursuing one. Three motivations, to my thinking, are fatally flawed and will, in the end… not end well.

The first motivation is ambition.

This person enters into a leadership role because they desire personal fame or fortune. If they weren’t on the “stage” of a church, they would be seeking some other stage. The goal is notoriety, recognition—they crave the crowd, the conferences, the books and the interviews. Their leadership is more performance than passion. In truth, however, it’s not even leadership at all. It’s the use of an organization and well-meaning people for personal prestige. A sense of entitlement, of being “above the law,” sets in. An embrace of immorality often follows or, at the very least, egocentric behavior and greed. In almost every case, ambition as a motivation leads to narcissistic behavior and a personality-centered church.

A second motivation is ideology.

This is more subtle but becoming increasingly common. The person in pursuit of leadership likens themselves to a stealth warrior going behind enemy lines. The goal is to assert a specific theological agenda to such a degree that it becomes less theology and more ideology. They belong to a very specific theological tribe, and the goal is to see that tribe divide and conquer. Leadership is first conquest and then control. The true goal of theology is, of course, to more deeply know and understand God correctly and, through that, love Him and people more fully. When it becomes mere ideology, then it is an agenda to be pursued ecclesiastically. The goal is not to lead a church, but rather to have it reflect a particular set of (often) tertiary theological issues that reflect the tribe. If the ambitious leader leads to narcissistic behavior and a personality-centered church, the ideological leaders lead to abusive behavior and spiritual malpractice and a church built on control.

Read More