We are at an interesting time in American church history. People are taking a good, hard look at how leadership operates within the church. Generally, I think that this is good and even overdue. In the long run, I think this will result in better leadership cultures and practices in churches.

A recurring theme that I've heard from those currently in leadership or those aspiring to leadership is a preference for shared leadership. People want to share the decision-making process and power. I think that this is good. Israel had a large body of elders in the Old Testament, and the New Testament advocates for a plurality of elders in every local church.

I have heard people say that they do not want to lead like Moses. What they meant was, that they didn't want to go up on a (spiritual, metaphorical) mountain and then come down and dictate God's will to the people. In their mind, Moses led in solitude, sought God in isolation, and operated on behalf of the people, not in cooperation with the people.

In Moses' defense, even Moses didn't want to lead like Moses. Moses was forced go up on the mountain alone, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE REFUSED TO GO WITH HIM. It was not Moses' idea to go up the mountain alone, it was the people's idea. That’s the point that I want to make here.

The following story is contained in Ex 19-20 and revisited in Dt 5. Here's how it all went down.

God has just delivered approximately two million Hebrews from slavery in Egypt. In the very early days of their newfound freedom, Moses nearly burned out providing leadership by himself. His father-in-law advised him to delegate some of his responsibilities to other qualified leaders. Moses offered no resistance and immediately put this advice into action (Ex 18). Remember, Moses didn't want to be in charge in the first place. This provides the immediate context for what comes next.

God communicates to the people that He desires "a kingdom of priests and an entire nation of holy people" (Ex 19:6). God invites the entire community to approach the mountain, but not without consecrating themselves first (Ex 19:10-13). They are all supposed to approach the mountain and meet with God together as a community. Everyone is supposed to be involved.

When the day came for the entire community to meet with God on the mountain the people became very afraid. All of a sudden they did not want to hear from God for themselves. They made a suggestion and a request of Moses; "You speak to us, and we will listen. But don't let God speak directly to us, or we will die" (Ex 20:18-19). So much for shared leadership. They liked that idea until it required living a consecrated life and approaching God themselves. Once they saw the cost they had a change of heart.

Moses tried to talk them into joining him; but they refused and stood at a distance, leaving Moses to meet with God alone (Ex 20:20-21). Moses would later recall that event; "The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain." (Dt 5:4-5) In the end, Moses approached God alone, not because He wanted to go alone, but because it was better that He go alone than that no one go at all.

As you can see, it was not Moses' idea that he would climb up and down a mountain as an intermediary between the people and God. When the time came for the people to participate, they backed out. It appears to be a combination of an unwillingness to live holy before God (consecration) and fear. It was easier for them to just appoint a holy man to represent the community.

Of course, this prevented the community from living up to their potential. When Moses delegated leadership by appointing 70 elders to "bear the burden of the people" (Nu 11:17), God took the same spirit that was on Moses and put that spirit on the elders so that they all ended up prophesying spontaneously and simultaneously (Nu 11:25). Interestingly, two of these 70 elders couldn't even be bothered to attend the meeting. At one point during this event, Joshua tells Moses to "make them stop," presumably because prophesying is Moses' thing. But we see Moses' heart when he says; "Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them all." (Nu 11: 29) Moses wanted everyone to experience God and minister.

A friend and fellow pastor recently lamented to me that he was struggling to find mature, healthy people willing to serve in leadership in his church. He even suggested that this same dynamic is at play in our political system. Anyone who is even remotely normal and healthy would never want to run for office, so instead we're left with narcissists and sociopaths running our society. Perhaps there is some truth in this. When good leaders don't step up, less qualified leaders will fill the void. Those less qualified leaders will almost certainly not value shared leadership.

Shared leadership is the way of the Kingdom. This approach will require two things; 1) Current leaders who are willing to release and share power and 2) New leaders who are willing to live Holy lives and make the sacrifices necessary to bear the heavy burden of leadership. Shared leadership will require shared responsibility. It will prevent some people from burning out and require other people to carry a little more of the burden. I think this is what is prescribed in the Bible. I also think that this is what people are asking for in the church.