Movement Leadership Embracing Chaord in the Missio Ecclesiae

History seems to repeat itself in a continual cycle of recapitulation. While there is a temptation to think of our particular period of history as unique, a student of the past quickly recognizes common characteristics and patterns that appear familiar across time. The study of leadership theory is no less the case as we look to the past to analyze characteristics—whether good or bad—of those who rise to prominence in a society: presidents, politicians, businesspeople, pastors, even oligarchs and dictators.1

In a world that often seems out of control to the average person, dictators like Vladimir Putin, narcissists like Donald Trump, nationalists like Narendra Modi, businesspeople like Bernie Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes, and pastors like Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald remind us of the urgency for a leadership emulating Jesus Christ and his disciples. While Jesus certainly set a tone for a style of leadership that was trans-cultural and trans-historical, his followers today continue to struggle with the temptation to succumb to the “four beasts” that consume leaders—ego, envy, avarice, and ambition—whether in church, business, education, or government (Hock 2005).

Leadership theory has been studied for millennia. Harkening back to the days of Hippocrates’ four temperaments (ca. 370 BC) and Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars (ca. 121 AD) to what have become de facto Christian leadership styles espoused either by Oswald Sanders’ spiritual leadership (1967) or by Robert Greenleaf’s servant leadership (1977), humanity seems to have an insatiable appetite for understanding the ideal leader.

More recent scholarship regarding leadership has included the works of Bernard Bass’ transformational leadership (1990), later applied to Christianity by Leighton Ford (1991 [2003]), and Stephen Covey’s principle centered leadership (1992). Proceeding into the 21st century and building on the work of Greenleaf, Blanchard and Conley guide businesspeople to servant leadership (2022). Additionally, the ubiquitous John Maxwell provides a sundry of laws for leadership whether they are irrefutable (2007), invaluable (2012), or indisputable (2013). Unsatisfied with hierarchical leadership, Ancona and Bresman argue for a flat or distributed structure that is more conducive to innovation and team building (2007).

In the contemporary Christian world, Alan Hirsch’s APEST typology (2006) and his recent leadership intelligence (2017) have focused attention on Ephesians 4:11-15 as a model for Jesus-esque leadership while others, like Newton and Schmucker (2014) and Strauch (2003) concentrate on biblical eldership (2014), while Collins focuses on deacons (2003). Polycentric leadership proposes a solution to domineering styles prevalent in hierarchical structures. Discussed as much in the academy (Handley, 2021) as well as in popular Christian literature (Woodward, 2012; Woodward and White, 2016), polycentric leadership draws from “multiple centers of influence” in a dynamic relationship between stakeholders. Paul David Tripp’s leadership principles from the gospels (2020) leads us to assert that there is no gap in the literature when it comes to the topic.

This chapter will look specifically at a style of organizational leadership initially articulated by the founder of Visa Corporation, Dee Hock (2005). Coining a neologism, Hock simply defines “chaord” as, “any self-organizing, adaptive, nonlinear complex system, whether physical, biological, or social, the behavior of which exhibits characteristics of both order and chaos” (2005, loc 474). The success of an $82 billion company with more than 20,000 employees who are united on a mission to be “everywhere you want to be” might cause us to consider chaord for a church movement on God’s mission to be taken everywhere you want to go. Then, we will consider the application of chaord in relationship to God’s mission in the world through the sending of the ekklesia. Finally, it will be apparent that a chaordic organization expresses both the chaos of spiritually gifted people empowered for works of service as well as the order of God’s mission to unite all things in Christ (Col 1:20). As such, a leadership most favorable to empowering God’s people towards God’s mission must be comfortable in both chaos and order. In this manner, leadership becomes movemental in nature and, as Hirsch notes, “… maintaining a movement ethos is one sure antidote to the dangers of increasing institutionalism” (2016:141). First, however, we’ll begin by laying out the problem in contemporary Christian leadership.

There is little debate that contemporary culture in general, and Christianity in particular, is facing an urgent leadership crisis. The crisis is not isolated to the United States although its leadership—both secular and clerical—has certainly drawn the attention of the world. Whether manifesting in scandalous political leadership or aberrational “church” leadership, the predicament can easily be characterized by charismatic personalities who thirst for power and control in order to achieve their agendas. Often, the fulfillment of their agenda is at the expense of people who come across their paths. Their controlling tendency manifests in pithy accusations such as “you are not a team player,” which has become a euphemism for “you are not playing by my rules.”

In such a climate, one of two things might happen. First, a command-control leader establishes a hierarchy that places his authority above all others. Such an authoritarian posture alienates those who do not share the same agenda. As Hock notes, “purpose slowly erodes into process” (2005, loc 758). This mechanistic approach, Hock continues, is “demeaning and discouraging” to capable people (2005, loc 774). He rightly identifies the issue: “Without question, the most abundant, least expensive, most underutilized, and constantly abused resource in the world is human ingenuity. The source of that abuse is mechanistic, industrial age, dominator organizations and the management practices they spawn” (2005, loc 1041).

In the church, such command-control is exhibited when people are not equipped for works of ministry and are displaced by professionals. In 1991, what we began as a vibrant movement of Romanians sharing the gospel, leading people to Christ, starting small group Bible studies in their homes, and participating in mission trips across the country quickly devolved when more “professional” missionaries arrived on the field and took control of the ministry. Indeed, data has demonstrated that adding more clergy does not necessarily result in more growth. In fact, the study of one denomination in the U.S. saw a reduction in the number of new church plants correlated to an increased number of clergy (Cooper, 2021). Conventional wisdom seems to suggest that adding professional ministers potentially removes ministry opportunities for the laity.

Not only is the command-control style of leadership a concern, but also the personalities of charismatic leaders. Hock’s four beasts—ego, envy, avarice, and ambition—are apparent among Christian leaders in many parts of the world. One need only drive through the streets of Nairobi, Kampala, or Accra to see billboards covered with the faces of pastors on display claiming this or that if only you attend their church or revival. Such personality-driven leadership betrays an egocentrism foreign to biblical leadership (Tripp 2021).

Second, a command-control climate might lead to collapse. The collapse of an organization—in our case, the church—is likely to occur when people cannot use or are prevented from using their gifts for contributing to God’s mission. In such circumstances, the institution— whether church, para-church, or seminary—becomes captivated by its own mission, indeed its need to survive. Threatened by uncertain realities, the institution becomes insular and leadership becomes authoritarian while individuals in the organization rebel and disconnect from the leadership to begin seeking their own way, if not their own self-glory. When leadership and those they lead are disconnected, then turmoil, confusion, and doom often describe the attitudes of all. Financial exigency begins to drive strategic decisions and shape unspoken agendas to survive an imminent collapse. Individuals and organization both become individualistic while seeking their own self-glory disguised as preservation.

To illustrate, while attending a meeting at the Santa Fe Institute, a research organization focused on complex adaptive systems, Hock described an occasion when he was asked about the founding of Visa. At one moment, a colleague posed the question, “Where do you think the epidemic of institutional failure will lead?” He replied:

We are on the knife’s edge between two probabilities and will not remain there long. One is that institutional failure will continue to escalate, leading to increasing inequity and social carnage. In an effort to control societal problems, there will be even greater centralization of power—regression to much more dictatorial institutions, both political and commercial—that could last for decades. Such repression cannot endure. It will, in turn, collapse, leading to even greater social carnage. (2005, loc 3774)

Individuals and institutions are complex systems and when tempted by the “four beasts” they become self-seeking and self-preserving organisms heading to anarchy that leads to collapse on the one hand or an autocracy that leads to dictatorship on the other. As Adam Grant notes, “we often prefer the ease of hanging on to old views over the difficulty of grappling with new ones” (loc 119) even when such old views jeopardize our purpose. The four beasts—ego, envy, avarice, and ambition—consume command-control individuals and organizations alike. Instead, Hock advocates the need for a “great bargain” to exchange “ego for humility, envy for equanimity, avarice for time, and ambition for liberty” (2005, loc 288). Such an exchange can occur in a chaordic organization.

Frustrated with a mountain of monikers attempting to describe a phenomenon where chaos met order, Hock coined the term chaord with the understanding that it is “any self-organizing, adaptive, nonlinear complex system, whether physical, biological, or social, the behavior of which exhibits characteristics of both order and chaos” (2005, loc 474).2 Conceptually, the idea is not new. Science has long recognized complexity in the midst of chaos and order (Mitchell 1995). Whether or not the business world—for-profit and not-for-profit—have recognized such complexity is still another story. For our purposes, complexity—or in Hock’s neologism, chaord—is a place where purpose meets people.

For our purposes, complexity—or in Hock’s neologism, chaord—is a place where purpose meets people.

In relationship to the church—both universal and local—chaord is culturally adaptive as it becomes self-organizing around the gifting of the members. Clearly, Jesus did not leave specific instructions for liturgical procedures although the church certainly commemorated new life in baptism (Matt 28:19), Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the devil in communion (1 Cor 10:14-17, 21), as well as the unique demonstration of service through foot-washing (John 13:1-11). Even so, the forms these commemorations adopted were largely culturally conditioned. In such a manner, the church was self-organizing based on the culture of members.

Likewise, New Testament leadership structures were organic and natural. While obviously there were those disciples with more experience and inherent authority, they served others by empowering them to use their gifts (2 Tim 1:6) and entrusting them to fulfill their gifting in the mission of God (Eph 2:10). There was an absence of command-control leadership if for any other reason than Jesus forbade it. Mark records,

You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But 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 slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:41-45).

Hock notes, “The truth is, that given the right circumstances, from no more than dreams, determination, and the liberty to try, quite ordinary people consistently do extraordinary things” (2005, loc 2478). This was just as true for the first century as it is today. As such, to think there was an emerging monolithic church structure is to misunderstand the complexity of Greco-Roman society. Systems of patronage and assembly (ekklesia), for example, demanded different leadership structures. So, it should be of no surprise when in Galatia Paul and Barnabas appointed elders according to a Jewish model (Acts 14:23). Neither should it be surprising that in Philippi there were multiple bishops and deacons (Phil 1:1) and in Ephesus a single bishop, council of elders, and deacons modeled after civil leadership structures (1 Timothy 3; Cooper 2020, loc 2652). It is a mistake to think that Paul’s ecclesial leadership was evolving; rather it was self-organizing and adapting, which resulted in the extraordinary spread of Christianity because it looked familiar to the culture.

In the second century, Justin Martyr describes a typical church service in his cultural context. He writes,

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. (First Apology, 67)

Justin, whose school was located in Rome, clearly draws from the common practice of an assembly electing a president to lend voice to an issue. For example, Plato records that Socrates was elected president by the assembly (ekklesia) in Athens during the Peloponnesian War (Apology 32b) to address the misconduct of Greek generals. Similarly, Aristotle notes the role of the president in the political life of Athens (Athenian Constitution 43.2-3). Justin, having studied Greek philosophers, was well familiar with the custom so naturally adapts its leadership structure in his second century context.

The complex system of the ekklesia was adaptive as much to leadership as to forms. Forms of the church were fluid without compromising function. Whether early missionaries were aware of the adaptation or consciously adapting to what seemed natural is unclear, yet the outcome of such adaptation is evident. In Asia Minor, the oikos became the primary place for ekklesia (1 Tim 3:4). The socio-economic-religious network of a household provided a uniquely adaptive model for the function of the ekklesia where the one who managed his network well led the oikos (1 Tim 3:9). On Paul’s first missionary journey with Barnabas, the synagogue provides a different form for those Jewish believers recognizing the value of existing cultural systems (Acts 13-14). Interestingly enough, the synagogue model did not originate with the Jews. The Greek word simply meant to gather. One of the earliest literary references to the word related to the disciples of Pythagoras (6c. BC) who met to discuss ethics and philosophy, eat together, share property, and have fellowship (see Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras 7, 9, 19, 20 and Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, 18.81, 21.98); a description remarkably similar to the first church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-37).

In some instances, the early church looked like a school similar to what we observe with Paul in Ephesus (Acts 19:9). In fact, as Loveday Alexander noted, “To the casual pagan observer the activities of the average synagogue or church would look more like the activities of a school than anything else” (1995:60). Common in such schools, such as Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum, were teaching and preaching, moral exhortation to virtuous living, and exegesis of philosophical texts. Again, a rather apt description of the church in the book of Acts (Acts 20:7-12).

The ekklesia, the body of Christ, is also a complex system of people both ethnically and in giftedness. The various gifts exercised in the ekklesia necessitate a system that allows the practice of the gifts within the body (Rom 12:4-5). This is no easy task as inevitably some will raise their gift above another’s gift. Speaking in tongues, for example, has notoriously been elevated to a height that betrays Paul’s teaching on the function of the body (1 Cor 14:1-5). An elitism of gifting, while present in the church in Corinth, is an anomaly of the teaching in the New Testament. A complex system must recognize the value of the other in the function of the body (Rom 12:3).

A system, however, does not function without purpose. This common purpose animates the system towards a cause. Motivated by the cause, the chaordic organization recognizes and values the contributions of all members. Their gifts and talents are not based on a hierarchical system that attempts to control outcomes. Rather, freedom is permitted in a trusting and dynamic relationship as all are committed to the same purpose.

For the ekklesia, that purpose is clearly articulated in Scripture and modeled by Jesus Christ himself (John 3:16, 10:10, 17:3). As the single head of the ekklesia, Jesus’ purpose to defend the faith, care for the exploited, and proclaim the gospel unites and awakens the chaordic organization to equip the saints for these ministries (Eph 4:12; works of service) as it is sent into the world.

The missio ecclesiae revolves around the expectation placed on the body of Christ as adopted sons and daughters (Eph 1:5). The idea is often understood as the church’s mission; however, the concept literally means the sending of the church into the world ostensibly on God’s mission. As Jürgen Moltmann stated, “It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfill in the world; it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church” (1977:64). So, the ekklesia, on God’s mission, is sent into the world to make disciples of all nations without discrimination (Matt 28:18).

Missio Dei

God’s mission, then, is the sole uniting purpose of the ekklesia. It has been variously expounded as uniting all things in Christ (Eph 1:10), drawing more worshippers to himself (Rev 5:9, 7:9), glorifying himself and Christ (John 17:3-6), advancing his rule on earth (Matt 6:9-13), and saving the lost (1 Tim 2:4). No matter how his mission is expressed, it is exemplified in the life of Christ.

Clearly, Jesus’ mission on earth was to glorify the Father. He states, I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. (John 17:4). Thus, the question must be asked, “What is the work Christ did?” While it certainly included the proclamation of the gospel (Luke 4:18-19), it also included setting straight the misunderstanding of the law (Matthew 5-7) and sorting out of the religious leaders who did not understand the prophecies about Christ (John 9-10). Additionally, his obvious care for the marginalized demonstrated his divine authority (Matt 25:31-40). In a very real sense, Christ’s mission to glorify the Father was achieved by defending the faith, caring for the marginalized, and declaring the good news that salvation is for all people.

That mission and its accompanying three-fold focus—care for the marginalized, defense of the faith, declaration of the gospel—is now what stirs the ekklesia through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:19). By gifting the body of Christ with sundry gifts (1 Cor 12:7-11), God’s people venture on to the common cause of seeing more people worship him (Acts 19:20; Rev 5:9, 10:11). Working collectively in their diversity, people will come to worship God when the church is the church in the world. As Moltmann indicated, it is God’s mission and we, the ekklesia, are privileged to take part. It already has a leader, Christ himself, who promised that he would build the ekklesia (Matt 16:19) as her head (Eph 1:22).

Leading Chaord

With a clear mission to reach the world and vision of more people worshipping God, those who are set apart as leaders do so in the full awareness of the head of the ekklesia as well as the diversity of his body. Leading in such a divinely chaordic system requires an approach divinely established, namely an approach that regards each other as equally important for equipping the body to properly engage in the three-fold ministry. Christ undoubtedly provided such an approach when he ascended (Eph 4:8). As Paul writes in a circular letter to the ekklesia in Asia Minor,

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Eph 4:11-14).

What has been popularly referred to as APEST by Hirsch (2017) and others constitutes a dynamic leadership team whose key feature cannot be hierarchical. Indeed, APEST, working together, serves to bring order to the disorder of a varyingly, indeed chaotically, gifted people. One might think of the chaos of the spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church for example (1 Cor 12-14). It would be a mistake to suggest that APEST was command-control or top-down and, in fact, it would be a misunderstanding of Jesus’ teaching on leadership. Few will argue against the leadership exhibited by Jesus. It certainly was not driven by Hock’s four beasts. Instead, his leadership has been characterized by servanthood (John 13:1-20) as he did not come to be served but to serve and give his life for many (Mark 10:45). He led by grace and humility yet was also bold and authoritative when necessary.

Paul led similarly. Even when he had the right to exercise his authority (2 Cor 10:1-3) he led instead by example (1 Cor 11:1). He was an empowering leader who inspired others to follow by entrusting them to exercise their gifts. Both he and Jesus held high expectations of their followers. In what I have described as a transactional-transformational form of biblical leadership (2005), they had every right to expect change in the lives of those they led concomitant to the transformation of the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:1-2).

Jesus and Paul, indeed APEST leaders, express a style of leadership focused on the liberty of others to exercise their gifts in order to achieve God’s mission. The chaotic nature of diverse people employing varied gifts in an ordered system called God’s mission describes the complexity of the missio ecclesiae. It takes leaders who can navigate relationships in such diversity, trust that the Holy Spirit will unite the body as much around the mission as in service to others, and remain confident that God will accomplish his mission. This is the chaordic leadership that Hock describes:

True leaders are those who enable the unconscious values and beliefs of every member of the community to emerge, transmitted and consciously shared—who epitomize in their own behavior the general sense of the community—who symbolize, legitimize, and strengthen behavior in accordance with the sense of community— who enable that which is trying to happen to come into being. The true leader’s behavior is educed by the behavior of every individual who chooses where and how they will be led. (2005, loc 945)

In the 21st century, we tend to talk in terms of lanes by which we move for the sake of an organization’s goals. In a chaordic organization, we talk about the fluidity of a complex organism as people are not stagnant. They grow in maturity and knowledge just as Paul prayed (Eph 1:17-23, 3:14-19). That is, the chaotic nature of the work of the Holy Spirit through the transformation of lives and the distribution of sundry gifts to the body of Christ is not conducive to the command-control of mechanistic institutions. In fact, the controlling nature of institutions attempting to unite chaotic people to their institutional purpose, whether para-church, church, or seminary, often results in institutionalism, individualism, and ultimately collapse. Such command decisions disregard the person in preference for achieving the goal of the organization.

Hock shares, “People everywhere are growing desperate for renewed sense of community. Deeply held, commonly shared purpose and principles leading to new concepts of self-organization and governance at multiple scales from the individual to the global have become essential” (2005, loc 1225). Here is where the ekklesia excels: that divinely instituted body whose common mission enlivens its members to consolidate in a system that is complex, self-organizing, and adaptive. Ekklesia is where community meets purpose and breeds excitement as everyone leans into each other while together they focus on the mission-giver.

*Ekklesia* is where community meets purpose and breeds excitement as everyone leans into each other while together they focus on the mission-giver.

Adam Grant is spot on: “A hallmark of wisdom is knowing when it’s time to abandon some of your most treasured tools—and some of the most cherished parts of your identity” (2021, loc 243). We are presently in an environment where it is once again necessary for us to consider what the Reformers meant by ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda. In their willingness to challenge what had been familiar, they demonstrated a wisdom that we must recover. If we do not, then we can continue to expect to see the same results that our tools are currently designed to accomplish. If we can adapt to the chaordic nature of ekklesia, ordered around God’s mission, then we might truly see more people worshipping Christ.