Here is my official review after my second read-through of “Spiritual Leadership” by J. Oswald Sanders:
Many have written works on leadership in years past, including John Oswald Sanders. His work, “Spiritual Leadership,” is a beloved favorite among most Christians who have read it. With over a million copies sold to date, one would think the content meets the hype. I think otherwise. Though I am a minority in this discussion, I truly do believe this book is deserving of far less value than many have attributed to it.
To begin, some definitions and a disclaimer:
Great leader = effective, whether for good or bad reasons.
Poor leader = not effective, whether for good or bad reasons.
Good leader = morally honorable, whether effective or not.
Bad leader - morally corrupted, whether effective or not.
Biblical/Spiritual Leader (my definition) = A morally-honorable, effective leader who builds their vision and mission off of the paradigm of what God puts forth through His Word and by His Spirit.
Disclaimer: I am aware this book was adapted from Sanders’ teachings for pastors/elders to an arrangement as a leadership book for all to read an access, pastors and layman alike. I do, however, believe this is exactly the reason for my biggest qualm with this book:
Unclear WRITING of a Book
With languishing clarity in both its thesis and definitions of terms, it seems Sanders felt it best to leave the reader with incomplete thoughts to consider, rather than clear-cut direction as to how to be and/or become a “spiritual leader.” Furthermore, the quality of writing this book provides contributes to even more confusion.
An example of which is on page 39 where the book states a good leader is a “peacemaker” yet gives little to follow. No definition is provided concerning what it means to be a peacemaker, no examples of what a peacemaker looks like in action, no contrasting examples of those who aren’t peacemakers—only a call to be one. Readers need more to work with than a high-bar standard for what makes for a leader (and by leader, he means a good one, yet he never delineates between good and bad ones across the entire book. More on this later).
Another contribution to this sort of vague writing involves his fluid bouncing between speaking to pastors or leaders in general. Broadly applying texts clearly for overseers in the Church to “spiritual leaders” in many fields, Sanders teaches eisegetically, for although all can agree that many eldership characteristics are worthy of pursuing, the issue lies in the underlying reality that Sanders is teaching to pastors—not layman. Therefore, when turning one’s teachings into a book for everyone, one must commit to being exegetical and rewrite portions to apply correctly to all.
Beyond just unclear concepts, throughout the book, he makes many confusing statements. He states that natural and spiritual leaders are incredibly different from each other (32), calling the readers to become spiritual (because natural leaders aren’t made, they’re realized, according to him [32]), yet he then spends half the book giving readers non-spiritual traits to pursue, such as humor (77), inspirational power (86), letter writing (88), reading (121), etc., and “spiritualizes” them by taking scripture out of context.
One example is where Paul tells Timothy to “Give heed to reading” (121). Sanders indicates that he knows it refers to the public reading of Scripture but then proceeds to spend an entire chapter defending the idea that true leaders, for at least 30mins a day, read content pertaining to only what fuels their leadership (123). I’m not sure this train of logic computes with Paul’s.
A few other odd statements he makes include:
- Dr. John Geddie made a huge revival-level impact on an island yet Sanders gives no context as to how he accomplished that (34). I’m inspired, but what do I do?
- He says “Spirituality is not easy to define, but you can tell when it is present” (35) I can define it in three words: fidelity to Christ, not an air of influence you claimed it to be in the following sentence.
- He tells the readers to go into “intentional character training” without defining what he means by that (41), which, by the way, I thought that’s what this book is supposed to be? Intentionally training my character as a leader?
- He says leaders will seldom say they don’t have time yet later states leaders must carefully select priorities (112-113). Any good leader knows that when their priorities are lined up they will say “No” to things all the time.
Improper EXPOSITION of the Bible
A second point on Sanders’ work, which ends up being a corollary of the first, is that he manages to misinterpret most of the scriptures he discusses. Wanting to make a surface-level point, he takes what seem like low-hanging fruits from Scripture and gives them to the readers freely without giving context, explanations of meaning, or clarifying of misconceptions.
Some of the outlandish, unbiblical things he claims include:
- Mark 10:40 is about leaders being elevated instead of Christ being enthroned (23)
- The guys on the Emmaus Road had their eyes opened because they saw Jesus’ scars, not because they were spiritually enlightened by communion (141), not that Sanders ever even mentions the communion view.
- God’s voice grows quieter through the years as He entrusts more into our own discernment (147)
- God plans temptations for believers to face (159), the most ridiculous, blasphemous thing in this book.
- Moses didn’t get into the Promised Land because Joshua was “better equipped” and God was executing a succession plan, rather than what the Bible says about Moses’ sinning and losing the honor that was his before (175; cf. Numbers 20)
Incorrect PHILOSOPHY of Leadership
I’ve heard it said that this is a great introductory, or “beginner’s,” book to leadership. In this I take issue. This point is much more heady in nature…so for the laymen who love this book, please do not disregard it and say “I’m reading into it too much” because you don’t understand what I’m talking about. I encourage you to hang tight and chew on these as an opinion from another human who is also trying to live and lead well for Jesus.
I believe “biblical leadership” is enveloped in forming cultures and discipling people around Jesus. Therefore, then, the biblical leader must first be a disciple consumed by the ways of Jesus. In this line of thinking, I argue that Sanders puts the cart before the horse and forms none of his readers around Christ’s vision for good leaders who are first followers but instead conveys his own vision, dumping a pantry-worth of random isolated characteristics that he has seemed to observe be “effective” over the years—which, I also take issue with; what measurements of success is he using? Number of converts? People won on your side? He doesn’t clarify that either.
One of the characteristics he puts forth as supposedly effective is “inspirational power” (86). He explains that a leader is one who inspires others to “service, and sacrifice,” citing Nehemiah as such a man (86). Now, I agree with this; however, his unclear writing and definition of “spiritual leadership” leaves me still able to attribute this trait to Adolf Hitler too! This is unfortunate, as biblical leadership, to Sanders, no longer directly models the Bible, but only models those who can influence their circle toward their own personal vision.
On the other hand, a good, Christian leadership book would craft a thesis and argument as to what God’s vision is for His kingdom and mission and call readers to operate and influence others from THAT place and never from any other. Sanders does not do this. By assuming the roots are already grounded, he spends the duration of the book discussing fruit, failing to recognize that most readers have little idea what it really means to be an apprentice of Jesus in practice on the day-to-day.
This plays into where I differ philosophically on what it means to be a leader:
- Firstly, I do believe all are leaders, whether they be good or bad.
- But secondly, I believe leadership begins from the core within, way before it ever goes to the circle of influence without. I must live a certain way personally if I ever want others to live that way too.
- Hitler was a great leader, and yet he did so with a horrendous vision and mission.
- Therefore, a spiritual leader, has to be more than capable of influencing.
- A spiritual leader os one who is first being led by Jesus, under His vision and mission, living from that place.
- Then, and only then, can that person influence others to do the same and be considered a “spiritual leader.”
A good book on biblical leadership, then, would train readers to understand the vision and mission of Jesus from Scripture in a clear and exegetical manner without ever veering of course. This is why I think “Spiritual Leadership” by J. Oswald Sanders is far from a total home run; rather, it’s a strikeout without any foul balls.
P.S. To read my review in a word: “milky.”