Does Power Corrupt Or Do The Corrupt Seek Power?

Maybe it’s neither?

In Christianity Today, Russell Moore recently reviewed the book Corruptible:  Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us by Brian Klaas and I was struck by the fact that neither Klaas nor Moore explore the question of what role the structure of church itself plays in attracting toxic leadership personalities. 

Don’t get me wrong, the book sounds fascinating, and I think Moore is on the right track when he highlights Klaas’ argument that the research shows that there is a specific type of personality blend that is drawn to the power, spotlight, and attention that come with being the leader of a large organization. And I especially found intriguing Klaas’ idea that toxic personalities are the only ones really ready to not only accept the benefits of being in positions of power, but also the punishment that so often comes to those who fall from power. Along those lines, one particularly insightful and painful quote from the article that everyone who loves the church should consider:

“I am often asked why there were no white pastors in the South who stood up to slavery or to Jim Crow. While the number is appallingly small, it’s not zero. It’s simply that those who went against slavery or segregation weren’t likely to survive in ministry for very long.”

In other words, the research seems to be implying that it’s the worst kind of leader that tends to survive the crucible. 

But I can’t help but wonder: why stop at which personalities and people tend to gravitate to these types of leadership positions? Why not consider the role that the structures themselves play and whether they’re necessary? 

Why learn desert survival skills and force yourself to live there if you don’t have to?