Tag Archives: Christian Leadership

Leadership

The Nature of Christian Leadership

The quest to identify an ideal model of leadership that leaders can replicate in order to have better functioning organizations continues to be a challenge for leaders (Kouzes and Posner, 1987). This has lead writers such as Greenleaf, Winston and Brauna to explore the nature of Christian leadership, which has the capacity to change the moral fiber of man and society. This unique model has shown the potential to revolutionize leadership as we know it, and invariably create more successful organizations.

To fully understand the implications of Christian leadership we must first understand its nature. Hence the questions: what are the fundamentals on which this type of Leadership is based? Why this style of leadership gained preeminence in the work of so many scholars and has proven to be so effective in Biblical Testaments…? What is the nature of Christian leadership that sets it apart from secular leadership styles? In order to ascertain answers to these questions this paper examines the nature of Christian leadership by studying and analyzing Jesus’ Leadership in the 9th chapter in the gospel of Matthew, verses 20-22, by explicitly looking at the attributes which formed the core of Jesus’ Leadership. To assist readers to fully comprehend the nature of Christian leadership in this passage, this paper employs an inter-textual and inner texture approach from Socio rhetoric Interpretation. By examining Jesus’ leadership from different perspectives readers are provided with a more wholesome view of the nature of Jesus’ leadership style. This paper therefore, examines attributes such as: Godly principles, love and purpose of Jesus’ leadership as well as their importance to what constitute Christian leadership. It is my intention that readers will utilize the findings in this paper to enhance their leadership styles which will invariably lead to better leadership and healthier organizations.

Background

Matthean gospel holds much value to the understanding of Christian leadership as it is deemed to have had more influence on the development of the early church and consequently, Christianity. There seems to be much discrepancy about the authorship of Matthew (Desilva, 2004). Some scholars claim that it was written by Matthew, an eye witness, one of the twelve, while others cited the reliance on Mark gospel as evidence against him being an eye witness. Matthew is said to have utilized not only Mark as a source but also the Q. The language while bearing marked similarities to Mark is more elaborate. The Matthean gospel is said to have been written prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The citation of various Jewish customs, without accompanying explanations, woven throughout Matthew suggests that it was written for a Jewish audience. In order to portray Christ as the King and Messiah of Israel, Matthew utilizes various quotes from the Old Testament, thus all the principal themes are grounded in the Old Testament.

Method

In analyzing Matthew 9:20-22, socio rhetorical criticism is employed to assist in understanding the intricacies of this passage. Socio rhetorical criticism is a method of analyzing text by looking at the values, conviction and beliefs in the text in relation to the world (Robbins, 1996). There are five approaches in this method of analyzing text: Inner texture, inter texture, social and cultural texture, ideological texture and sacred texture. (Desilva, 2004). For the purposes of examining Matthew 9:20-22, an intertexture is first done to provide a conceptual understanding of the existing culture in that era. This is followed by an inner texture approach to help in comprehending the passage. Inner texture refers to the different ways that a text manipulates language to provide more detailed understanding of the text. The argumentative texture is one branch of understanding the inner working of a text. It provides reasons for readers to think and act in a specific manner. The inter-textual method of analyzing a text, studies the specific text in relation to other texts outside of the particular text. This method of analyzing a text may use different approaches and includes the use of other text in relation to the text being studied, in order for readers to fully grasp the meaning of the text. The use of both approaches provides a richer and fuller meaning of the text.

Intertexture Analysis

In order to understand Matthew 9:20-22, we must understand the history surrounding the two sects operating throughout that era; the Pharisees and the Sadducees. A study of the writings of Flavius Josephus, early rabbinical writings as well as the New Testaments provides an accurate description of these two groups. The term Pharisees is derived from the Hebrew perusim, which means “separated ones.” Later findings suggest that it may have been derived from Hebrew parosim, meaning “specifier,” They were regarded as puritans, in other words they were extremely passionate concerning the principles within the Mosaic laws, as well as those that they added to the Old Testament legislation (Huie, 2007). This sect is symbolic of the orthodox core of Judaism and had very strong influence on the Israelites. The Sadducees are said to have been named after Zadok, a priest during the stint of King David and King Solomon, other theorists presupposes that the name is a derivative from Zadok who lived in the 2nd century BCE. In the same vein there are others who believe the name “Sadducee” comes from the Hebrew tsadiq, which means righteous (Huie, 2007). The Sadducees were famous for their unbelief of supernatural happenings. Matt.22:23 express their refusal to believe the resurrection of the dead. This sect had no regards for tradition and despised legalism. In their view the Pentateuch was the only authority, they were often very affluent, aristocrats, member of the priestly tribes and under Herod’s rule were the owners of the temple.

The degrees of differences between these two groups created an imbalance with regards to the political views throughout that era. These two groups had opposing views/beliefs concerning laws, and regulations (Huie 2002). Matthew 9:20-22 is about the woman with the issue of blood. This story may be seen as an interruption, as it occurs while Jesus was on His way to heal Jarius’s daughter. Matthew relates a story of a woman who had been bleeding for over twelve years. According to Jewish Law, this woman is deemed as unclean because of the insistent bleeding (Lev 15:25-27). This woman was scorned by family members and the society and was barred from synagogue and temples (MacArthur, 2005). A poor woman, Luke mentions that she had spent all that she had, looking for a cure. She was ostracized, an outcast by all accounts. As a result of her illness, the traditions of that era prevented women from touching men, it is possible that this is the reason she approached Jesus from behind and touched the hem of His garment. Her belief in Jesus to cure her was evident in her gesture to touch Him. Jesus did not criticize the woman because she opted to mix with people and thereby breaking all the conventions of that era. Instead He encouraged her “Take heart daughter your faith as made you whole, on approaching Jesus the woman thought “if” I touch his cloak I will be healed.” This statement is often refers to as an enthymeme (Robins, 1996).

Continue reading →

Leadership

Spiritual Shape Shifting – Christian Leadership in an Amoral Society

Introduction

“…the moral elements are among the most important in war. They constitute the spirit that permeates war as a whole, and at an early stage they establish a close affinity with the will that moves and leads the whole mass of force, practically merging with it, since the will is itself a moral quantity. Unfortunately they will not yield to academic wisdom. They cannot be classified or counted. They have to be seen or felt.”
–Carl von Clausewitz
On War

The value system of American society has become increasingly more relaxed towards the rights and freedoms of individual citizens in establishing and living by their own values. “Morality” has become a dirty word in many societal circles as criteria for determining right and wrong. Leaders sometimes avoid spiritual discussion asserting that it does not impact effectiveness. We can certainly desire only to be effective leaders and describe and justify those traits that will lead to effective leadership. But if that is all we aim for, then we have removed the moral component out of that description and we should not pretend that the resulting traits are ethical. ‘The ends do not always justify the means.’

It is not sufficient that we allow our success to determine what the core morals are. This is because the way we act largely determines the kind of people we become. Since dishonest people and criminals do not live the good life, it would be irrational to act in such a way to become such a person. Leaders require integrity, discipline, accountability, commitment, innovation, and intelligence to inspire and direct others to achieve goals. While this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, nor a complete account of the leadership values, it does illustrate how one can derive and justify relevant virtues.

Leadership versus Management

“Leadership is a function, not a position.” (Lewis, 1996) There is a continuing controversy about the difference between leadership and management. It is possible that a person can be a leader without being a manager (e.g., an informal leader), and a person can be a manager without leading, or manage without subordinates (e.g., a manager of financial accounts). Nobody has proposed that managing and leading are equivalent, but the degree of overlap has been a point of sharp disagreement. The essence of this argument seems to be that managers are oriented toward stability and leaders are oriented toward innovation; managers get people to do things more efficiently, whereas leaders get people to agree about what things should be done.

The current research in leadership is overflowing with books describing the virtues of leadership. Recent authors include Stephen Covey, Principle Centered Leadership (1991); John Kotter, On What Leaders Really Do (1999); Phillip Lewis, Transformational Leadership (1996); Aubrey Malphurs, Being Leaders (2003); and John Maxwell, Developing the Leader within You (1993) to name a few. The argument with the most merit was John Kotter (1988), that “leading and managing are distinct processes…” and that to label people as either leaders and/or managers does little to advance our knowledge or understanding of leadership.

“The word ‘manager’ is an occupational title for a large number of people and it is insensitive to use the term in a way that fosters an inaccurate, negative stereotype of them.” (Yukl, 1998) Leaders and managers are not different types of people but rather the same people in different situations or processes. After reading Kotter, Yukl, Covey, Lewis, Malphurs, Maxwell, and the biographies of military leaders from throughout the ages, the conclusion seems very clear. While the models that examine leadership principles may change, these principles are timeless; this includes moral dimensions. “…leaders who know God and who know how to lead in a Christian manner will be phenomenally more effective in the world than even the most skilled and qualified leaders who lead without God. Spiritual Leadership is not just for Pastors and Missionaries.” (Blackaby, 2001)

Core issue: Moral, Immoral, or Amoral

“The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.”

–Sun Tzu

The Art of War

“Morality is a complex system of principles based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong.” (Wikipedia, 2005) For many individuals, morality is influenced, to a large degree, by religion or theology; but for others, secular and ethical codes are also followed. Religions typically hold that morality is not a human construct, but is the work of God. Such as in the Judeo-Christian religions, the Ten Commandments is held to have been issued directly to mankind by God. Non-religious individuals justify morality on the basis that helping humanity is itself fundamentally ‘good’ and base morality on humanitarian principles.

“Immoral” refers to “a person or behavior that is self-consciously within the scope of morality but does not abide by its rules.” (Wikipedia, 2005) The thief would agree that stealing is wrong but inconsistently try to excuse his particular act and shoulder the blame onto others by saying that he had no choice and so on. In day-to-day conversations, “amoral” and “immoral” are sometimes used interchangeably. However, “Amoral” must be distinguished from “immoral” in that “amoral persons either do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (such as the so-called Antisocial personality disorder) or else do not subscribe to any moral code.” (Wikipedia, 2005) Someone may maintain that he will do as he likes and let others do the same, if they so desire, without turning this into a general principle. Because whoever says so only expresses his personal preference about the way he is going to act, the position is consistent.

Many organizations focus more on ethics rather than morals. Ethics is an intellectual approach to moral issues that asks questions such as how one ought to behave in a specific situation (for example, is abortion morally permissible?) Wether or not the claim necessitates a specific ethical stance is a matter of debate. As stated earlier, contemporary American society encourages members of its diverse population to establish their own values which leads to cultural relativism. “Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human’s beliefs and activities make sense in terms of his or her own culture.” (Wikipedia, 2005) What follows is that a particular aspect of morality may be questioned or reasoned away, especially by younger generations in society. At times, this questioning extends to the society in general, even to the extent of liberalising laws which prohibited certain behaviors. Such as in the case of abortion, it’s her body or in the case of same sex marraiges, it not my business who marries who. Cultural Relativism also leads to a culture’s justification of immoral beliefs. Such as in the case of racial slurs; ‘It’s fine for blacks to use derragatory words towards other blacks in casual conversations or music videos but it’s wrong for a person of another race to do so.

US Military Value System

“If the theory of war did no more than remind us of these [moral] elements, demonstrating the need to reckon with and give full value to moral qualities, it would expand its horizon, and simply by establishing this point of view would condemn in advance anyone who sought to base an analysis on material factors alone.”

–Carl Von Clausewitz

On War

The US military has a responsibility to itself and society to set and adhere to high moral standards. This requires the kind of moral courage that is critical to successful leadership. It also models a healthy value system for a society that may be in danger due to its own abandonment of such traditional values. The military value system is based almost entirely on the laws that govern it, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ applies to all branches of the military including the Coast Guard. Most of the issues covered in the UCMJ include: bringing cases to military courts, the different types of court-martial, treatment and apprehension of prisoners, and the trial process. Additionally, rules and regulations govern military behavior and standards of conduct. It is the very nature of military leadership to promote virtuous behavior for themselves and those who follow rather than passively follow the crowd that is liberalizing its values to accommodate contemporary social trends.

The professional military leader is stuck in the middle of this conflict between traditional and contemporary values, on one hand being a member of a dynamic society, and on the other hand called to lead in an establishment steadfast on traditional moral principles. But you may have noticed that people with military experience have certain intangible qualities. Things like self–confidence, pride and a sense of purpose. The military instills these qualities in enlistees because it makes them good people. By embodying such core values as Honor, Courage and Commitment; men and women build character and confidence, develop strong team skills, and learn to accept responsibility and accountability for personal actions. In the Navy, for instance, the same bedrock principles or core values of honor, courage, and commitment have carried on to today since the naval service began during the American Revolution.

Continue reading →