Applying Servant Leadership within a Conflicted Church: The Project as an Act of Ministry
My church, the South Iowa Chapel, like many modern churches, is a church in conflict. Conflicted churches are problematic because they drive parishioners away from the church, and, possibly, away from Christ. Conflict in a church can also be a difficult situation to remedy, because of the different personality types and leadership styles of people involved in the church. However, I feel that a significant part of the problem is that people are using traditional leadership styles in church. Jesus Christ was not a traditional leader. On the contrary, He was the epitome of a servant leader, one who leads through service to others. Obviously, He did a wonderful job leading the early church. Moreover, three of the most inspiring religious leaders of our time, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Desmond Tutu, all practiced servant leadership. Therefore, my project was to teach servant leadership to five key members of the South Iowa Chapel, in the hopes that doing so would empower them to help reduce the level of conflict in the church. From a self-selected group of volunteers, I chose those people whom I thought would be most likely to learn servant leadership skills and incorporate them into their dealings with the church. The project was successful in that each participant learned servant leadership skills. However, the project taught me several important things that I will take with me into my future work, the primary thing being that all people have some capacity to be servant leaders.
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction 5
Chapter Two: Theological Foundation of the Project 26
Chapter Three: Description of the Project 74
Chapter Four: Project Results and Evaluation 78
Chapter Five: Literature Review 83
Chapter Six: Discussion 108
Chapter One: Introduction
My church, the South Iowa Chapel, for all of its strengths, is what is best described as a conflicted church. A conflicted church is a church in which there are discord and animosity. Conflicts can be large and can impact entire denominations, like whether or not to ordain gay or lesbian clergy members, an issue that is causing massive disagreement in the modern Episcopal and Anglican churches. However, to threaten a church, conflict does not have to be large. Instead, the conflict that can destroy a church can be small and can be wholly unrelated to issues of doctrine or observance. Conflict can be caused by just a handful of difficult churchgoers, who choose to bring negativity into all of their interactions, threatening the life of the church. How does a clergyman deal with such an issue? One cannot follow Christ and suggest that the way to eliminate conflict in a church is to refuse to welcome the difficult members. After all, if Jesus could spend His time ministering to prostitutes, lepers, and other outcasts from society; it could hardly be considered Christian to reject those who do not fit nicely into the fabric of a church. On the other hand, is it fair to allow just a few negative people to destroy the loving community in a church? Obviously, the answer to that question is "no." However, that answer begets another question: how does a clergyman reconcile the needs of individual churchgoers, even the troublemakers, with the overall needs of the church?
Like many churches, South Iowa Chapel is experiencing a general decline in membership and church members have a waning interest in maintaining the church, which, I believe is partially attributable to the sheer volume of conflict within the church. It is my theory that incorporating servant leadership into the church will have a marked positive impact on this conflict and help restore peace to the church environment. Having learned about the impressive things that servant leadership can bring to a church, I proposed teaching servant leadership principles to five lay ministers and the parish council president of the South Iowa Chapel, using a Bible study framework developed by C. Gene Wilkes and James C. Hunter's audio training course, "The Servant Leadership Training Course." My selection of servant leadership as the ideal way to help this congregation was based upon my prior experience with the South Iowa Chapel, which is detailed below, as well as my belief that Jesus led people in a way that was fundamentally different from the leadership most people experience today. Bringing Jesus' leadership style back into the church seemed like an ideal way to help heal some of the rifts that had developed in the South Iowa Chapel.
Background
This project developed out of two earlier projects that were done in pursuit of my degree. My work in these two projects was essential to my growth as a group leader and helped reaffirm my commitment to the concept of servant leadership. The first of these projects was working as a growth-group leader. The second of these projects led directly into the servant-leadership training that forms the basis of this project, because it helped identify those in the church who might be interested in and successful as, servant leaders and growth-group facilitators. Those two studies are described below.
Project One: Small Group Leadership and Facilitation
Purpose
The purpose of this project was to develop leadership functions and the necessary skills required to lead a small group in a church-setting. The group was what is commonly referred to as a "Bible study" and its purpose was to meet and discuss significant principals from the Bible and how to apply those principals impact and influence daily life. Small group Bible study is a vital, but oftentimes neglected part of church life. Bible studies are needed to prevent the decline of church membership and to foster community within the congregation and increase church membership through its use as a means of educating, enhancing and contributing to the spiritual, mental, social development of those who are a part of the group. The relevance of these groups is evident by the steady decline of the neighborhood church. The hope is that small-group Bible studies will delay and perhaps prevent the exodus from the local church to the large mega congregations that have become so popular.
Method
These Bible study groups were set to meet on a weekly basis on Wednesdays from 7:00 P.M. To 8:00 P.M. The groups were composed of three different age groups: teens (13-17), young adults (18-25) adults (25 and older). The gender and ethnicity of the group varied according to the overall church population, but the groups were open to anyone, without regard to church membership. However, the groups were primarily composed of church members.
Though it is difficult to define leadership duties in a small-group design because the group greatly impacts the direction of the session, one can define the roles of the leaders of Bible study. First and foremost, the leader of a Bible study gathers the group together and sets it in motion. For example, as a leader, the author's duty was to establish topics for the Bible study. Next, the leader teaches growth-awakening relating by trying to be as self-revealing, caring, and trustful of the group as he would like them to become. The leader also facilitates development of group identity through significant relating and sharing, by fostering group-centered interaction. The leader must be aware of both the individual and the group, because groups become more than the sum of their individual parts.
Results
It was surprisingly difficult to become a group member and not distance myself behind the wall of leadership. A recent graduate offered this sound advice on enhancing my effectiveness in teaching: "Howard, let it all hang out!" Translated, I took this advice to mean that I had to take a risk. It was difficult to do so, but once I learned to relate to the group members as a member of the group, rather than as an authoritarian leader, I found that group participation became more fulfilling for me and seemed more fulfilling for the other group members.
In addition, it was interesting to see how the group changed over time. One might assume that group members were initially reticent with each other because they did not know each other. However, this assumption is not always true. First, the small group setting meant that many of the group participants did know each other, at least on a superficial level. Moreover, the support-group-type setting sometimes lent an air of anonymity to the groups that actually seemed to encourage serious discussion and self-revelation, despite the lack of strong relationships outside of the group setting. Of course, this was not an immediate result of the groups. On the contrary, at first members barely listened to themselves or each other; with help, they tuned in on the wavelength of feelings.
Furthermore, when groups began people naturally turned to the group leader for direction and advice. It would be accurate to state that most of the relating was to the group leader at that point. However, by exercising linking behavior, I was able to get the group members to look to each other for understanding and help. Initially, I had to point out when people were saying things that would indicate a connection between group members. However, once those connections were established, the group members moved rather rapidly towards directly relating with one another.
Another result of the group meetings is that the group members initially appeared very focused on the past. Small groups tend to do postmortems of old failures, archaeologizing (digging in the past for explanations of present behavior), and pathologizing (focusing more on problems than potentials). It was important for group members to discuss the past, but, what was interesting was that the other members of the group did a good job of reminding each other that the past is in the past. However, while finding it easy to state that the past was in the past, it was oftentimes difficult for group members to take the next step and begin discussion of the present and future.
The development of confrontation skills over the life of the group was another very interesting area. Initially, most group members were absolutely unwilling to confront one another. Even when someone was engaging in behavior that seemed clearly self-destructive to most members of the group, few people were willing to call them on it. Moreover, when confrontations did occur, they were not necessarily constructive. However, the group rapidly learned the growth formula, which is that caring plus confrontation produces growth. The New Testament describes such loving confrontation as "speaking the truth in love."
A confrontation without caring triggers only defensiveness, which I witnessed early on in the group process. In fact, I would go further than the traditional growth formula and state that a confrontation where the person being confronted does not perceive caring will only trigger defensiveness as well, regardless of the motives of the person doing the confronting.
Another result of the group meetings was that group slowly assumed responsibility for leadership. Initially, I fulfilled most of the leadership functions. However, by the time the groups reached the growth-work stage, the members began to participate in all major leader-facilitator functions. The growth-work stage groups were remarkable for their high levels of trust and mutual confrontation. Moreover, at the beginning stages of the group, the leader had to take no responsibility for facilitating growth in the group. By the growth-work stage of the group, the members and the designated leaders shared functions aimed at facilitating growth.
Discussion
Being the leader of a small-group Bible study is much more difficult than it seems like it would be. Many times, especially in a pastoral setting, leaders are imbued with an air of authority that may or may not be deserved. Obviously, a clergyman is going to have greater knowledge of the Bible than the average lay person and may have a greater understanding of Biblical history and study. However, it is critical to keep in mind that the Bible is meant to be accessible to any person, so that it is error for clergy to claim some type of monopoly on insight into the Bible. These Bible study groups helped me remember that, while I may possess more technical knowledge about the Bible and about my faith than other members of my faith that does not mean that I am more faithful or more religious than they are. As a result, I feel like leading these groups helped develop my interest in servant leadership, because I understood that a true leader does not separate himself from the group that he leads.
One of the elements that are repeatedly emphasized in literature about servant leadership is that servant leaders show empathy for their fellow human beings. A successful small group leader not only demonstrates the ability to empathize, but also attempts to guide the group towards empathy. He does this by sharing his own feelings and responding to the feelings of others, rather than allowing the group to stay in the comfortable area of superficial socializing. He listens, not as an expert to a needy client, but as one hurting, hoping human being to another. He knows that every individual cries out for affirmation as a unique person. He encourages listening that affirms -- listening to a person's words and to feelings that are too painful or precious to trust to words -- by listening and responding on this level himself. This is what Paul Tillich calls "loving listening," and it refers to listening with a purpose and with meaning.
One of the most important lessons that I learned from teaching the groups is that it is very critical for a group leader to avoid playing "expert answer-man" or the usual teacher or leader roles, from the very beginning of the group sessions. Rather than telling the group what he expects, a leader should enter into a group setting with an open mind about what kind of experience the group is seeking. After all, a person who enters into a group with specific expectations about what the group will or will not do for him, only to have the group fail to meet those expectations, is not only likely to drop the group, but also more likely to seek another congregation. Therefore, finding out what types of expectations the group members have will help a leader identify the direction that a group wants to take. It also places the responsibility for the group where it belongs- on the group. The reality is that the group leader is there to fulfill expectations, not define them. Moreover, showing a group that he is willing to allow them to define the group's direction is a way for a leader to show that he trusts the group and its individual members to define an appropriate direction.
Moreover, while I did not encounter this scenario in the groups that I led, I think that allowing the group to define their expectations is a powerful tool for a leader whose goal is to help people. For example, if a session is specifically linked to being a better spouse and someone in attendance begins early discussions indicating that there might be domestic violence in the home, that gives the leader the ability to gather resources and information that may be outside of the general scope of the group meetings. That is not to suggest that more serious topics should be forbidden in group discussions; the whole purpose of the group is to discuss how Biblical teachings apply to daily life. There are specific Biblical passages that seem to suggest that a person should stay with an abusive spouse or would be incorrect to report a spouse for a crime. Knowing how I would interpret those passages and still respect the basic human right to safety and decent treatment would be essential in the above scenario.
However, it is important to realize that some people and/or issues are not ideally suited for group scenarios. Groups can contain silent members or member that tries to monopolize group conversations. Rather than the leader dealing with those issues on his own, it is important to involve the group in decisions about how to deal with problematic group members. Furthermore, if a group member does not respond to the group efforts, it may be that the group has to take action to suggest a different venue for the individual.
One of the other things that I learned is that group encounters are going to fail occasionally. Dealing with that failure is a real challenge as a leader. On the one hand, while struggling to try to facilitate a meaningful group encounter, it can seem defeatist to pronounce it a failure. However, what I noticed is that admitting failure actually can help facilitate trust. One of the goals of the group setting is to get a clergy member outside of the expert status, and failure pretty quickly reduces one's expert standing. To acknowledge that a group has gone flat and does not seem to be interacting on the desired level present the problem and asks the group to provide potential solutions to the problem.
One of the bigger challenges in leading a small group is helping place the past in proper perspective. Without knowing individual history, all the group members initially found it difficult to relate to one another. Therefore, a discussion of the past was important to help people place themselves and other group members' actions in context. However, it became very tempting for some group members to become overly invested in the past. In fact, the amount of self-doubt and recriminations about past behavior was surprising, especially when I realized how much of that behavior was coming from me. This part of group leadership presented the most challenges for me as I strove to be a servant-leader, because there were times when I wanted to take a more authoritarian and didactic position and actually prohibit further discussion of the past. However, doing so would have changed the nature of my interactions with the group and messed up the entire group dynamic. Instead, what I tried to do, and it was not always successful, was to put as much emphasis on the present and the future as I did on the past. I specifically asked people questions about their wants and hopes? I also asked people what they felt they needed to do to move away from their past and towards their hopes. I also wanted to show people a hopeful attitude, by focusing on strengths and assets, rather than weaknesses.
Even when a group has good leadership, there are several potential problem areas that can dramatically weaken a group's possibility of success. Growth groups try to prevent problems, if that is possible, and deal with them constructively when they do occur. One of the issues that can occur in groups is when members go deeper than is constructive. Over self-disclosure can be very threatening to individuals in the group or to the group as a whole. Group leaders can try to stave off over disclosure, but this can be a tricky skill for group members to acquire, because it seems as if that would go against the grain of a group whose aim is to encourage sharing. However, there are five levels of sharing, going from the least-threatening to the most-threatening. Level 1 is discussing ideas, information, theories, and generalizations. Level 2 is for sharing personal experiences from the past. Level 3 is sharing current problems and feelings from outside the group. Level 4 is encountering here-and-now relationships and feelings in the group. Level 5, which is the most threatening, is sharing very personal problems that are ordinarily not discussed outside the family. Certain levels of sharing are inappropriate for certain types and levels and groups. It is the leader's duty to try to curb this over-sharing; especially in early stages of a group when group members may be unsure how to respond to the oversharing.
Another potential problem for groups is the possibility of a disturbed member. The reality is that there are a large number of individuals in society that are emotionally disturbed. Effective leaders carefully select group involvement, in order to prevent the inclusion of emotionally disturbed members. However, this cannot always be avoided, especially because some pathologies develop later in life. Group leaders need to be prepared to refer disturbed group members to therapists or other mental health professionals.
Project Two: Servant Leadership Training
Purpose
The overall purpose of this study is to investigate whether servant-leadership can successfully be applied to congregations to reduce conflict. The study has three discrete smaller purposes. The first is to help the program participants identify the causes of their anger. The second purpose is to teach the participants how to control their anger by learning servant leadership skills to manage their anger. The final purpose is to assist participants employ their servant leadership skills for handling their conflictive anger in a positive manner.
Statement of Hypothesis
This study sought to teach servant leadership skills. Ideally, acquisition of servant leadership skills would permit parishioners will be able to implement servant leadership skills to process their anger more effectively in order to communicate in a non-threatening manner. Therefore, acquisition of these skills should lead to a reduction in conflict or an increase in constructive conflict-solving. The hypothesis for this study is that servant leadership has a positive effect-assisting parishioner's experiencing conflict develop a framework for change.
Method
This study was performed on the congregation at South Iowa Chapel Gospel in Saint Robert, Missouri. The congregation is composed of roughly 1865 members. I chose the South Iowa Chapel Gospel because it was identified as having a conflicted congregation. The membership was asked to participate in the study on a voluntarily basis, and told that the study was aimed at reducing anger-related conflict problems. The area surrounding the South Iowa Chapel Gospel is predominantly middle-class and is racially diverse. The surrounding area is 60% non-Hispanic white, 11.4% Hispanic, 21.3% Black, 1% Native American, 2.3% Asian, .4% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, .4% other, and 3.1% multi-racial.
However, the degree to which the South Iowa Chapel Gospel congregation reflects the surrounding demographics was not attainable, because the church did not maintain racial demographics and the voluntary nature of the survey made it impossible to track demographics through the study.
Each parishioner at the South Iowa Chapel Gospel was mailed a letter, which was also available as a bulletin insert. They were asked to volunteer to participate in a study, with the stated goal of reducing conflict within the church. The self-selected participants received a training manual Jesus on Leadership by Wilkes, and a copy of the Servant Leadership Training Course by Hunter. Furthermore, to account for individual personality differences among the results, the participants were administered a "Myers Briggs Type Indicator" test designed by Hammer, and a specific "Conflict Management Survey" by Hall.
The self-selected volunteer parishioners met with the program study coordinator for an informational meeting and for an assessment to see if the servant leadership-training program was appropriate for them. At this meeting, the volunteers completed a written questionnaire and were provided with a synopsis about the study. I used the results of the participants' initial surveys to assess whether I believed that they were open to learning about servant leadership. That does not mean that servant leadership is a skill that only some people can learn. I earnestly feel that any person committed to Christ can learn servant leadership. However, I also understand that personality is a very fixed characteristic and that it is probably easier for people with certain personality traits to learn servant leadership than it would be for people with other personality traits. One of the most interesting things that I observed is that 4 of the 5 self-selected participants had the same MBTI personality ranking. Even more interesting is that I was one of the people who shared that MBTI personality.
Once selected, volunteers were asked to meet for twelve consecutive weeks. During that time period, the participants were asked to take the MBTI and the MBTI Conflict Management Survey. Most significantly, the program participants were asked to complete Wilkes' Jesus on Leadership series and Hunter's Servant Leadership Training Course. Both of these programs were aimed at helping participants increase their servant-leadership capabilities. Over the course of the twelve weeks, participants were asked to keep a journal. In this journal, they were specifically directed to write down any feelings of anger. In addition to feelings of anger, participants were asked to write entries regarding their perceptions of their own progress. The reality is that anger in the clergy, even if not directed specifically at parishioners or towards church issues, has a way of seeping out and infecting a church environment. Finally, at the end of the twelve-week training program, the volunteers were administered a questionnaire to determine the effectiveness of the training program.
Conflicted Churches
For many people unfamiliar with the church environment, the expectation is that churches will be sacrosanct and somehow immune from the divisions and conflicts that plague society at large. However, the reality is that conflict is a part of church life, and, if left unchecked, it can threaten the harmony of a church and its membership. Rather than providing a sanctuary for people, churches with high levels of conflict can leave people feeling emotionally vulnerable and actually interfere with their celebration of religious life. More importantly, conflict erodes the confidence that parishioners need to develop the servant leadership qualities espoused by Jesus Christ. Without faith in one's church, it is difficult to place oneself in a subservient-seeming position, which is one of the requirements of servant-leadership.
While conflict can be very destructive in a church, it can also present incredible growth opportunities for parishioners and clergy. Conflict is not a problem; conflict is the symptom of a problem, and increasing conflict gives clergy the opportunity to investigate and discover the root causes of the discord. Sometimes, those root causes are going to be relatively simple and solving the problem will erase the conflict. For example, some conflicts in church are due to perceived favoritism and other issues largely within control of the clergy. These issues can generally be solved by drawing attention to the issue and getting commitment from all involved that they want to solve the problem. However, some conflicts go much deeper and require growth by the parishioners, not just guidance by clergy.
Take, for example, the issue of people politicizing the pulpit. For the past several years, there has been a significant amount of discussion about the political division in modern-day America. America has been characterized as a deeply divided country whose political parties share no common traits. These political divisions have, perhaps inevitably, spilled over into the church setting. Not only are some denominations strongly associated with certain political parties, but there is also a substantial amount of pressure for people to conform their political affiliation to the affiliation some believe is more associated with the religion. The problem is that reasonable people can differ as to which party is more appropriate from a religious perspective. For example, a conscientious pro-life Christian could be torn between the Republican and Democratic parties because Republicans are, typically, against abortion while Democrats are, typically against the death penalty. Without arguing the merits of either side of the debate, it is clear that neither party encompasses a wholly pro-life perspective, because both parties permit the sanctioned taking of life under specific circumstances. However, the ugliness in political divisions has trickled in to churches, so that people are feeling pressured to identify with a political affiliation as a member as a condition of church membership. These types of disagreements can be serious theological issues, which, if left untended, can literally destroy a church.
Conflict can also be the result of a handful of negative people infecting the well-being of a church. Even the most devout Christians, people who believe themselves to aspire to a life without intentional sin, engage in ugly behavior. That is part of being human. However, the reality is that some people engage in this behavior at greater rates than other people. In church environments, there is the added danger that the people engaging in the most harmful behavior do so only after cloaking themselves in the guise of righteousness. These people, who literally consider themselves "holier than thou" use religious principles and beliefs to help try to hold others down and subjugate them. This is dangerous to the flock of a church, because each member of the flock feels vulnerable to judgment and condemnation. It is also dangerous to the clergy in a church, because it undermines a clergyman's authority to have someone else issue false judgments in a church. Moreover, the situation is tricky; after all, to criticize the criticizer leaves one, whether clergy or parishioner, open to charges of hypocrisy.
That does not mean that the goal of a church is to end conflict. Conflict is inevitable in human beings, even when people gather in self-selected groups, like churches, with people who tend to share their basic core beliefs and ideals. This is because human beings differ from one another in some strikingly fundamental ways. Conflict occurs in every human relationship, and conflict is not, in and of itself, a negative event. Conflict can bring about change and renewal, making conflict a positive element of change. However, unresolved or unproductive conflict can be one of the more destructive forces on earth; it can make people feel devalued, demeaned, and powerless. While those feelings are negative in any context, they are extremely damaging in a church environment, because churches should offer refuge, hope, solace, and love to their members. In fact, Edwin Friedman believes that religious institutions encourage immaturity and irresponsibility more than other social institutions, because churches fail to rebuke inappropriate members because they believe it would not be "the Christian thing to do."
However, this belief reveals an ignorance about what Christianity is about. Christianity is not about false kindness and platitudes. On the contrary, the New Testament is replete with examples of Jesus taking his disciples and the Jews of his day to task for failing to act appropriately. It is the Christian thing to do to rebuke people for inappropriate behavior. That being said, it is very important for a person hoping to teach people the difference between right and wrong and lead them into righteousness to be certain of the righteousness of their own position before attempting to do so.
One of the core causes of conflict in any relationship or series of relationships is an unwillingness to recognize that people do not need to view things in an identical manner in order to work together towards common goals or to have shared ideals. Carl Jung was one of the first modern scholars to recognize that people differ in some essential ways, and do not all share the same fundamental drives and motives.
These differences can make it difficult, if not impossible for people to really empathize with people who have different personality types:
Seeing others as different from ourselves, we often conclude that these differences are bad in some way, and that people are acting strangely because something is the matter with them.
Thus, we instinctively account for differences in others not as an expression of natural diversity, but in terms of flaw and affliction: others are different because they're sick, or stupid, or bad, or crazy.
And our job, at least with those we care about, is to correct these flaws, much as the mythical sculptor Pygmalion labored to shape his perfect woman in stone.
Servant Leadership
If churches are plagued by conflict, it stands to reason that effective leadership is necessary to help end this conflict. In fact, John Adair believes that leadership lies in the provision of the functions necessary for a group to achieve its task and be held together as a working team.
If a church's leadership is unable to hold the congregation together as a working team, then the church fails. Fortunately, people have developed all kinds of strategies to help end conflict in churches. While many of these strategies have merit, the most promising one might be the concept of servant leadership. Robert Greenleaf believed that the concept of leadership could change, and that it could transform from a focus on power and authority to a focus on cooperation.
This challenges some of the basic assumptions that people have about leadership. What makes a man or woman a leader, and what is an important quality for leadership? What is it that enables people to have influence in the role in which God has placed them? We find the answer to this question in Mark 10: 43 where Jesus says "Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant."
However, these answers are fundamentally different from the messages people received constantly in their daily lives. People tend to see leadership in terms of the corporate model actions like bossing, commanding, controlling. People see leadership as a means to make them fulfilled and significant, as a way of getting more for ourselves. This is the model of leadership found in the world, and in the church, too. That is not God's view of leadership. God's view of leadership is about servant leadership. In this view, title, position or possessions do not qualify a man or woman for leadership. An office does not make one a leader or magically confer influence. Leadership is more a function of who one is, not what one appears to be. The disciples misunderstood this idea/way of thinking -- and, so do modern Christians. In fact, it is important to realize that servant leadership focuses on relationship. Servant leaders see themselves as a member of the group first, a leader, second. The servant leader is rooted in relationships, not coercion.
Moreover, servant leaders employ gentle persuasion and motivation rather than barking orders and ultimatums. They do not dictate or demand but recognize that before God, they themselves are but servants who are only doing their duty. Service that cares for others is the basis of true greatness. Controlling other people's lives is not a leader's trait; it is serving other people's needs that God considers great. Only the one who has learned to serve is qualified to lead.
Christian Servant Leaders
Looking at the descriptions of servant leaders, it is impossible not to conclude that Jesus was a servant leader. He definitely served his subjects. Obviously, he died in order to lead, which shows the ultimate servitude. However, Jesus' death was not the only element of service in his leadership. Jesus humbled himself in a number of different ways, big and small, which demonstrated that he did not consider himself superior to the people whom he led. The most notable and famous modern Christian leaders have followed Christ's example and have led through service. Three of these leaders are discussed in this paper: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Desmond Tutu. Bonhoeffer was a German pastor who believed that his being Christian meant he needed to fight against the Nazi persecution of Jews before and during World War II. King was a preacher who helped revolutionize civil rights in the United States. Tutu is a former Archbishop who helped lead South Africa out of apartheid. All three of these men took positions that were unconventional, and unpopular, despite great personal danger, because they believed that, as Christians, they needed to do so. In fact, all three men had opportunities to escape from the persecution and danger that they faced as activists, but chose to stay in danger because they felt it was mandated that they serve, as well as lead.
Project Description
All of the research into servant leadership, combined with the author's own personal experiences with servant leadership lead to the suggestion that servant leadership can help reduce conflict in churches and make church leaders more effective. However, that leaves one with a few questions. What are the qualities that define a servant leader? More importantly, can those qualities truly be taught? Can conflicted churches begin to heal when their leaders learn servant leadership skills? This project aims to look at whether servant leadership can be taught, and whether it can be taught to all people. Moreover, the project seeks to evaluate what differences teaching servant leadership can bring to the life of a church.
Chapter Two: Theological Foundation of the Project
Servant leadership is not a uniquely Christian concept. In fact, Robert Greenleaf, the man credited with beginning the modern servant leadership movement, wrote his books about servant leadership from a strongly secular position, though he certainly acknowledged that churches and other religious organizations need servant leaders. However, Greenleaf's insight into servant leadership came from his experience in business and was not motivated by the church or Christianity. Despite that limitation, one simply cannot read Greenleaf without seeing that the servant leader described by Greenleaf and others perfectly matches all known information about Jesus Christ. Jesus eschewed the trappings of power, repeatedly stated that he was not more important than his followers, and, of course, gave up his life in service for his followers. Clearly, Jesus was a true servant leader. Moreover, those who have tried to follow Jesus' example have demonstrated that to strive to be Christ-like, one must forget about attaining power over people and, instead, think about giving power to people. In short, to emulate Jesus, one must strive to be a servant leader.
Moreover, while the idea of servant leadership did not originate with Christianity, it seems accurate to suggest that Christianity has perfected the concept (if not the practice) of servant leadership. The Bible is replete with discussions of servant leadership. Servant leaders humble themselves and wait for God to exalt them.
Servant leaders follow Jesus rather than seek a position.
Servant leaders give up personal rights to find greatness in service to others.
Servant leaders can risk serving others because they trust that God is in control of their lives.
Servant leaders take up Jesus' towel of servant hood to meet the needs of others.
Servant leaders share their responsibility and authority with others to meet a greater need.
Servant leaders multiply their leadership by empowering others to lead.
All of these traits carefully track with the characteristics of servant leaders explained by both Greenleaf and Speers.
Obviously, Jesus was an example of a servant leader, but he was not the first servant leader in the Christian tradition. In fact, it can be tempting for modern Christians to ignore the Old Testament and focus only on the Gospel. However, the Old Testament has importance, because it shows Christians their history and how and why the need for Jesus developed. The root ideals of servant leadership can be found in the Old Testament, which is not surprising since so much of what occurs in the New Testament is foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Therefore, before examining Jesus as a servant leader, one may be compelled to look at how other Biblical people led through servant leadership. Looking at the example offered by Moses, one sees the beginning seeds of servant leadership demonstrated throughout the Old Testament, though none of these important figures captured the essence of servant leadership in the same way as Jesus Christ. However, the fact that these figures demonstrate servant leadership and are central figures in most of the major world religions, they demonstrate how Christians can appeal to non-Christians to use servant leadership to accomplish goals. This is especially true for followers of the other Abrahamic religions, Islam and Judaism, which also trace their history to Abraham.
While there are other important patriarchs in the Bible, Moses is really the first human hero presented in the Bible. He also makes appearances in other Biblical and historical texts. Of course, the Bible mentions other humans well before Moses makes his appearance, but these people play ambivalent or negative roles in the Bible. According to Exodus, Moses was an Israelite born in Egypt at a time when Pharaoh was ordering the deaths of all male Israelite newborns. When Moses' mother, Jochebed, was unable to keep him hidden, she kept him hidden. Moses' sister Miriam watched him until he was found by Pharaoh's daughter. Miriam arranged for Jochebed to be employed as Moses' wet nurse, but Moses was raised as Pharaoh's grandson, though his adopted status meant that he could not become pharaoh.
Though raised in Pharaoh's household, Moses knew that he was an Israelite, and, at that time, Israelites were living in slavery in Egypt. Moses witnessed an Egyptian beating an Israelite and killed the Egyptian, disposing of the body. When Moses discovered that Pharaoh knew what Moses had done, he fled from Egypt. The fact that Moses killed someone places him in a different group from Jesus, because he took a very aggressive action against another person. However, that action is a Biblical example of servant leadership. Rather than relying upon the fact that as an adopted relative of Pharaoh, Moses was not going to be subject to the same type of treatment as the slave for whom he intervened. However, he acted as a member of a group he would lead, which is the critical element in servant leadership.
After fleeing Egypt, Moses became a shepherd. While tending his flock, Moses encountered a burning bush, and God revealed himself through this bush. (Exodus 3:2). One of the elements that Greenleaf thinks is important to servant leadership is the willingness to be open to prophecy. Moses would not have been a leader if he had not listened to God's revelation. Moses was concerned that others might not believe that he had seen God, indicating that Moses was concerned about a disbelief in prophecy during his time, just as Greenleaf connected a lack of servant leadership with a disbelief in prophecy during his time.
God instructed Moses to return to Egypt and lead the Israelites out of bondage. Moses met with his brother Aaron, who was in Egypt, and, using the abilities that God gave him, Moses was able to convince the Israelites that he was supposed to lead them out of Egypt. Eventually, with God's intervention, Pharaoh permitted the Israelites to leave Egypt. Moses led them away from Egypt, facing numerous challenges along the way. On the way, God called Moses back to Mount Horeb, and God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. When Moses was on the mountain, God informed him that the Israelites were engaged in idolatry and threatened to unleash his anger upon them. Moses actually demonstrated servant leadership again, intervening on behalf of the Israelites, even though doing so risked provoking God's ire.
Moses eventually gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites.
Moses and the Israelites then spent time in the wilderness. The time in the wilderness offers great examples of Moses as a servant leader. Over and over again, the Israelites demonstrate disbelief in God and in the fact that have been promised a homeland. When Moses' spies come back from Canaan, the Israelites strongly reject suggestions that they invade Canaan. Moses could have decided to enter Canaan with his family, leaving the Israelites to perish in the wilderness. However, demonstrating servant leadership, Moses declines this option. Instead, he opts to wander in the wilderness until those who did not believe might perish, and then the Israelites can go into Canaan. Moses makes this choice, even though he is aware that by doing so knows that he will also miss his own opportunity to enter into Canaan.
The Moses example offers an example of servant leadership in the Old Testament. However, not all Old Testament examples of servant leaders were male. In fact, the most notable example of a servant leader in the Old Testament may have been Ruth, though her story is relatively brief. Ruth was married to Mahlon, son of Elimelech and Naomi. Elimelech and his two sons die, leaving Naomi without a family. Naomi determines that she will return to Bethlehem. Naomi tells her Moabite daughters in law to return to their own families and their homeland. Orpah, one of Naomi's daughters in law returns to her people. Ruth refuses to leave Naomi, telling her, "Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me."
Ruth's willingness to follow Naomi demonstrates her ability to lead; and this willingness is recognized in the Bible. It also demonstrates Ruth's willingness to follow God. There were issues in ancient Judaism about the marriage of Israelites to non-Israelite wives, because that often resulted in the wives converting their husbands out of Judaism. However, Ruth makes it clear that she will follow Naomi and embrace the religion of Naomi's people, the Israelites. Naomi arranges for Ruth to enter into a Levirate marriage with Boaz, one of Naomi's relatives. Moreover, Ruth is one of the few females named in Jesus' genealogy. In the Book of Ruth, Ruth goes beyond what is expected by the law when she stays with Naomi. In return, Boaz goes beyond what is expected by the law when he redeems both Naomi and Ruth.
One of the most touching and relevant examples of servant leadership in the Old Testament is the story of Job. Job does not describe man as a servant to other men, though there is no indication that Job was anything other than kind to his fellow people. Instead, the story of Job describes a man who is content to be a servant to the Lord, and, through his quiet strength, demonstrates the power of a true leader. Satan suggests to the Lord that Job is only righteous because the Lord has provided for Job.
God knows that Job's righteousness is deeper than that, and tells Satan that he may tempt Job, as long as he does not harm him.
Satan does so, visiting all manner of horrors upon Job. Satan takes Job's wealth, and kills his family, but Job remains faithful to God. Next, Satan gets permission to physically harm Job, afflicting him with open wounds that cause him pain and misery:
His wife said to him, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!"
He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
When Job does question what has happened to him, his friends are with him, and they remind him of what he has done. Eliphaz the Temanite gives a description of Job that strongly aligns with the description of a servant leader: "Think how you have instructed many, how you have strengthened feeble hands. Your words have supported those who stumbled; you have strengthened faltering knees."
However, the real example of servant leadership in Job comes after Job appears to have lost faith in God and his three friends are unable to persuade him otherwise. "Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job."
Elihu demonstrates servant leadership when he talks to Job and his three friends. He talks about how man must be a servant to God in order to be saved. It is worth noting all of Elihu's speech because of how it explains why pain and suffering are necessary components in human life, because that is a question that is repeatedly presented to clergy. It is also a question that can cause parishioners to really question their faith and cause tremendous conflict in a church. To explain it to Job, and to all Christians, Elihu states;
But now, Job, listen to my words; pay attention to everything I say. I am about to open my mouth; my words are on the tip of my tongue. My words come from an upright heart; my lips sincerely speak what I know. The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Answer me then, if you can; prepare yourself and confront me. I am just like you before God; I too have been taken from clay. No fear of me should alarm you, nor should my hand be heavy upon you. But you have said in my hearing -- I heard the very words- "I am pure and without sin; I am clean and free from guilt. Yet God has found fault with me; he considers me his enemy. He fastens my feet in shackles; he keeps close watch on all my paths."
But I tell you, in this you are not right, for God is greater than man. Why do you complain to him that he answers none of man's words? For God does speak -- now one way, now another -- though man may not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men as they slumber in their beds, he may speak in their ears and terrify them with warnings, to turn man from wrongdoing and keep him from pride, to preserve his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword. Or a man may be chastened on a bed of pain with constant distress in his bones, so that his very being finds food repulsive and his soul loathes the choicest meal. His flesh wastes away to nothing, and his bones, once hidden, now stick out. His soul draws near to the pit, and his life to the messengers of death.
Yet if there is an angel on his side as a mediator, one out of a thousand, to tell a man what is right for him, to be gracious to him and say, "Spare him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom for him"- then his flesh is renewed like a child's; it is restored as in the days of his youth. He prays to God and finds favor with him, he sees God's face and shouts for joy; he is restored by God to his righteous state.
In this way, Elihu gives an eloquent description of how men can be true servants to God, which is an essential step in being a Christian servant leader.
Tanakh
(Books common to all Christian and Judaic canons)
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 -- 2 Samuel 1 -- 2 Kings 1 -- 2 Chronicles Ezra (Esdras) Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Minor prophets
Deuterocanon
Tobit Judith 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Wisdom (of Solomon) Sirach Baruch Letter of Jeremiah Additions to Daniel Additions to Esther
Greek and Slavonic Orthodox canon
1 Esdras 3 Maccabees Prayer of Manasseh Psalm 151
Georgian Orthodox canon
4 Maccabees 2 Esdras
Ethiopian Orthodox "narrow" canon
Apocalypse of Ezra Jubilees Enoch 1 -- 3 Meqabyan 4 Baruch
Syriac Peshitta
Psalms 152 -- 155 2 Baruch Letter of Baruch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Bible
Jesus as a Servant Leader
Despite the fact that examples of servant leadership appear throughout the Old Testament, the Jews of Jesus' time were missing something. Despite being the Lord's chosen people and being given a promised land, they were foundering. They experienced cyclic disbelief in God, which had resulted in a seemingly endless cycle of punishment and reward, which has caused many modern people to characterize God as presented in the Old Testament as an unforgiving or punishing God. This is not an entirely inaccurate observation. God was very frustrated with humankind. The Bible describes the wickedness of man, most especially in the time before the great flood. Moreover, God repeatedly gets angry at the Israelites when they fail to see the value of what He has offered them. Tired of this cycle, God sends a different type of leader to his people, one who will offer the ultimate sacrifice to free the Jews from the taint of the sin that is the inevitable falling of mankind.
Two thousand years ago, Jesus taught that truth to His disciples and lived it out. As the Son of God, He has "all authority . . . In heaven and on earth."
Yet He did not force people to follow and obey Him. His leadership model was radically different from what we see in today's world. It is one of humility and unselfish service to others. Christ like leadership means considering the needs of our neighbors before one's own, seeking their good, encouraging their spiritual growth and intimacy with God. It means treating others the way God has treated us. It is important to keep in mind that this does not mean coddling people. God has not coddled His people. God has shown favor, mercy, and love to His people, but he has also been willing to guide and correct them when it has been necessary.
My conviction that Jesus lived and taught a different model of leadership unlike church leaders today is deepened by careful study of Jesus' interaction with his disciples in the scriptures. The theological basis for servant leadership is apparent in Jesus' teaching in Mark 10:35-45. Jesus was a born leader. Within His human experience, Jesus sets the example for leadership and calls us to follow. Jesus set the standard by which all future leadership is to be measured. He did not have to raise His voice to be heard. He did not need to engage in manipulative tactics to be recognized. When He entered the room, a hush fell over the people. He was a leader who commanded attention simply by treating people as they ought to be treated. Even more critical is the fact that Jesus determined how people should be treated not based on their status in society but on their merit as individuals. This was a rejection of the materialism that had so infected Jewish society during Jesus' time that they actually had money changers in the temples.
As much as Jesus' was a born leader, he repeatedly demonstrated that he was willing to follow. Jesus modeled the style of leadership; he taught when he washed the disciples' feet and called them to play the servant role for others. It is wonderfully uplifting to know that through servitude leadership is open to all. The requirements are minimal, love of God and service to all. This is a message that is made explicit in the Bible. Jesus explicitly tells his disciples that they can attain leadership and greatness in that manner: "if one of you wants to be great, he must be the servant of the rest; and if one of you wants to be first, he must be the slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served; he came to serve and to give his life to redeem many people."
In fact, Christ's words in Mark 10:35-45 represent a radically different view of what leadership, power, and success mean. They are a great example of how perverted our own views of the world are. Many seek to be leaders and people of influence because the world puts great significance on titles and authority. Leaders in government, community, church and the workplace are highly respected because of the positions they occupy. However, Christ does not think that respect and leadership are about position. Instead, He stressed that leaders must seek the good of everyone, not just those who can help and further their careers. Leadership is lifting up the spiritually, physically and emotionally poor. Leadership does not derive from being authoritative, demanding or controlling. It springs from being a Christ-like servant. If we want a model of what a true leader looks like we need only look at the life of Jesus Christ who sits at the right hand of God.
Furthermore, Christ explicitly wanted his disciples to follow a model of leadership that radically differed from the model on earth. When James and John asked Jesus if he would grant to them the privilege of sitting on his right and left in positions of leadership in his kingdom. Jesus explained to them that their philosophy of leadership was not to be modeled after that of the world. Jesus expected His disciples' ministry to follow the pattern He set. Jesus exemplified a new leadership style in the way He organized and trained His disciples for the ministry. Having selected these individuals, Jesus invited them to be with Him and share His life. Jesus was a people leader, not merely a program leader. At least two points deserve special note. First, He invested Himself in His disciples. He ate with them; He worked with them; He traveled with them; He planned with them. Jesus identified with His team and shared His total life with them. He met their human needs. Jesus offered the best to His team, and He expected the best from them. He believed in them. While Jesus expected the best of each of His followers, He did not assume a watchdog mentality. He freed them to be the leaders he knew they would grow into. He told John and James, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
While the world's model of leadership espouses love of power; Christ's model operates on the power of selfless love.
Jesus defined greatness in terms of servant hood and warned that those who seek to be first shall actually be last.
This message is one that Greenleaf uses when describing secular leadership issues, but it was also one that was plaguing Jews at the time of Jesus. It is important to realize that Judaism was facing a crisis during Jesus' time. Jesus was not the first person to be declared a Messiah. On the contrary, the Jewish idea of the messiah differed from the Christian idea of the Messiah, and there were several people around the time of Jesus that were considered candidates for the role of messiah. This does not mean that these people were claiming to be divine or semi-divine, because the Jewish concept of the messiah did not require any type of divinity. Instead, the Jewish concept of the messiah is close to the ideal of the servant leader. While the Old Testament does not explain how the messiah will act, it does explain what the messiah will do. According to the Old Testament, it is the messiah's job to arrange for the political and spiritual redemption of the Jews, and restore Israel and Jerusalem to Jewish control.
The messiah is also to be responsible for rebuilding Israel, the temple, and religious law.
Given that Jewish leaders who had not engaged in servant leadership were unable to accomplish these goals, it is difficult to see how the messiah would have done so without adopting a different leadership style.
Even today, people's concepts of Jesus are limited by their own selfish desires. Jesus, however, had a wider view of the playing field. The people, the government, the disciples, all expected Jesus to act like the ruling monarchs of their day. When one views the Old Testament patriarchs, it becomes very clear that none of them engaged in absolute servant leadership. In fact, Moses is probably the one who came the closest to exhibiting servant leadership, though one cannot ignore that his exile from Egypt occurred as the result of him killing a person. Jesus changed leadership styles dramatically, because he simply was not concerned about having power. In fact, Jesus took some very dramatic steps to show his displeasure with the way that Jewish leaders had permitted sacred traditions and customs to be sullied. Matthew, Mark, and John all explain how Jesus entered into the temple and overturned the money changers' tables.
The people were not accustomed to someone like Jesus; unlike the political rulers and everyone else, Jesus flipped the script.
Perhaps the most simplistic way to approach the differences between Christianity and Judaism is that Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah, while Jews do not. Looking at how Jesus approached leadership, it is clear that there is a difference between descriptions of leadership in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Therefore, the New Testament gives more detailed descriptions of servant leadership. In the kingdom of God, position is not gained through favoritism. It is the result of character. Jesus is our example. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
In Mark chapter 10:35-45 Jesus comments on the tendency of man to focus on self-promotion, egoism, esteem, and the pursuit of rank and exercising authority over others. When one looks at the leaders who came before them, regardless of their greatness or status as wonderful leaders, one can see how self-importance repeatedly sabotaged their leadership efforts. Jesus went on to extrapolate on the idea that true greatness relates not to the capacity to exercise power and authority, but rather, to demonstrate servant hood. The pursuit of making a meaningful contribution to the lives of others is what leaders accomplish through serving others. Certainly, Jesus lived the life of a servant. In his lifetime, he eschewed material wealth. He also avoided jockeying for power. Jesus could have chosen to associate only with the upper echelon of Jewish society, but he chose not to do so. His followers were the outcasts of society, and he did things to aid them, rather than asking them for aid.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of servant leadership in the New Testament is the scene in which Jesus washes his disciples' feet. It is striking not because it represented Jesus' greatest sacrifice, because he willingly died for his followers, but because it demonstrated that he had did not feel that he was in any way above his disciples:
It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.
The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
It is impossible to ignore how the scene of Jesus' washing his disciples' feet shows his servitude when one reads another passage that reveals Jesus had once had his feet washed by a female follower: "This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair."
This woman is a clear follower of Jesus. She believes that Jesus has the ability to save her brother's life. Moreover, when Jesus does not arrive in time to save Lazarus' life, Mary keeps her faith in him, even though she initially blames him for not coming in time. Therefore, the juxtaposition of the image of Mary washing Jesus' feet with her hair and then Jesus washing his disciples' feet, demonstrates how willing he was to be a servant.
Although his disciples were generally good men, it is important to keep in mind that Jesus' concepts of power and leadership differed greatly from his disciples' concepts of them. While traveling with Jesus, John and James begin arguing:
They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."
He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."
What Jesus makes clear is that he is not interested in rank and glorification; instead, he insists on servitude. He refuses all glory, suggesting it appropriately belongs to his Heavenly Father. Moreover, he explicitly states that he is no more worthy than a child.
Servant Leadership as a Christian Tradition
There is clearly a Biblical tradition of servant leadership. Many of the Old Testament patriarchs and matriarchs demonstrated aspects of servant leadership when they were at their best. However, while many of them were servant leaders at times, most of them fell prey to power struggles and conflicts. Some of the best of the Old Testament leaders, such as David, Solomon, and Noah, were beset by power issues, causing many people to debate their righteousness. Jesus differed from his predecessors in that He was a righteous man. Servant leadership is one of the reasons that He was righteous; because he did not seek to be elevated above any other man, he was naturally a leader.
Obviously, it is unrealistic to expect human beings to perfectly emulate Christ. Jesus is unique in that He was both human and divine simultaneously. Obviously, no other human can attain that status. Therefore, no other human will be able to perfect servant leadership in the same manner as Jesus. However, perfection is not a requirement of servant leadership. To understand how servant leadership and theology combine to create great leaders, especially in times of tremendous conflict, one can look at the lives of three religious leaders who used servant leadership principles to help effectuate changes. These men are: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Desmond Tutu. These three men of the cloth used their role as Christian servants to mankind to try to help bring about tremendous social changes, working for social justice and for what they believed to be morally right, against seemingly insurmountable odds.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is an example of a servant leader. Born at the turn of the 20th century, Bonhoeffer's call to God demonstrates servant leadership in the life of Christ. In fact, to summarize Dietrich's call to the ministry is to understand that when God calls someone, he not only bids them to die, but also to remain "a strong leader in the Church," "a pastor of people," and "a defender of the Christian faith," with the aid of the Holy Spirit through His community of believers. Before exploring Bonhoeffer's writings and their significance for servant leadership, it is important to understand Bonhoeffer's life, because his life and his death are excellent examples of the practice of servant leadership.
Bonhoeffer made an unwavering decision at age fourteen to study theology and this cemented his destiny in history. He also made the decision to live his religion. Perhaps none of this would have been remarkable if Dietrich had been born in a different time and place, but he was born in Germany and lived through both world wars, circumstances that challenged all people, but especially those committed to living their religions. Bonheoffer's theological understanding did not come immediately, nor did it come easily. God did not remove Dietrich out of his culture, or out of his home in Germany, which he loved. Christ did not remove Dietrich from the stench of war, the politics of the church, or from the comfort of his family and friends to live in comforts of Paris or America. Instead, God kept him in Germany for most of the thirty-nine years of his life for shaping a Christian society. It is really critical to view Bonhoeffer's context when looking at his life: God called Dietrich for his time, but did not remove him from his social setting. This ultimately drew him into a situation of yielding to both worlds, that of his family, friends in the Confessing Church, his colleges, confidants, and that of the German resistance movement to plot to assassinate Hitler.
Bonhoeffer heard the call to God at a young age, and guided his education towards a religious life. He attended Tubingen University, then, after a visit to Rome, he attended the University of Berlin. At that time, noted theologians like Adolf von Harnack were teaching at the University of Berlin, and it was considered a center of liberal theology. Bonhoeffer graduated from the University of Berlin, summa cum laude, in 1927, and earned his doctorate in theology at age 21. However, he was too young to be ordained, so he went to Spain to work as a parish curate from 1928-1929.
Despite graduating from the University of Berlin, Bonhoeffer's influence was certainly not limited to the liberal end of the ideological spectrum. He studied Karl Barth's work, which was considered a neo-orthodox reaction against liberal theology, which Barth believed reduced the value of scripture. Barth, who is known for Church Dogmatics, encouraged Dietrich to continue his work in Germany among the people and for the good of the Church. Even from this point in time, which was before Germany had really begun ramping up for World War II; one could see Bonhoeffer's commitment to combine his religious life with his everyday life. In fact, Bonhoeffer seemed to embrace Barth's ideology, and became increasingly critical of liberal theology, earning Barth's praise in the process. The two seemingly opposite influences came together to help Bonhoeffer develop his own unique approach to Christianity, one that focused on the relevance of Christianity in the modern world without ignoring the importance of Scripture.
Bonhoeffer's approach to the ministry was shaped by his practical life experience in addition to his educational background. Bonhoeffer's year in Spain occurred during the ramp up to World War II, and he witnessed the events that made Spain vulnerable during that war. Moreover, faced with overwhelming need in the world, Bonhoeffer grew increasingly upset that the church was failing to intervene. Bonhoeffer's real-life experience became more dramatic when he traveled to the United States for his postgraduate study. Bonhoeffer took a teaching fellowship at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. While in New York City, Bonhoeffer became familiar with the African-American Community in Harlem. In fact, through his friend, Frank Fisher, Bonhoeffer became familiar with Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem. It was in Harlem that Bonhoeffer was first introduced to the idea of the gospel of social justice. He was surrounded by the social injustice experienced by African-Americans in Harlem. He also witnessed the fact that the church had not successfully challenged these inequities.
When Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in 1931, he became a lecturer of systematic theology at the University of Berlin. Bonhoeffer had developed an interest in ecumenism while in the United States, and was appointed as a European youth secretary for the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches. The idea that the church could be a tool for social change was a little different from the approach that Bonhoeffer had initially taken to Christianity. His initial approach was very intellectual, but he began to see Christ's teachings as a directive to live his faith.
Finally, in November 1931, Bonhoeffer was old enough to be ordained. The church he entered was wracked with division. The nationalistic German Christian movement and the Young Reformers were struggling for control of the Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Church. Bonhoeffer lobbied for the Young Reformers, but the German Christian movement won most of the key church positions. The German Christians were generally supportive of the rising Nazi regime.
He spent a little over a year as a minister and there is not a significant amount of information about Bonhoeffer's works in that year. However, Bonhoeffer came to prominence during the rise of the Nazi regime. Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933. Bonhoeffer was an early vocal opponent of Hitler. He was concerned that Germans' enthusiasm for Hitler was idolatry, and used a radio address to warn people that Hitler was not necessarily the leader he appeared to be. This radio address was terminated while he was giving it. In April, Bonhoeffer was one of the only, if not the only, church official to urge resistance to the Nazi persecution of the Jews. He said that the church had the responsibility to do more than "bandage the victims under the wheel," urging them to "jam the spoke in the wheel itself."
In fact, Bonhoeffer wanted the church to stop all pastoral services as a protest against Nazification.
In 1933, Bonhoeffer and Hermann Sasse drafted the Bethel Confession, which was written in direct opposition to the German Christians. One of the points that Bonhoeffer made in the Bethel Confession was that the Jews were God's chosen people. However, the Bethel Confession was not strident enough, and Bonhoeffer actually refused to sign it. In September 1933, Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller formed the Pfarrernotbund, which was a forerunner to the Confessing Church. Both were in opposition to the German Christian movement. The Confessing Church was an important source of opposition to the Nazis and the German Christians. The German Christians had embraced the idea of Hitler as the head of the church, but, Karl Barth drafted the Barmen Declaration with the goal of reaffirming the idea that Christ, not Hitler was the head of the church. This was a direct challenge to entrenched German nationalism, which helped the Nazis take over most German churches. In fact, the Nazis established the German Evangelical church, which actually prohibited non-Aryans from taking parish posts. When offered a parish post in that church, Bonhoeffer refused, citing the church's racist policies.
Bonhoeffer had his first real significant disagreement with his mentor Barth in 1933. Bonhoeffer had grown increasingly disgusted with German acquiescence to Nazi policies, and decided to take an opportunity to preach in London. In fact, while Bonhoeffer was in London, Barth encouraged him to return to Berlin. However, Bonhoeffer did not entirely abandon the Confessing Church. He remained in contact with the Confessing Church, and urged people to oppose the German Christians and the Nazi regime. In fact, Bishop Theodor Heckel, who was in charge of foreign affairs for the Nazi-controlled German Evangelical Church, went so far as to travel to London to warn Bonhoeffer to cease his activism against the German Christians, but Bonhoeffer refused to do so.
Though not a Christian, one of the people who most embodied servant leadership in the 20th century was Mahatma Gandhi, and, in 1935, Bonhoeffer had the opportunity to study under Gandhi. However, rather than study nonviolent resistance, Bonhoeffer decided to return to Germany to practice nonviolent resistance. He went to Finkenwalde, Germany and worked with an underground seminary where they trained pastors for the Confessing Church. Bonhoeffer's involvement with the Finkenwalde seminary was very interesting, because his participation sent a strong message about the direction the seminary would take over the course of the following years. Bonhoeffer made a bold statement about the Confessing Church being necessary to salvation, which, combined with his Old Testament Bible studies had people suggesting that he was incorrigibly radical and prone to drawing overly rash theological conclusions, among other faults.
He found support in the German people in the neighboring villages, who employed and houses these seminary students. However, the Gestapo shut down the seminary after the outbreak of World War II. In fact, after World War II, the Gestapo and the Nazis really intensified their suppression of the Confessing Church. Martin Niemoller was arrested in July 1937, and Barth fled to Switzerland. Theodor Heckel denounced Bonhoeffer as an enemy in the state, leading to the revocation of his authorization to teach at the University of Berlin.
The Nazi suppression did not prevent Bonhoeffer's efforts to continue training pastors for the Confessing Church, which he saw as a crucial means of resistance to the Nazis. Aided by Ruth von-Kleist-Retzow, who provided financial support for Bonhoeffer's growing ministry and his seminary in Finkewalde, Bonhoeffer continued educate pastors for the Confessing Church. However, Nazi opposition to the Confessing Church continued to grow: in August 1937 it became illegal to train pastors in the Confessing Church, and in September 1937, the Gestapo closed the Finkewalde seminary and arrested several pastors and former student. However, Bonhoeffer would not be dissuaded quite so easily. He snuck from village to village in Germany, continuing to teach and supervise students, and those students continued to work as Confessing Church pastors illegally. It was during this time that Bonhoeffer wrote the Cost of Discipleship and Life Together.
In June 1939, after working with the German Resistance and after learning that war was imminent. However, Bonhoeffer began to regret this decision, though he had to have been aware how dangerous it was for him, personally, to return to Germany. In a letter to his friend, Reinhold Niebuhr, Bonhoeffer's feelings about the topic became very clear. He said:
I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people... Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose but I cannot make that choice from security.
Bonhoeffer lived his sentiments, returning to Germany.
Once there, Bonhoeffer was targeted by the Nazis, as he must have suspected would happen. They refused to permit him to speak in public, began to require him to report all of his activities to the Gestapo, and, in 1941, forbid him from printing or publishing. The Nazi suspicion of Bonhoeffer was well-founded. He joined the Abwehr, a German intelligence unit that served as cover for the growing anti-Hitler resistance movement. Despite being a pacifist, Bonhoeffer became one of the people advocating for Hitler's assassination when he began to learn about what the Nazis were doing. It is clear that Dietrich felt as though he was doing the right thing when he joined the resistance to put an end finally to Hitler's Regime. These became real life issues for this hero of his age as he was forced to choose between the Christians ideals of submission and courage.
Even though he was committed to peaceful principles and had even considered traveling to India to study pacifism with Gandhi, Boenhoeffer's commitment to the anti-Hitler resistance was strong, even though that meant supporting the effort to assassinate Hitler. Bonhoeffer recognized the apparent contradiction of these positions, and he did not attempt any justifications of his advocating for Hitler's assassination. He wrote, "when a man takes guilt upon himself in responsibility, he imputes his guilt to himself and no one else. He answers for it...Before other men he is justified by dire necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience, but before God he hopes only for grace."
As part of the resistance he helped Jews escape from Germany and made diplomatic overtures to other countries seeking assistance for Germany in the event that Germany managed to overthrow Hitler.
On April 6, 1943, Bonhoeffer and Dohnanyi were arrested, not because they were suspected of using Abwehr as a front for anti-Hitler activities, but because of rivalry between the SS and Abwehr. His arrest on "Monday, 5 April 1943" at his parents' home; these are the words that came later, "This is the end -- for me the beginning of life," and "Goodbye, keep well, and don't lose hope that we shall all meet again soon, I will always think of you in faithfulness and gratitude ...Your Dietrich."
Following the arrest, the SS and the Gestapo uncovered evidence that the Abwehr had been involved in getting Jews out of Germany. During the course of the Gestapo's investigation into Dohnanyi, they uncovered evidence that Bonhoeffer was involved in using Abwehr for non-intelligence activities. Bonhoeffer was subsequently imprisoned at Tegel military prison. While in prison, Bonhoeffer was able to get sympathetic guards to smuggle out his letters, which were published after his death. He also continued his ministry while in prison. Bonhoeffer made and abandoned plans for escape from the prison. While Bonhoeffer was in prison, the Gestapo uncovered his role in the conspiracy to kill Hitler. He was transferred from Tegel to the Reich Security Head Office and from there to Buchenwald concentration camp, and then Flossenburg. On April 8, 1945, Bonhoeffer was condemned to death, and then hanged on April 9, 1945.
Despite the brilliant complexity of much of his writing, Bonhoeffer's approach to Christianity was simple. He took a very Christocentric approach to Christianity. A Christocentric approach focuses on Jesus, rather than focusing on the Father or the Holy Spirit aspects of the Trinity. As a result, a pastor taking a Christocentric approach is logically going to emphasize the importance of emulating Jesus. Bonhoeffer was also a powerful advocate of the concept of social justice. For many, the conservativism that seems inherent in a Christocentric approach does not necessarily lead to social justice activism. While he did not directly comment on that, it seems that Bonhoeffer would disagree with the conservatives who think that a Christocentric approach does not demand social justice activism, because it seems that Bonhoeffer would suggest that a Christocentric approach requires one to try to emulate Jesus' behavior insofar as that is possible.
In 1939, he wrote an essay called "Protestantism without Reformation. In it "he "remained as sharp and perceptive in his criticisms of liberal theology, and its neglect of serious Christology, and failure of the American church to live under the authority of the Word of God."
The idea of an un-yielded life was somewhat of a repugnant thought for Bonhoeffer though he would have been first to say, he was no saint!
Furthermore, Bonhoeffer was clear about one thing, which is the Church and State are subject to God's rule, which is present. It would, however, be inappropriate to suggest then, that Bonhoeffer, for all of his belief in Christ, would have supported the idea of a theocracy. He adamantly opposed the persecution of Jews. The thoughts that ran through Dietrich's mind as he traveled from Schonberg to Flossenburg to the place of final destiny, final decision, the final place of life and the final place of fulfillment and consummation of his death were happiness and freedom. Notice some of the last words he recorded in his life, words from the "Letters and Papers from Prison" the first imprisonment at Tegel Prison in Germany for the suspicion of being involved with "Operation 7."
Though Dietrich studied Barth and was impressed with his theology of faith instead of works, he still felt that he lacked certitude and stated, "There can be no mention of a possibility for the reality of the revelation independent of this revelation itself."
Thus, the rejection of any fixed Infiniti incapax [the theological view that the finite is "not capable of the infinite"] follows from the emphasis on the beyond-existence character of revelation. "Bonheoffer sought to reestablish the transcendence of God in the face of the immanent theology of liberalism. Like Barth, he decided to break away from the teachings of liberalism which prevailed in his day and constructed a new theology that maintained its roots in radical Christianity."
Christ for us according to Bonheoffer is the "Ecco homo!," the Man who has been taken to Himself by God, sentenced and executed and awakened by God to a new life," and all "when the Church of Jesus Christ as the fountain of all forgiveness," that is the Christian community, not just one individual.
For Dietrich, two responses can only have happened as the Christian yields his or her life to Christ.
One of Bonhoeffer's most moving arguments is his discussion of the concept of cheap grace. He says:
Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace.
Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjack's wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?
In contrast, Bonhoeffer explains the concept of costly grace:
Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble, it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.
Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.
Bonhoeffer expands on the idea of costly grace by discussing Peter's call to discipleship. He discusses how Peter hears three calls to the discipleship: "three times on Peter's way did grace arrest him, the one grace proclaimed in three different ways."
Moreover, he makes explains how this grace was not cheap for Peter. Keep in mind that Peter was not called to follow Jesus, the established Messiah. On the contrary, Peter was called to follow Jesus, who was, at his time, a very controversial figure for devout Jews. Therefore, Peter's grace was costly. Moreover:
This grace was certainly not self-bestowed. It was the grace of Christ himself, now prevailing upon the disciple to leave all and follow him, now working in him that confession which to the world must sound like the ultimate blasphemy, now inviting Peter to the supreme fellowship of martyrdom for the Lord he had denied, and thereby forgiving him all his sins. In the life of Peter grace and discipleship are inseparable. He had received the grace which costs.
Moreover, the grace of which Bonhoeffer speaks is something so much greater than worldly grace, that it practically demands sacrifice. Despite the hardships they endured, Jesus believed his disciples were blessed:
He spoke to men who had already responded to the power of his call, and it is that call which has made them poor, afflicted, and hungry. He calls them blessed, not because of their privation, or the renunciation they have made, for these are not blessed in themselves. Only the call and the promise, for the sake of which they are ready to suffer poverty and renunciation, can justify the beatitudes.
However, the realities of Bonhoeffer's life compared to the disciples experiences leads one to ask a critical question: can we Christians live in the world today and still live for God? When one thinks about the word or the concept of a "calling from God" one usually reflects on working for the building of God's kingdom or the building of the Church. Today's postmodern thinkers can discern the gifts of a person working for the Lord compared to one that is in a secular profession. In Bonhoeffer, one witnesses his dramatic obedience and loyalty to the Word of God as a servant leader. Bonhoeffer calls it "single-minded obedience" to the Word of God, as he explained in the call of the disciples Levi and Peter, to life of poverty, suffering, love, and forsaking all others for the way of the Cross.
It is not that Bonhoeffer seems to believe that all people must become clergy to devout themselves to God or to be true Christians. Bonhoeffer tries to answer the question about how one can be a Christian in modern times in his book Life Together. Bonhoeffer begins with a chapter describing Christian community and emphasizing its spiritual nature. Christians enjoy fellowship with each other in many different forms, but Bonhoeffer immediately makes the basis of this community clear: "Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ. No Christian community is more or less than this. Whether it be a brief, single encounter or the daily fellowship of years, Christian community is only this. We belong to one another only through and in Jesus Christ.
What Bonhoeffer makes clear is that Jesus is the bedrock of Christian community, and it is founded on Him alone. To clarify the nature of this community, Bonhoeffer contrasts it with two other views of community -- community as an ideal and community as a psychological state. First, he emphatically declares that Christian community is not an ideal but a divine reality: "Because God has already laid the only foundation of our fellowship, because God has bound us together in one body with other Christians in Jesus Christ, long before we entered into common life with them, we enter into that common life not as demanders but as thankful recipients. We thank God for what He has done for us."
Therefore Christian community is not something that can be manufactured, learned or even practiced -- it is simply inherent in the Christian's life just as justification is. Like justification, community is already completed, perfect; it is entered into through faith and with thanksgiving.
Next, Bonhoeffer contrasts the spiritual (or pneumatic) basis of Christian community with the psychological (or psychic) basis of typical human community. "Because Christian community is founded solely on Jesus Christ, it is a spiritual and not a psychic reality."
The spiritual love of this community transcends natural human love, agape over eros. "Human love is directed to the other person for his own sake, spiritual love loves him for Christ's sake. Therefore, human love seeks direct contact with the other person; it loves him not as a free person but as one whom it binds to itself. It wants to gain, to capture by every means; it uses force. It desires to be irresistible, to rule."
Because community is founded in Christ, all its relationships are in Him also. Just as Christ mediates between God and human, so He mediates between the members of his community. Through His mediation, and only through it, Christians can love others fully and purely. This does not require a life as a clergyman or answering that call to God, but it does require receptiveness to God's calling.
Bonhoeffer also makes it clear that it is important to understand that the love of the Christian community does not replace the love of natural human relationships; rather it transcends it. Bonhoeffer cautions against the dangers of ostensibly "spiritual" community:
A marriage, a family, a friendship is quite conscious of the limitations of its community-building power; such relationships know very well, if they are sound, where the human element stops and the spiritual begins. They know the difference between physical-intellectual and spiritual community. On the contrary, when a community of a purely spiritual kind is established, it always encounters the danger that everything human will be carried into and intermixed with this fellowship. A purely spiritual relationship is not only dangerous but also an altogether abnormal thing.
Bonhoeffer also discusses the importance of living one's religion, something that was obviously very important to Jesus. Bonhoeffer describes how daily work can be part of the reality of Christian community too, as prayer and worship continue from the communal devotion to the individual's work:
The continuing struggle with the 'it' remains. But at the same time the break-through is made; the unity of prayer and work, the unity of the day is discovered; for to find, back of the 'it' of the day's work, the 'Thou,' which is God, is what Paul calls 'praying without ceasing' (I Thess. 5:17). . . . Thus every word, every work, every labor of the Christian becomes a prayer; not in the unreal sense of a constant turning away from the task that must be done, but in a real breaking through the hard 'it' to the gracious Thou. 'Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Col. 3:17).
When viewed in this manner, it becomes clear that Bonhoeffer's vision of the Christian community is holistic, and his discussion of the "day with others" covers wide ground. Christians are not meant to be Christian in isolation, but to be Christian in community and in relations with others.
However, Bonhoeffer also gives attention, in the second chapter, to "the day alone." He warns repeatedly, "Let him who cannot be alone beware of community. Let him who is not in community beware of being alone."
Bonhoeffer carefully and insightfully connects the personal disciplines of solitude, silence, meditation, prayer, and intercession with the life of the community. He offers some practical advice along the way:
It is one of the particular difficulties of meditation that our thoughts are likely to wander and go their own way, toward other persons or to some events in our life. Much as this may distress and shame us again and again, we must not lose heart and become anxious, or even conclude that meditation is really not something for us. When this happens it is often a help not to snatch back our thoughts convulsively, but quite calmly to incorporate into our prayer the people and the events to which our thoughts keep straying and thus in all patience return to the starting point of the meditation.
What Bonhoeffer makes clear is that being a Christian involves both a community aspect and a personal aspect and does not require one to devote oneself as a clergy member, but does require one to devout oneself to God. However, Bonhoeffer seems to believe that for him, having heard the call to God, he could not have ignored it and still lived as a Christian in his times. Bonhoeffer realized God's presence and his sense of duty and purpose was awakened. While looking back, Dietrich probably remembered most vividly the times he spent caring for God's people in America and in Germany, teaching, caring, and leading the students who truly desired to know God and have a relationship with Him. In fact, Bonhoeffer remained optimistic in light of all that happened in his life, pain and sufferings. He relished teaching, preaching, and caring for souls. He was an example of what God calls His disciples to demonstrate (servant leadership) by faith in word and deed. He was the man of his age, as I noted earlier, he served God to the fullest sense of his capacity. Sometimes, we say one thing and do another. We are prone to go back on our first walk and witness as the Apostle John wrote in his letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor, and are therefore called by God "to repent," but also "to return" to thy "first works."
In summary, as one ponders Dietrich Bonheoffer, the man of his age, one senses he practiced servant leadership in his life. He invites us to share first in the sufferings of Christ and with him as he did throughout his brief life until his death. Bishop Joseph Johnson in his book Proclamation Theology, best describes Dietrich, in the words of the Old Negro Spiritual:
Let Jesus lead you
Let Jesus lead you
All the way
All the way
Earth to Heaven
Let Jesus lead you
All the way.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
One of the men who were inspired by Bonhoeffer was an African-American minister who was called to God in the Deep South during the Jim Crow era. Like Bonhoeffer, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called upon his Christianity to aid him in his pursuit of equality for African-Americans. King is known for many things, but he most remembered as a man who used non-violent means to confront a very entrenched and violent system of racism. In fact, in 1964, King received the Nobel Peace Prize for his civil rights efforts. However, racism was not the only social ill targeted by King; he also worked to end poverty and the Vietnam War.
King's path to the pulpit would have seen a foregone conclusion to many who witnessed his childhood. His father was a reverend, who was so devout that he changed both his name and the name of his young son from Michael to Martin Luther in honor of Protestant leader Martin Luther.
However, King did not take to his father's profession with zeal. On the contrary, he discussed feeling ambivalent about Christianity. In fact, at the age of 13, he denied that Jesus was literally resurrected, stating that, at that point, "doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly."
However, King did pursue a religious education, seeking a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Crozer Theological Seminary after receiving a Bachelor of Arts in sociology from Morehouse. King then went on to Boston University, where he attained his Doctor of Philosophy. While obtaining his doctorate, King became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama.
More than Bonhoeffer, King was inspired by Gandhi. Most significantly, King was inspired by the role that non-violent demonstrations had played in India's struggle for civil rights. Prior to leaving India, King made a radio statement which described his relationship with Gandhi:
Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity. In a real sense, Mahatma Gandhi embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation .
King brought Gandhi's non-violent policies to the United States, infusing Gandhi's servant leadership with King's own Christian background. His first success was the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a struggle in which African-Americans boycotted buses in Montgomery, Alabama, in an effort to end racial segregation in public transportation. His next major accomplishment was formation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). The goal of the SCLC was to organize the main social organization in the lives of most southern blacks, the church, and use it as a means to conduct non-violent protests with the goal of attaining equality. King's role as the leader of the SCLC placed him in constant danger. Not only was King eventually assassinated, but, prior to that successful attempt on his life, his home was firebombed, he was hit with a brick, and he was stabbed.
Furthermore, King was in a precarious political position, because his advocacy for lower socio-economic groups placed him in many of the same social circles as communists. As the result, King spent the last few years of his life as the target of an FBI investigation. Even though there was no evidence to suggest that King was involved in communist organizations, the FBI used evidence obtained via illegal wiretaps to try to force King out of his leadership role. Despite these difficulties, King retained his leadership position and was involved in a number of civil rights campaigns, of varying success. Perhaps the most famous of these crusades occurred in Birmingham when, low on adult volunteers, the SCLC made the decision to use children as volunteers in non-violent activism. The images of police, under the leadership of Eugene "Bull" Connor" using high-pressure water jets and police dogs on children helped many people understand that the South's custom of racial segregation was not victimless. While King and the SCLC faced criticism for their tactics, and were considered too obsequious by more radical activists like Malcolm X and too bold by many Southern whites, they were ultimately able to use non-violent protest as a means of highlighting racial disparities and helping bring about critical civil rights legislation.
King and Bonhoeffer seemed to have similar views about a nation's duty to its citizens, and the role of a nation as a leadership entity. King became very alarmed about the Vietnam War, and his concern took on two aspects. The first aspect was that King was overwhelmed by social justice in the United States and believed that it was absolutely inappropriate for a country to spend more money on war and militarism than on social programs. The second aspect was that he believed that the Vietnam War was an example of American imperialism, which would continue the same type of exploitative values that existed during slavery. Speaking of Vietnam, King said:
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just."
In fact, King's anti-war advocacy was merely a sign of his evolution as a civil rights leader. He began to privately support socialism, finding capitalism to be an inappropriate way to allocate wealth. To King, there was really no way to distinguish the issues of domestic civil rights and broader human rights issues. Speaking at an anti-Vietnam rally, King said:
I have not urged a mechanical fusion of the civil rights and peace movements. There are people who have come to see the moral imperative of equality, but who cannot yet see the moral imperative of world brotherhood. I would like to see the fervor of the civil-rights movement imbued into the peace movement to instill it with greater strength. And I believe everyone has a duty to be in both the civil-rights and peace movements. But for those who presently choose but one, I would hope they will finally come to see the moral roots common to both (King, 1967).
There was considerable opposition to King's work, which seemed to grow when he expanded outside the arena of racism and segregation and began to take on broader issues about America's role in the world and entrenched ideals of European colonialism and neo-American colonialism. King was not ignorant of the dangers that he faced. In fact, on April 3, 1968, King gave a speech at the Mason Temple. In this speech, King openly discussed the dangers that he faced, specifically a bomb threat that had delayed his travel plans:
And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
That King made this speech on April 3, 1968 seems like prescient when looking backwards. At 6:01 P.M., on April 4, 1968, King was standing on the balcony at his motel, when he was shot by a sniper's bullet. King was pronounced dead an hour later.
Even more revealing of King's attitude as a servant leader is how he replied when asked how people should remember him:
I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others.
I'd like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to love somebody.
I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question.
I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry.
I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked.
I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. And I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.
Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. I won't have any money to leave behind. I won't have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. And that's all I want to say.
If I can help somebody as I pass along,
If I can cheer somebody with a word or song,
If I can show somebody he's traveling wrong,
Then my living will not be in vain.
If I can do my duty as a Christian ought,
If I can bring salvation to a world once wrought,
If I can spread the message as the master taught,
Then my living will not be in vain.
King's most notable piece of writing may be his Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which he answers criticism leveled at him by his fellow pastors, challenging his civil rights efforts as being too direct. Criticized as an outsider who has come into Birmingham to stir up trouble, King responds with reasons why he is not an outsider. Furthermore, he states:
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
In this letter he discusses why nonviolent campaigns are necessary. He talks about blacks being left with no alternative but to demonstrate. It is difficult to ignore the similarities between Birmingham's treatment of blacks in the Jim Crow south and the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany:
There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.
These realities starkly parallel the situation that Bonhoeffer fought in Germany, where he tried to get other Germans, especially religious leaders, to support his opposition to the oppression of Jews.
Moreover, King makes it clear, much as Bonhoeffer did, that his job is not to make people feel better about the status quo. On the contrary, King acknowledges that doing his job properly will almost certainly result in some type of negative feelings:
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
Desmond Tutu
Like King and Bonhoeffer, Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a wonderful example of a servant leader. Tutu was born in Klerksdorp, Transvaal in South Africa on October 7, 1931. His father was a teacher and his mother a cook and cleaner at a school. The family moved to Johannesburg when Tutu was 12, and it was in Johannesburg that he met Trevor Huddleston, a priest working in the black slums. Huddleston's impressed Tutu with the simple act of treating Tutu's mother with respect. According to Tutu, "One day, I was standing in the street with my mother when a white man in a priest's clothing walked past. As he passed us he took off his hat to my mother. I couldn't believe my eyes- a white man who greeted a black working class woman!"
However, Tutu did not immediately become a clergyman. He began his career as a teacher, but resigned following the passage of the Bantu Education Act, which he felt further limited educational prospects for blacks. Tutu then decided to pursue theology, and was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1960.
Like Bonhoeffer, Tutu continued his religious education in London, working there as a curate. However, Tutu also felt compelled to return to his home country, given the turmoil South Africa was experiencing at that time. From the period between 1967 to 1972, Tutu used his position at the pulpit to highlight the horrors of apartheid. Tutu obtained a position as chaplain at the University of Fort Hare, one of the only real universities for black students in southern Africa. Tutu also worked at the National University of Lesotho. In 1972, Tutu became the vice-director of the Theological Education Fund of the World Council of Churches. In 1975, Tutu was the first black person to be appointed the Dean of St. Mary's Cathedral in Johannesburg. In September 1986, he became the Archbishop of Cape Town. He was also the president of the All Africa Conferences of Churches from 1987 to 1997.
Tutu's civil rights activism began in earnest in 1976 when the Soweto Riots against the government's use of Afrikaans to instruct black students turned into a large-scale protest against apartheid. Tutu urged the international community to pull away from interaction with South Africa, even though he knew that would have the strongest negative impact on poor South Africans. The U.S. And the U.K. ceased investments in South Africa in 1985, and disinvestment was ultimately responsible for causing the government to consider reform. Tutu led people in nonviolent marches and protests, much as King had done in the United States. Together with economic pressure, these protests helped bring about the end of apartheid.
While Tutu was a strong advocate of non-violence, he was not willing to sacrifice liberty for seeming propriety. In 1985, Tutu said, "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of human rights" (Tutu, 2010). In fact, when speaking about apartheid, he spoke about equality, but he also spoke about morality. Having a strongly moral position seems critical for a successful servant leader. Tutu said, "It was fairly straightforward that one of the things we had to do was to seek to establish a moral position. The second was maintaining the morale of our people. Telling our people 'your cause is a just cause.' This is, in fact, a moral universe. We're going to win."
Like Bonhoeffer and King, Tutu faced punishment for his views. The government revoked his passport on two occasions. Tutu was also jailed because of a protest march. Tutu may have faced steeper penalties, such as those faced by Mandela, but his international reputation and his status as a clergyman may have isolated him for those dangers. Furthermore, like King, Tutu was a pacifist, and, because of that pacifism, was sometimes considered weak by his critics. However, Tutu was unafraid to face that criticism:
People who call pacifists weak, that's not the case. Actually you go into confrontation. You confront violent people without weapons and your confrontation draws out their violence as it did in Birmingham with the dogs as it did in South Africa with the dogs. And that worked beautifully in Capetown in those few months. It was called the Defiance Campaign. The police violence, which was normally confined to black townships, was exported into the city. There was a particular evening, in which the Anglican Cathedral went to a judge to seek an order to stop the police from beating people up indiscriminately on the streets. Well, the police lawyer had considerable difficulty persuading the judge not to grant the order when the judges own clerk had been beaten up on the way to court to hear the case that evening.
Tutu continues to play a role in post-apartheid South Africa. He is seen as an international human rights activist. He advocates on behalf of children and is a strong supporter of democracy. Tutu has also continued to play a crucial role in South Africa's development. He has been a vocal critic of global policies that he finds oppressive. This has put Tutu in the role of criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestine, which has led critics to call Tutu an anti-Semite. He has also been very critical of the U.S.'s foreign policies, most especially in Iraq and towards detainees in Guantanamo Bay. As a result, Tutu is not seen as a wholly positive figure. However, he continues to live his convictions. Speaking about the atrocities occurring in Zimbabwe, Tutu said:
We Africans should hang our heads in shame. How can what is happening in Zimbabwe elicit hardly a word of concern let alone condemnation from us leaders of Africa? After the horrible things done to hapless people in Harare, has come the recent crackdown on members of the opposition ... what more has to happen before we who are leaders, religious and political, of our mother Africa are moved to cry out "Enough is enough?" (Tutu, 2007).
Chapter Three: Description of the Project
Project Goals
The goals of the project flow from the purpose of the project, which is designed for the lay ministers and parish council president who participate in this project. I had five goals for the participants and three for me as the chaplain. By the end of the servant leadership training program, I wanted the goals to: (1) identify seven principles of servant leadership; (2) know their spiritual gift; (3) know their personality type based upon a Leadership Personality Type Profile Indicator and the DISC Profile; (4) complete a S.E.R.V.E profile in week three; and, most importantly (5) assume their role as servant leaders within the Church. I also had three goals that were specific to me. First, I wanted to teach C. Gene Wilkes' workshop "Jesus on Leadership: 'Developing Servant leaders'" to the lay ministers and parish council president of the South Iowa Chapel. Second, I wanted to help the lay ministers and parish council president discover their spiritual gift using a spiritual gifts inventory. Third, I wanted to help the lay ministers and parish council president discover their personality type based upon the Leadership Personality Type Profile Indicator.
My specific goals were in hopes of furthering my overall goal. As previously explained, the South Iowa Chapel is a church in conflict. Membership in the church is down, and it is my belief that this is due, at least in part, to an increase in conflict in the church. Traditional top-down models of leadership have proven ineffective at decreasing the conflict that exists within the church. In fact, these top-down models actually seem to have increased conflict. This may be due to the fact that the very people who are likely to cause conflict in churches are the same kind of people who respond very negatively to any type of confrontational approach, which is an inherent part of traditional leadership models that depend on the establishment of power-ranking systems. Therefore, the goal of this project was to teach servant leadership to people within the church with the hope that this would give them the tools to help reduce conflict in the church.
Details of the Project
In order to achieve the intention and goals of the project, I scheduled regular meetings with the participants in a small group setting once a week for an hour for five weeks. Obviously, these small group sessions drew upon my earlier experience as a small group leader in Bible study sessions. Moreover, because the small groups were to teach servant leadership, I had to apply what I had earlier learned about servant leadership to my role as group leader. It is impossible to teach servant leadership if one is using a traditional didactic approach to teaching.
I also drew upon my previous projects to help select the participants for the study. In my prior projects, people had self-selected for Bible study and then for servant leadership training. However, not all of the people who self-selected for the programs were ideally suited for small group programs or for a servant leadership training program. That is not to suggest that they are not suited to servant leadership, because, through Christ, all people are suited to servant leadership. However, it is to acknowledge my current limitations as a facilitator and trainer in servant leadership. At this time, I felt that it was important that the servant leadership training be immediately successful, so that these trained leaders could immediately go out into the church and hopefully begin to reduce the conflict in the church.
The classroom component of the project took place during the month of 2008. I started the project with the Wilkes leadership series beginning March 2, 2008 and concluding March 30, 2008 with the leadership personality type profile indicator and spiritual gifts inventory. I planned for each of the one-hour sessions to follow the same format. I began with prayer followed by a careful review of the previous week's lesson. Next, we moved into discussion of the current week's lesson. This discussion was aided by video clips and other learning aids. After discussing the current week's lesson, I gave the participants their instructions for the upcoming week's assignment. We concluded each of our meetings with a prayer.
The small group meetings served several purposes. First, they provided me with an opportunity to teach servant leadership skills to the program participants. Second, they provided me with an opportunity to evaluate progress and answer questions about the training. Third, they provided me with the opportunity to distribute any program materials. Fourth, and most important, the small group setting gave each of the participants the opportunity to practice their beginning servant leadership skills. None of this would have been possible had I not gained experience as a small group leader in a Bible study context, because that experience gave me the skills necessary to lead without dominating a group. Moreover, it was that same type of approach to leadership that I was striving to teach my participants.
In addition to classroom time, much of what the participants were required to do actually took place outside of the classroom setting. For example, participants were required to do guided biblical daily study from their workbook and attend a small group retreat, in addition to their classroom work. The fact that the leadership training encompassed both classroom and individual study reflects much of the history of Christian servant leadership. For example, Jesus worked in community with people and did most of his work with others. However, he also withdrew for periods of solitude and reflection. Bonhoeffer likewise noted the importance of practicing Christianity in community and in solitude. This not something that secular commentators on servant leadership, such as Greenleaf, stress as an important facet of servant leadership.
Chapter Four: Project Results and Evaluation
In order to evaluate the effectiveness and validity of the project in relation to the participants that took the course on servant leadership, I administered an exit evaluation to program participants. The exit evaluation was two-fold. During the final session, I conducted an informal interview with the members of the group in order to gain feedback. I also took the opportunity of the last session to provide program participants with leadership tools. It was at the last session that I gave them the results of the leadership seminar, the leadership personality type indicator profile, and the spiritual gifts inventory.
One of the more interesting aspects of the survey is that so many of the participants shared the same personality type, and that it was not a personality type that is seen as a counselor as a minister. That does not suggest to me that the participants were not suited for servant leadership. On the contrary, the MBTI discusses people's roles in traditional society, and traditional society is based on leadership models of power and domination. What it does make me wonder is what MBTI profile the three religious leaders discussed in this paper would have. It is suggested that Gandhi would have one of the personality types that appeared in this study, but, of course, that is conjecture. Judging a man's innate personality on his actions can be misleading. After all, a man might be inclined to act one way, but, working with his own personal strengths and weaknesses, actually respond in a very different manner. As a result, I am not certain how helpful the MBTI was to the project as a whole, because I would not use MBTI personality types as a means of selecting or excluding servant leadership trainees in future sessions.
However, I do think that the MBTI inventory helped me learn that innate personality, while important, is not an obstacle to servant leadership. I think that all people have the capability to be successful servant leaders. Despite that, I would not wholly abandon the use of the MBTI in future servant leadership training courses. I think that, for the individual, having a personality inventory might be very helpful in teaching them how to exercise their servant leadership skills. Every human being is going to encounter challenges in learning how to be a true servant leader. Of the three great men that I profiled, not a single one of them lived a life of perfect servant leadership. In fact, only Jesus revealed himself to be a perfect servant leader, something that men cannot hope to truly match. However, knowing one's strengths and weaknesses can, at least, provide people with the tools that they need to help develop their servant leadership skills. The participants echoed these feelings, suggesting that when they responded negatively to information that they received in the servant leadership classes, knowing their MBTI, they felt as if they had the tools that they needed to meet those challenges.
The participants also really seemed to appreciate their spiritual gifts inventories. The spiritual gifts inventories were not administered to suggest that any person avoid a type of spirituality or outreach. On the contrary, they were given in order to help the program participants select their best methods of outreach. In most instances, the participants had some idea which spiritual gifts suited them the most, but what came as a surprise to some of them is that not all of the gifts were overtly spiritual.
For example, Lavantes Pitchford had very strong showings in the leadership and administration areas, which many people do not necessarily associate with spirituality. However, a church cannot thrive without good leadership and administration. He had lower showing in areas like evangelicism and hospitality, two areas that might more typically be associated with outreach ministry. However, it is important to keep in mind that there are so many ways for people to take leadership roles in a church setting, that it is unnaturally restrictive to suggest that leadership can only be handled in one manner. On the contrary, people can take on leadership in different manners. Lavantes Pitchford's low results in music would suggest to me, and to him, that he would not be the best choice to manage the church choir. However, the fact that he has such a strong affinity for administration would probably make him a wonderful coordinator for church activities or for playing a role as a church secretary or other administrator.
Joyce Stevens showed different spiritual gifts than Lavantes Pitchford. She was strong in knowledge, teaching, and mentoring, but weaker in prayer. For many people, a weakness in the area of prayer might suggest to them that they cannot play a leadership role in church. However, church is about more than prayer. Church is about building a community of worshippers. Transmitting knowledge and nurturing new Christians plays a critical role in the development of a church, and Joyce's strengths would make her an ideal person to engage in that behavior.
I did not find the servant leadership skills assessment to be particularly informative. It asked people to rank their skills in areas that are clearly necessary to be a good communicator, not simply a good servant leader. In some of these people, I had witnessed behavior that would suggest a lower score than they gave themselves. However, in other participants, I felt as if their self-ranking was very self-critical. Moreover, the skills self-assessments sometimes varied widely from the results that one would have expected based merely on the MBTIs. I think that in future instances, if I want to truly evaluate someone's skills as a servant leader, I will go to the people who are being led by my participants and ask them for an objective assessment of the leadership skills. I really do not think that a self-assessment was the best tool to use for that particular measurement.
Of all of the evaluation methods I used, I actually felt that the informal exit interview was the most helpful. All of the program participants were people who really wanted to learn servant leadership skills in order to help the church. I did not approach them because they were troublemakers or because I believed that they needed to learn servant leadership skills because they were in any way directly responsible for the conflict in the church. The fact that they wanted to acquire these skills, which meant great personal sacrifice of time and effort, already demonstrated that they were willing to display some selflessness, an essential element of servant leadership. Therefore, I was very interested in finding out what they thought about the program.
One of the concerns that I had was that the program participants may have felt that they could have learned servant leadership through self-study. After all, they spent very few total classroom hours working on their servant leadership skills, instead concentrating a substantial amount of homework time to the project. However, when I discussed this issue with the participants, they disagreed with me. They felt as if the study hours were a critical part of the learning program, because they felt that servant leadership is a skill that must be practiced, and that cannot be wholly learned from a book or study materials. I was not completely surprised by their answers, because I felt that my previous experience leading a small Bible study group was an essential step in my development as a group leader. I think that I felt reassured to know that other people shared the same feeling about the value of the small group.
However, it would be wrong to suggest that the participants left the group in absolute agreement about its efficacy. Several participants voiced concerns that only committed people would ever self-select for servant leader training. I have to acknowledge that I share their concerns. I am not certain, and they shared my uncertainty, that the types of people who most threaten the harmony in a church are the types that would ever seek to become servant leaders. I say this without disrespect, and the study participants did not seem to be condemning people for it either. After all, if strongly devout religious patriarchs like David and Solomon can demonstrate weaknesses that kept them from being strong servant leaders, it is not a stretch to suggest that modern churchgoers might exhibit the same weaknesses. As a result, the program participants and I discussed ways to get a wider variety of people into future servant leadership training programs. One thing we agreed upon is that the concept of servant leadership is one that needs to be emphasized throughout the church and revisited often.
The participants did have a problem with the servant leadership training course; they thought that it was incomplete. Unanimously, they felt as if they were provided with the materials that they needed to learn the basics of servant leadership. They all felt that they could describe servant leadership and what it entails. However, they all mentioned the fact that servant leadership is so contrary to traditional methods of leadership that they did not think merely learning about it was sufficient. Instead, they all wanted more opportunities to practice servant leadership. The limited number of classes that we had simply did not provide the participants with sufficient opportunities to practice their servant leadership skills.
Chapter Five: Literature Review
Conflicted Churches
Anyone who reads headlines is aware that many of today's churches are conflicted. There are tremendous conflicts in some of the major religions, for example the pedophilia crises in the Catholic Church and the growing division in the modern Lutheran church regarding whether non-celibate homosexuals should be able to become clergy. These are large conflicts, which, because they are so broad in scope, may seem to be swept up in the political landscape and seem almost unimportant to the daily life of a church. However, a church is, ideally, a refuge. However, when conflict becomes the defining feature of a church, that refuge is destroyed. What, then, is the impact when a church ceases to be a place for peace and becomes, instead, a place of conflict? How does it impact the church? How does it impact the parishioners? How does it impact the clergy?
In order to answer these questions, one must first examine what constitutes conflict. Disagreements between parishioners are an expected part of church life; churches are composed of groups of human beings and it is inevitable that not everyone will get along with one another. How much conflict indicates that a church is conflicted? This is a good question, as even the experts differ in how to define conflicted behavior in churches. This is despite the fact that the problem of conflict within the Church has been very well-studied in past years.
While conflict can be difficult to define, the experts do tend to agree that serious conflicts can result from the actions of just a few trouble-making individuals. In fact, the dramatically negative impact that these individuals can have on a church's emotional state is evident when one sees the nicknames that have been developed for these people, including: "well- intentioned dragons," "antagonists in the church," "alligators," "troublesome people," or "clergy killers."
While these nicknames indicate people who can be very detrimental to the church, a Christian leader has to keep in mind that most of these people are not motivated by a desire to harm. Instead, many of them believe that they are acting in religiously and morally appropriate ways, which makes dealing with them even more difficult.
Assessing Leadership Styles
While all clergy will, hopefully, share the desire to teach and lead, different types of people hear the call to God. While all personality types can learn to incorporate elements of different personalities into their own leadership styles, there is compelling evidence that personality is a somewhat fixed characteristic, and that it is unrealistic to expect people to change their personality types. Understanding individual personality tendencies helps one understand individual strengths and weaknesses, and also helps understand how different people with different personalities can apply servant leadership in their lives.
There are many different ways to help identify personality types, and the reliable and trusted tools help point out the positive and negative aspects of people's personalities. C.G. Jung is the modern scholar linked to the development of human personality types.
I chose to use the Myers-Briggs Typology Indicator (MBTI) for this study. First, the MBTI is one of the most-respected, easy-to-use, and easy to understand personality assessment tools in general use. In addition, the MBTI is particularly helpful in analyzing congregations because of its basic bias toward the affirmation of gifts, rather than focusing on negative personality traits.
The MBTI measures four dimensions, which are represented by letters. People can be extraverted (E) or introverted (I); sensory(S) or intuitive (N); thinking (T) or feeling (F); judging (J) or perceiving (P) (Keirsey, 1998, p.12). Keirsey and other authors have observed that the various subgroups composed of the dimensions can be further broken down into similar groups looking at the S/N and J/P dimensions. Of the clergy subjected to the study, only two personality types emerged. The first personality type, shared by the author of this dissertation, is the ISTJ: introverted, sensory, thinking, and judging. The second personality type, present in only one clergy man who was studied, is the ENFP: extraverted, intuitive, feeling, and perceiving.
Keirsey refers to all SPs as guardians, and calls them "the pillars of society."
"The foundation of the SJ character, setting them apart unmistakably from the other personalities, is their unique combination of concrete word usage with cooperative tool usage."
Keirsey refers to the ISTJ variant of the guardian as the inspector, and describes their personalities in the following manner:
Inspecting is the act of looking carefully and thoroughly at the products and accounts of an institution- the company's ledger, the farmer's produce, the manufacturer's merchandise, the family's budget- and ISTJs take on this role with quiet dedication. These Inspectors are earnest and attentive in their inspecting; to be certified as right and proper, all must go under their scrutiny so that no irregularities or discrepancies are let go by. Most often reporting to higher authorities, Inspectors tend to work behind the scenes, only rarely having to confront others with their findings.
Moreover, Keirsey's observations about inspectors seem to indicate that they may have some problems embracing a servant leadership style. First, "in orientation, they tend to be fatalistic, pessimistic, and stoical as they guard the gateways and look to yesterday."
In addition, Keirsey indicates that ISTJs may have a tendency towards materialism. He notes that "often concerned about things, they trust authority, yearn for belonging, seek security, prize gratitude, and aspire to executive position."
These characteristics seem like they would present a challenge to someone seeking to embrace servant leadership.
However, the inspector personality has innate strengths that lend themselves to servant leadership. For example, Keirsey classifies them as superdependable, stating that "whether at home or at work, ISTJs are nothing if not reliable, particularly when it comes to inspecting the people and things in their jurisdiction- quietly seeing to it that uniform quality of product is maintained, and that those around them uphold certain standards of attitude and conduct."
Keirsey refers to the NFs as idealists.
He believes that "idealists are well-equipped for the difficult task of influencing people's attitudes and actions, not only inspiring them to grow, but also settling differences among them, smoothing difficulties- ever looking to enlighten the people around them and forge unit among them."
He points to Gandhi as a prototype for the idealist, which may indicate that NFs are naturally inclined towards a servant-leadership style, given the frequent comparisons between Jesus' and Gandhi's personalities.
Keirsey specifically refers to the ENFPs as champions. He states that:
Champions are eager to go everywhere and to experience, first hand, all the meaningful things happening in their world. Once these outgoing Advocates have explored issues and events, they are filled with ardent conviction and enthusiastically champion- adopt, embrace, espouse, fight for, and go to bat for- the truth of a cause or an ideal they have come to believe in, all in an effort to motivate (to encourage, even to inspire) others to settle their conflicts and to act justly and wisely.
Champions are rare in society; comprising between two and three percent of all people.
They are extremely outgoing, with boundless and contagious enthusiasm, causing Keirsey to label them the "most vivacious of all the types."
However, while oftentimes perceived as extremely empathetic, champions "often see themselves in some danger of losing touch with their real feelings."
This is because authenticity is of paramount importance to the champions. However, that goal of authenticity can conflict with their role as natural leaders, which can cause champions to believe that they have come across as inauthentic. When that occurs, champions "tend to heap coals of fire on themselves for the slightest self-conscious role-playing."
Champions are also hyper-alert, exercising "a continuous scanning of the social environment...Far more than the other NFs, ENFPs are the keen and penetrating observers of the people around them, and are capable of intense concentration on another individual."
However, as leaders, champions may rely too strongly on intuition and on their suppositions about people's hidden motives. Their interpretations can be accurate, but they "can also be negative, sometimes inaccurately negative, and may introduce an unnecessarily toxic element into the relationship."
Why is leadership style so important? In a 1971 study, Yalom and Lieberman discovered that encounter groups were highly dependent upon the style of the leaders; the majority of students who suffered enduring, significant negative outcomes from encounter groups had group leaders with aggressive, confrontational styles.
This seems to suggest that aggressive, confrontational leaders provoke aggressive, confrontational behavior from group members.
Developing Leadership Techniques
Given that personality is an innate characteristic and some personalities are better-suited to leadership than other personalities, it makes sense that some people are better suited for growth-group leadership than other people. A review of all of the available literature makes it clear that certain characteristics tend to make someone a better growth-group leader, though most personality types can add something constructive as a group leader. For the most effective potential facilitators, the following criteria seem critical. First, is he a loving, non-manipulative person in his relationships? Growth groups rely upon trust, and loving and non-manipulative approaches are essential to trust-building. Second, is he in touch with his own feelings, including negative ones? If one is not aware of one's negative feelings, then one cannot be expected to deal with them in an effective manner. Third, is he open to new ideas, relationships? If a person is not open to new ideas, then it can be difficult, if not impossible to teach him, and learning is an essential part of the growth-group experience. Fourth, does he ring true most of the time? (Is he congruent?) Fifth, is his self-esteem firm? Growth groups can challenges a person's basic assumptions about self, which can be very threatening to people with weak or inadequately developed self-esteem. Sixth, can he listen to other people?
While innate personality and leadership style may make some people more suited for leadership than other people, it would be a mistake to think that good leaders are born that way. The important thing is that a person possesses an appreciable degree of the above characteristics. The greater the degree, the easier it is to train him as a growth facilitator. If one recruits a growth group, using these criteria, the group experience itself will identify several people who have both the inclination and the aptitudes to lead groups themselves. The natural facilitators, who emerge, after some additional training, can become co-leaders of groups while continuing in an ongoing leaders' growth group. This is a practical way of developing a cadre of growth facilitators in an organization or agency.
Even if one is a naturally good facilitator, it would be a mistake to assume that he does not need training to be an effective growth-group leader. Instead, good leaders generally tend to work to become good leaders, and to do maintenance work to refresh their skills, once they have attained them. According to William Schutz, "Talking is usually good for intellectual understanding of personal experience, but it is often not as effective for helping a person to experience -- to feel. Combining the non-verbal with the verbal seems to create a much more powerful tool for cultivating human growth."
What Schutz means is that leaders need to be able to experience things, not just talk about them. That is because, while language is a powerful communication tool, it can also be used as a means of avoiding communication. Language can be used to keep people at a distance, to pretend, to manipulate, to control, and to hide. Therefore, before engaging in leadership activities, it is important for a leader to understand how he or she is using language.
Potential leaders can use awareness exercises to help rediscover immediate experiencing and get beyond the use of words and intellectualizing to pretend, keep distance, control, hide. The exercises can help one get in touch with forgotten feelings and sensations. Most people were programmed in childhood to ignore many rich, powerful, sensual feelings within their bodies. These disowned feelings have a destructive effect on bodies, spirits, and relationships. Owned and welcomed back into a total being, they enrich and deepen people.
In addition to learning how to be aware, group leaders need to learn other essential skills. Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis model provides some fascinating insight into leader development. According to Berne, there are three parts of the personality- the Parent, the Adult, and the Child. The inner Parent speaks as one perceives one's parents acted, which means that inner Parents can be nurturing and helpful or harmful and caustic. The inner Child is a continuation of the way people felt as children, and can be positive or negative as well. The Adult side of personality makes realistic decisions aimed at achieving objectives. Growth groups and other leadership activities try to help people interrupt their self-damaging Child/Parent interaction and put their inner Adults in charge of their lives. The goal is not to eliminate a person's Parent or Child sides, but to make sure that the Adult side of one's personality is in control of the person.
How does one become an adequate growth-group leader? This can be a difficult question to answer, because there are different perspectives about it. However, a growth-group is very similar to traditional therapy in many respects, and one of the primary qualifications for a good therapist is that they have been active in their own therapeutic process. Therefore, the first step for potential growth-group leaders is to participate in a well-led growth group. Furthermore, there is a whole wealth of training available for people who desire to be group leaders, and participating in as much training as possible can only help leaders. Each training experience, even if the experience is ultimately rejected, teaches something. Next, a person needs to acquire a basic understanding of key concepts in interpersonal and group dynamics, group counseling and therapy, and the human potentials movement. Insights from reading, lectures, and training courses can illuminate and make more functional your growth group experiences. The third step is practice in co-leading a group with an experienced facilitator, or solo-leading a group under supervision. Tape record sessions (with the group's permission, of course) and play segments of these in supervisory meetings. Supervision in a small group of leaders-in-training is especially valuable, providing as it does both a continuing support/growth group and a place to learn from others' experiences in leading groups. For maximum effectiveness, growth-group leaders should, continue to use the backup principle -- i.e., maintain an ongoing consultive relationship with a skilled professional to backup group work, and continue in personal growth/support groups while leading groups. These two suggestions are essential for lay facilitators; they are also sound advice for professional counselors.
Leading Growth Groups
One of the important things for a growth group leader to do is to evaluate their effectiveness as a leader. A lack of adequate reflection can hamper even the most effective group leader. Therefore, a group leader should strive to approach groups with an evaluation perspective and devise ways of measuring the effectiveness of different aspects of the group.
Finally, the experts seem to agree that being an effect leader involves more than good leadership; it also involves good self-care practices. It is not an easy world in which to stay a person -- loving, authentic, alive. As a growth-group leader or potential leader, one's most difficult and essential resource is oneself. Finding relationships to nurture and re-energize one's inner being is crucially important. A growth group is not a place where a leader does something to the group. it's a shared adventure in relating, one in which the leader is something with the group in their joint search. To be something enlivening is much more difficult than to do something technically appropriate. So, whatever else one does, one must find at least one nurturing relationship; it is the only way to keep the enlivener alive.
Servant Leadership
Because people have naturally different personalities, which one might expect to result in naturally different leadership styles, it may seem redundant to speak about a best approach to leadership. However, for its adherents, servant leadership does represent a best approach to leadership. That is because servant leadership does not require a leader to abandon his or her personality or to engage in specific behaviors as a leader. Instead, servant leadership refers to an approach to leadership that can best be described as a philosophy. Servant leaders strive for results by placing the needs of the colleagues and constituents in priority positions.
The term servant leadership was coined by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, and has garnered support from a number of leading scholars in the fields of leadership and management, including Larry Spears, James Autry, Ken Blanchard, Stephen Covey, Peter Block, Peter Senge, Max DePree, Jim Hunter, Margaret Blanchard, Kent Keith, and Ken Jennings. The basic elements of servant leadership include: empathy, healing persuasion, foresight, conceptualization, growth, community-building, and listening. In fact, listening may be the most crucial skill for servant-leaders.
The concept of the servant leader is a Christian one, but it is not a uniquely Christian approach. The Tao Te Ching discusses rulers, and Lao-Tzu's highest praise falls upon a leader that matches the modern description of a servant-leader, "the highest type of ruler is one whose existence the people are barely aware."
More significant is the impact that servant-leadership can have on an entire institution. Embracing the cooperative nature of servant leadership rather than an authoritarian leadership style can transform a church. This change is so dramatic that Henry P. Hildebrand believes once an institution as a whole accepts the servant-leadership concept as a life-style; it becomes an awesome force for good upon the earth. It builds trust in relationships. Servant-leaders seek to help and to enable. They do not seek to dominate or exploit.
This may be due to a dramatic difference in servant leadership when compared to other types of leadership. In the other types of leadership, leaders seek some type of reverence or honor. In contrast, servant-leaders rejoice in seeing others honored.
When the jostling for glory and recognition is stripped away, leadership transforms into mutual goal-attainment.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that research shows that organizations that adopt servant leadership principles have fewer incidents of internal conflict due to genuine personal connection and interpersonal appreciation as this leadership model achieves organizational objectives .
This reduction in interpersonal conflict likely has real, lasting meaning for the organizations. Greenleaf once said, "ruthless, self-serving, manipulative leadership never resulted in long-term success."
He also pointed out that "to be a lone chief atop a pyramid is abnormal and corrupting."
With perception developed through experiments, he concluded, "when someone is moved atop a pyramid, that person no longer has colleagues, only subordinates."
Basically, what Greenleaf was suggesting was that any system built on the outmoded authoritarian view of leadership would be destined to fail. Instead, he urged leaders to adopt the attitude of a servant.
Servant leadership is not a uniquely Christian concept. As mentioned above, the concept of servant leadership was discussed over a thousand years before Jesus' birth, meaning that it clearly predated Christianity. However, servant leadership is ideally suited to Christianity, because Jesus so epitomized servant leadership. In fact, Christian leadership should be rooted in the servant leader model Jesus set forth. It is a model in which the leader asks, "How can I serve my people?" not "What can my people do for me?"
This is not a popular model, for it calls for humility and personal sacrifice on the part of the leader. Furthermore, this model of leadership is not likely to be hailed and welcomed as what is needed in modern times. Modern people are accustomed to pomp and circumstance as the external tokens of greatness. However, nevertheless, after a while this model will yield the fruit of loving commitment in addition, to some self-generating motivation.
The pastoral calling involves the dual roles of leadership and servant hood. The two functions are not contradictory but complimentary. As a rule, leaders don't serve and servants don't lead. In fact, servant leadership is such a paradox that Jesus continually had to teach it to his disciples. Servant leaders practice transparent leadership and create opportunities for others to lead. Rather than foster competition, servant leaders advocate increasing service opportunities through additional positions and limited terms of office. Leaders, both lay and ordained, will find this approach to leadership refreshing and renewing. Thus sharing leadership tends to balance responsibility and encourage a unified approach.
A "pyramid structure weakens informal links, dries up channels of honest reaction and feedback, and creates limiting chief-subordinate relationships."
Jesus clearly tells us that a leader should behave like a servant, rather than be in leadership for power, control, or for personal gain. In summary, the leadership principles of Jesus are principles of His kingdom; kingdom principles do not promote an archaic hierarchy system of leadership that devalues individuals and places the needs of one over that of the community.
Robert Greenleaf
Long after Bonhoeffer's execution and after King played his crucial role in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, but while Tutu was still struggling to help lead South Africa out of apartheid, Robert K. Greenleaf began to discuss the concept of servant leadership. Unlike the three aforementioned men of the cloth, Greenleaf did not come to servant leadership through religion. On the contrary, Greenleaf's experience with servant leadership was very secular. He spent years working for at&T, where he began to research the idea of what traits were necessary to become a good leader. What Greenleaf came to believe was that the American-style of leadership was ineffective, and he began to explore the concept of servant leadership.
In 1964, Greenleaf founded the Center for Applied Ethics, and began to write about the concept of servant leadership. What is fascinating is that Greenleaf's approach to servant leadership is secular, not religious. He believes that institutions and leaders should serve mankind, but does not rely on the example of Jesus as the ultimate servant leader. It is not necessary to be a Christian to be an effective servant leader. However, the three holy men listed in the above examples demonstrate that it may be necessary to be a servant leader in order to be an effective servant leader.
In his introduction to Servant Leadership, Greenleaf does discuss the interplay between servant leaders and Christianity. He asks specifically:
The clergy and the churches they serve: do they not have the opportunities to specify in detail a new moral basis for an institution-bound society and give insistent guidance to those who have power to render these institutions more serving? And could some churches thereby venture into the growing edge positions that are crying out to be taken?
What this question makes clear is that Greenleaf does not feel that churches and their clergy are taken the opportunities presented to serve when they can. Instead, he suggests that they are failing to fill this void.
Why is Greenleaf so committed to the idea of servant leadership? Why does he think it is such an important issue? Greenleaf has two concerns. First, he is concerned with individuals and with how they can make their way in a modern society that seems to almost wholly lack leadership. His next concern is for individuals in their capacity as potential leaders or servers, and how failing to exercise those roles leaves people with a gap or void in their lives. He feels like these voids have a negative impact on people's lives.
Pondering why leaders seem to be more present at some times in history and less present at other times in history, Greenleaf came up with the idea of prophecy. He thinks that people have closed themselves off to prophecy and refuse to hear the things being spoken to them. Moreover, he thinks that "it is seekers, then who make prophets, and the initiative of any one of us in searching for and responding to the voice of contemporary prophets may mark the turning point in their growth and service."
Greenleaf was not the first person to suggest that people are deaf to prophecy. In the Book of Job, Elihu asks Job:
Why do you complain to him that he answers none of man's words? For God does speak -- now one way, now another -- though man may not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men as they slumber in their beds, he may speak in their ears and terrify them with warnings, to turn man from wrongdoing and keep him from pride, to preserve his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword.
An openness to prophecy is not the only characteristic of a servant leader. Instead, Greenleaf describes several characteristics that need to be present in a true servant leader. He stresses the idea that "the servant leader is servant first."
This means that someone is seeking leadership in order to ensure that other's priorities are being met. However, Greenleaf suggests that people cannot always really know what drives their desire to lead. He does suggest that "the natural servant, the person who is servant-first, is more likely to persevere and refine a particular hypothesis on what serves another's highest priority needs than is the person who is leader-first and who later serves out of promptings of conscience or in conformity with normative expectations."
Greenleaf also discusses those qualities that he believes are necessary in a servant leader. The first thing that he mentions is goal setting. Greenleaf believes that leaders are naturally better at "pointing the way."
This does not mean that leaders choose the direction, because the goal can be determined by consensus, but that leaders are able to articulate the direction. These goals are not the attainable goals that one usually considers in goal setting. Instead, these goals refer to the idea of being able to conceptualize the big picture and develop the steps needed to help one reach that big picture.
The second thing that Greenleaf mentions is that leaders must be capable of listening and understanding .
Many times, traditional power and control leaders do very little listening to their subordinates. Instead of looking for solutions, these traditional leaders instead look to assign blame when things are not working. By opening up and listening to other people, then going one step further and actually making an effort to understand what people are saying, servant leaders are more likely to find solutions to daily problems. In fact, without actually listening to people, leaders cannot understand problems; much less begin to formulate successful solutions to those problems.
Leaders must also have an understanding of language and imagination.
Obviously, communication skills are important in leaders. However, an understanding of language goes beyond a basic understanding of communication skills. Language is an incredibly complex tool, through which people can communicate both concrete ideas and imagination. Many of today's leaders are mired in the concrete and unable to use language to convey what could be. Combining language with imagination takes a leader beyond those obstacles, so that they can convey what they have conceptualized to their groups.
Moreover, while it is always important for leaders to be able to interact with others, Greenleaf sites the ability I withdraw and reorient oneself as the third critical elements for servant leadership.
This is something that Bonhoeffer emphasized as well. A leader must strike the balance between community and self. This can be very difficult because the drive to serve can cause someone to fail to erect the appropriate boundaries between self and others. A good servant leader knows that without self-care it is absolutely impossible to care for anyone else, and so a good servant leader takes time to step away from society, reflect, and then come back to the group.
The fourth quality that Greenleaf believes servant leaders must possess is acceptance and empathy.
Servant leaders do not reject people, though they may reject efforts as insufficient in certain circumstances. It can be very difficult to convey to a group member that an activity or effort is insufficient while still demonstrating acceptance of that person. It can be even more difficult to reject an idea without seeming to reject a person. Servant leaders separate themselves from personal animosities or petty disputes with group members, so that they can evaluate individual input objectively.
Greenleaf's fifth quality for leaders is difficult to describe, but he puts it as knowing the unknowable.
Greenleaf does not mean that leaders must be actually telepathic, though he certainly indicates that would not hurt. Rather than being clairvoyant, Greenleaf feels that servant leaders must be willing to make decisions without having all relevant information. In fact, Greenleaf considers foresight "the central ethic of leadership."
Without being able to use all available information to reasonably predict the future, a leader will be frozen, because it is always possible to continue to gather information. In fact, one of the things hampering many potential leaders is the fear that they will make mistakes. Servant leaders use what they know to try to make decisions without making mistakes, but do not allow the fear of making a mistake keep them from making a decision.
Leaders must be aware and able to perceive, which means that they must take in more from their environments than other people do.
Servant leaders use all of their senses to assess a situation. For example, group members may be assuring a servant leader that a situation is fine, while their non-verbal cues clearly indicate otherwise. A servant leader uses all of his skills to help determine what is really going on in a situation. Moreover, he does this on a global scale, not only considering what is going on in a group, but also what is going on in the surrounding environment, to determine how to approach a situation.
Greenleaf also discusses the idea that servant leaders have the ability to heal, meaning, by this, that servant leaders are able to make situations better. This aspect of servant leadership is critical because so many groups suffer from conflict and old wounds. Servant leaders come into situations and help deal with old situations, bringing closure and healing to groups. This does not mean that servant leaders act as traditional counselors, but they do serve many of the same functions as counselors. They help people identify their feelings and issues, visualize solutions to their perceived problems, and develop ways to achieve those solutions.
Servant leaders are also persuasive. Of course, being persuasive is a characteristic of all leaders, but it is important to realize that servant leaders do not lead through coercion. On the contrary, they lead by persuasion, getting people to reach a consensus. One of the ways that servant leaders are able to do this is by being more perceptive than most people. This gives them the ability to explain events to others, providing insight, which is an important element of persuasion. While servant leaders are certainly going to be charismatic, this ability to persuade goes beyond charisma, because it is persuasion with a purpose.
Servant leaders are also good stewards, which means that they use their resources, both natural and human, wisely. Human beings are probably the greatest resource for servant leaders, and servant leaders approach their human resources in a different manner than traditional leaders. For servant leaders, human beings are not expendable resources, but necessary elements for change. Therefore, servant leaders treat their human resources with respect and dignity, using the elements highlighted above, such as language and empathy to help understand their individual perspectives. Servant leaders also use their other resources wisely. Some degree of conservation is necessary in a servant leader, because the foresight that all servant leaders must demonstrate reveals to them that natural resources are finite and must be treated with care.
Servant leaders are also committed to furthering growth in people. They are not just interested in self-promotion. On the contrary, they are fiercely committed to the idea of helping each individual grow. This is partially due to the fact that they believe that every person has value. However, it is also due to them feeling a personal responsibility to nurture others. Servant leaders genuinely care for the members of their group and want each person to succeed on an individual level, not just a group level.
Finally, servant leaders are committed to the idea of the community. Taking a leadership position in a community is something meaningful for servant leaders, because it means taking on liability for the group. Rather than shirking responsibility, servant leaders gladly take on responsibility for the group. Furthermore, many times it is risky to lead a group into an unknown area, especially since it is impossible to always do so without mistakes. However, servant leaders are willing to do so, because they know that only positive leadership and growth can positively change a community.
After Greenleaf, many people have written about the ideas of servant leadership within the context of the church. One of the issues discussed is the idea that Christian leaders have to strike a balance between their heads and their hearts. It is not enough to feel for a situation; a leader must be able to use those feelings to motivate positive change:
Most leadership paradoxes result in tension and risk. Nowhere is this better illustrated for the Christian leader than in the dichotomy between leading with your head and leading with your heart. One risk occurs when leading with your head dominates; it will produce leadership that is perceived to be cold-hearted. The opposite risk also is possible. Thus the Christian leader will face situations when both head and heart must be exercised in a delicate balance…Preoccupation with concrete, bottom-line results based on unambiguous goals will, if left unchecked, short-change the softhearted values that also are essential in carrying out the organizational mission.
One of the risks of allowing the heart to lead is that an overabundance of feeling can lead to paralysis that prevents one from effectuating change. However, shutting off all feeling can deprive people of their motivations to help.
What can modern pastors do to utilize servant leadership skills to help better their churches? Tim Nichols has some wonderful ideas for today's pastors. He believes that today's pastors need to capitalize on the servant leader's ability to conceptualize in order to really effectuate great changes:
The role of vision for a congregation is not the same as a mission statement. Though a mission statement is helpful, the mission of the church is provided in Scripture and though it can be worded in many ways, should largely be the same from congregation to congregation. However, a vision is a descriptive picture of the future for that congregation. A vision should answer the question, "What would it look like here if we were really fulfilling our mission?" By defining the future, the congregation can form plans and priorities to support that future. Without this vision, the congregation will not be able to choose between many positive opportunities, therefore diluting their impact and limiting their success.
This is really important. The reality is that most churches and most churchgoers have positive ideas about what needs to be done in the world. However, a single church cannot simultaneously tackle all of the problems in the world. Determining a community's priorities and working towards a vision in those areas allows a church to use its resources in the wisest possible manner.
In fact, the ability to focus resources towards goal attainment may be one of the most effective things that a leader can do to decrease discord in a church community:
Most of us know the experience of frustration and how it impairs our happiness. Here's a little known truth: much of our frustration comes from incompletions. "Incompletions" are things we need to do but haven't yet done, things we want to do but haven't yet done, things we have started but haven't finished, or things others want us to do and that we want to do for them but haven't yet done. For many people, the name of their greatest unhappiness is "my unfinished tasks list." Incompletions claim a piece of our heart, mind, and energy, all of which could be better used for living life.
Effective leaders help prevent those incompletions. Say, for example, that a church is really committed to the idea of ending hunger. However, a single church simply does not have the resources to combat hunger on a global scale. Making that the goal would necessarily introduce incompletions into the church and bring about discontent. Instead, a good leader can look at available resources and see what magnitude of a problem their church is capable of fixing, and apply church resources to fixing that problem. The successful completion of a small goal can help keep the church focused on reaching the overall goal, which might be something broad and possibly unattainable, such as the overall elimination of hunger. However, setting those incremental, reachable goals provides incentive to parishioners to keep going towards goal attainment.
Chapter Six: Discussion
Obviously, Greenleaf's ideas of servant leadership strongly relate to the model of servant leadership established by Jesus in the Bible. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the model of the servant leader has been adopted by many Christian communities as the ideal way to lead within the church. Furthermore, are we surrounded by potential servant leaders today, but, lacking the real challenges of living in Germany circa World War II, the U.S. during the Jim Crow era, or Apartheid South Africa, these leaders lack the same opportunities to demonstrate their leadership as that Bonhoeffer had and might not ever become the same type of visionary servant leader. However, to suggest that modern times are somehow better or more peaceful than the eras that these men occupied is simply false. There are so many things going on in today's world where strong leadership is required, that it is a travesty that more servant leaders have not come forward to help change things.
That is why teaching servant leadership is so crucial to the health of today's church. It is unrealistic to expect a single church to be able to fix genocide in Darfur or any of the other large global problems today. However, servant leaders are not required to lead a single church to change. Looking at the examples of great servant leaders discussed in this paper, it is important to realize that not one of them singlehandedly accomplished social change. Bonhoeffer was a part of German resistance and his efforts saved the lives of numerous Jews, but he was not able to prevent or stop the Holocaust. King played a crucial role in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and his efforts undoubtedly led to an increase in civil rights in the United States, but he was not the only person active in the movement, and his church was not the only church actively participating in non-violent resistance to the Jim Crow laws. Tutu was a vocal opponent of apartheid and helped organize resistance to the movement, but destroying apartheid required a concerted global effort and was due, in part, to global resistance to the practice. These facts are pointed out, not to diminish these three clergymen as servant leaders, but to highlight the fact that they were servant leaders. Servant leaders do not pretend to have all of the solutions or to be able to single-handedly fix all the problems. Instead, servant leaders ask their communities to come together and create solutions.
Bibliography
Aarvik, Egil. 1984. Presentation speech of 1984 Nobel Prize for Peace. Stockholm: The Nobel Foundation. Online. Available from Internet, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1984/presentation-speech.html, accessed 11 March 2010.
Adair, John. 1984. The skills of leadership. New York: Nichols Pub. Co.
Anderson, Ray. 2007. Ten theses on Dietrich Bonhoeffer: theologian, Christina, martyr. Sydney: Blogspot. Online. Available from Internet, http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2007/06/ten-theses-on-dietrich-bonhoeffer.html, accessed 13 March 2010.
Berne, Eric. 1904. Games people play. New York: Grove Press.
Bethge, Eric. 2000. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: a Biography. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 1955. Ethics. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 1995. The cost of discipleship. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 2004. The cost of discipleship. London: SCM Press.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 2005. Life together: Prayerbook of the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Cafferky, Michael. 2007. Celebrating paradoxes in Christian leadership. The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 2(1):3-19.
Carson, Clayborne. 1998. The autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. New York: Warner Books.
Census Bureau. 2000. Demographic information for Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Census. Available from Internet, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?, accessed 11 March 2010.
De Gruchy, John, ed. 1991. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A witness to Jesus Christ. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Forbes. 1950. The Forbes scrapbook of thoughts on the business of life. New York: Forbes Inc.
Ford, David. 2005. The Modern Theologians. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Friedman, Edwin. 1985. Generation to generation: Family process in church and synagogue. New York: Guilford Press.
Gordon, Thomas. 1955. Group-centered leadership. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Greenleaf, Robert, ed. 1998. The power of servant-leadership: Essays. San Francisco, Calif.: Koehler Publishers.
Greenleaf, Robert. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, Robert. 2002. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Grenz, Stanley. 1992. 20th century theology: God & the world in a transitional age. Downers Grove:InterVarsity Press.
Gunther, Bernard. 1968. Sense relaxation. New York: Collier Books, 1968.
Gunther, Bernard. 1971. What to do till the Messiah comes. New York: Collier Books.
Hall, Jay. 1973. Conflict management survey (First ed.). Waco, Texas: Teleometrics International.
Hammer, Allen, ed. 1996. MBTI applications: A decade of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hawkinson, James, & Johnston, Robert. 1993. Personality differences and leadership styles. In Servant leadership contemporary models and the emerging challenge, 33-34. Chicago, Illinois: Covenant Publications.
Hildebrand, Henry. 1990. The model of servant leadership. Burlington, Canada: Welch Publishing Company Inc.
Hunter, James. 2006. The servant leadership training course. Boulder, Colorado: Sounds True Publishing Company Inc.
Johnson, David, & Johnson, Frank. 1997. Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th Ed). Boston, Mass.: Allyn.
Johnson, Joseph. 1977. Proclamation theology. Louisiana: Fourth District Press.
Keirsey, David. 1998. Please understand me II: Temperament, character, intelligence. Del Mar, Cal.: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
Kemp, Clarence. 1971. Small groups and self-renewal, New York: Seabury Press.
King, Jr., Martin Luther (1967) Untitled. From 1967 Year in review: Protests. United Press International.
King, Jr., Martin Luther. 1963. Letter from Birmingham jail. Lewiston, MA: Bates College. Online. Available from Internet, http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html, accessed 11 March 2010.
King, Jr., Martin Luther. 1968. Drum major sermon. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Online. Available from Internet, http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_the_drum_major_instinct/, accessed 11 March 2010.
King, Jr., Martin Luther. 1992. The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kohlenberger, John. 1996. New Living Translation Complete Concordance. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
Lewis, Howard & Streitfeld, Harold. 1970. Growth games: How to tune in yourself, your family, your friends. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ling, Peter. 2002. Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Routledge.
Melton, Loyd. 2007. PM 604 class: Leadership and church administration. Due West, S.C.: Erskine Seminary.
Montefiore, Simon. 2006. Speeches that changed the world: The stories and transcripts of the moments that made history. London: Quercus.
Nichols, Tim. 2007. The pastor's role in vision-based leadership. The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 2(1):20-31.
Ogden, Greg. 1990. The new reformation: Returning the ministry to the people of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House.
Pfeiffer, J. William & Jones, John. 1969. A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training, Vol. I. Iowa City: University Associates Press.
Pfeiffer, J. William & Jones, John. 1970. A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training, Vol. II. Iowa City: University Associates Press.
Pfeiffer, J. William & Jones, John. 1971. A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training, Vol. III. Iowa City: University Associates Press.
Rediger, G. Lloyd. 1997. Clergy killers: Guidance for pastors and congregations under attack. Louisville: Westminster J. Knox Press.
Robbins, Mary. 2007. Against the Vietnam War: Writings by activists. Syracuse: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rogers, Carl. 1970. Carl Rogers on encounter groups, New York: Harper & Row.
Schutz, Will. 1967. Joy: Expanding human awareness. New York: Grove Press.
Shelley, Marshall. 1985. Well-intentioned dragons: Ministering to problem people in the church. Waco, Tex.: Word Books.
Stafford, Tim. 2002. Student Bible: Good News Translation With Deuterocanonicals, 2d ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Stevens, John. 1971. Awareness: exploring, experimenting, experiencing. Lafayette, Calif.: Real People Press, 1971.
Tutu, Desmond. 2010. Mpilo Desmond Tutu. Pretoria: South African History Online. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/people/special%20projects/tutu-d/timeline-tutu.html, accessed on 10 March 2010.
Tzu, Lao. 2006. Tao Te Ching. Trans. John C.H. Wu. Boston: Shambhala.
VanDenburgh, David. 2007. Coaching for leaders. The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 2(1):54-61.
Wilkes, C. Gene. 1998. Jesus on leadership. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers
Yalom, Irvin & Lieberman, Morton. 1971. A study of encounter group casualties.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 25:16-30.
(Eph. 4:15).
Census Bureau. Demographic Information for Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Census, 2000).
Edwin Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (New York: Guilford Press, 1985), 204).
David Keirsey, Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence (Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company, 1998), 3.
Keirsey, 2.
John Adair, the Skills of Leadership (New York: Nichols Pub. Co., 1984),52.
Robert Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power (New York: Paulist Press, 1977), 10.
Mark 10:43.
Greg Ogden, the New Reformation: Returning the Ministry to the People of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1990), 176-77.
Luke 14:7-11.
Mark 10:32-40.
Mark 10:41-45.
John 13:3.
John 13:4-11.
Acts 6:1-6.
Exodus 18:17-23.
Exodus 32:9-14.
Ruth 1:16-17, NKJV.
Job 1:8.
Job 1:12.
Job 2:9-10.
Job 4:3-4.
Job 32:2-3.
Job 33:1-27.
Matthew 28:18.
Mark 10:43-45.
Matt. 20:25-28.
Mark 9:33-37.
Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; Jeremiah 30:30; Hosea 3:4-5.
Isaiah 11:11-13; Jeremiah 23:8; Jeremiah 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5; Isaiah 2:2-4, Isaiah 42:1; Jeremiah 33:18; Jeremiah 33:15.
Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15.
Mark 10:45, NKJV.
John 13:1-11.
John 11:2.
Mark 9:33-41.
David Ford, the Modern Theologians (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 45.
Ford, 38.
Ray Anderson. Ten Theses on Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theologian, Christian, Martyr. (Sydney: Blogspot, 2007).
Eric Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000), 494.
Bethge,736.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (New York: Macmillan Publishing,1955), 244.
Bethge,926.
John de Gruchy, ed., Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Witness to Jesus Christ (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 294.
de Gruchy, 29.
Bethge,179.
Stanley Grenz, 20th Century Tehology: God & the World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press,1992), 150-155.
Bonhoeffer, Ethics,79-110
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Cost of Discipleship (London: SCM Press, 2004),3.
Bonhoeffer, the Cost of Discipleship (2004), 4-5.
Bonhoeffer, the Cost of Discipleship (2004), 5.
Bonhoeffer, the Cost of Discipleship (2004), 5-6.
Bonhoeffer, the Cost of Discipleship (2004), 60.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Cost of Discipleship (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), 79.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together: Prayerbook of the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 21.
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 28.
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 31.
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 34.
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 38.
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 70-71.
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 78.
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 85.
Rev. 1-3.
Joseph Johnson, Proclamation Theology (Louisiana: Fourth District Press,1977), 256.
Peter Ling, Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Routledge, 2002), 11.
Clayborne Carson, the Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1998), 6.
Martin Luther King, Jr., the Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 135-136.
Mary Robbins, Against the Vietnam War: Writings by Activists (Syracuse: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 109.
Simon Montefiore. Speeches that Changed the World: The Stories and Transcripts of the Moments that Made History, (London: Quercus), 2006.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Drum Major Sermon, (Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1968). Available from Internet, http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentarysentry/doc_the_drum_major_instinct/, accessed 11 March 2010.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, (Lewiston, MA: Bates College, 1963). Available from Internet, http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html, accessed 11 March 2010.
King, Letter from Birmingham Jail.
King, Letter from Birmingham Jail.
Egil Aarvik. Presentation Speech of 1984 Nobel Prize for Peace, (Stockholm: The Nobel Foundation, 1984). Online. Available from Internet, http:nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1984/presentation-speech.html, accessed 11 March 2010.
Desmond Tutu, Mpilo Desmond Tutu (Pretoria: South African History Online, 2010). Online. Available from Internet, http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/people/special%20projects/tutu-d-timeline-tutu.html, accessed on 10 March 2010.
Tutu, Mpilo Desmond Tutu.
Marshall Shelley, Well-intentioned Dragons: Ministering to Problem People in the Church, (Waco: Word Books, 1985), 75).
Lloyd Rediger, Clergy Killers: Guidance for Pastors and Congregations under Attack, (Louisville: Westminster J. Knox Press, 1997), 13.
James Hawkinson & Robert Johnston. Personality Differences and Leadership Styles. In Servant Leadership Contemporary Models and the Emerging Challenge, (Chicago: Covenant Publications, 1993), 33-34.
Keirsey, 78.
Keirsey, 78.
Keirsey, 107).
Keirsey, 107).
Keirsey, 107.
Keirsey, 108.
Keirsey, 116.
Keirsey, 124.
Keirsey, 127.
Keirsey, 155.
Keirsey, 155.
Keirsey, 157.
Keirsey, 157.
Keirsey, 157.
Keirsey, 157.
Irvin Yalom & Morton Lieberman. A Study of Encounter Group Causalties, Archives of General Psychiatry, 25:16-30 (1971), 157.
Will Schutz, Joy: Expanding Human Awareness, (New York: Grove Press, 1967), 11.
Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, (Boston: Shambhala, 2006),37.
Henry Hildebrand, the Model of Servant Leadership, (Burlington: Welch Publishing Company Inc., 1990), 16-17.
Hildebrand, 17.
David Johnson & Frank Johnson, Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, 6th ed., (Boston: Allyn, 1997).
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977), 63.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977), 63.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977), 63.
Forbes, the Forbes Scrapbook of Thoughts on the Business Life (New York: Forbes, Inc., 1950), 246.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977), 63.
Robert Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 2002) 19.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 22.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 22.
Job 33:13-18.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 22.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 28.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 29.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 30.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 31.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 33.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 33.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 35.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 37.
Greenleaf, Servant Leadership,(2002), 38.
Michael Cafferky, Celebrating Paradoxes in Christian Leadership, the Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 2(1):3-19 (2007), 6.
Tim Nichols, the Pastor's Role in Vision-Based Leadership. The Jounral of Applied Christian Leadership, 2(1):20-31 (2007), 20.
David VanDenburgh, Coaching for Leaders, the Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 2(1):54-61 (2007), 54.
You’re 100% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.