CREATED TO LEAD: The Imago Dei and Human Fulfillment
A Entire Series in One Essay
CREATED TO LEAD: THE IMAGO DEI AND HUMAN FULFILLMENT SERIES
Part Two: Paradigm of Humanity
Part Three: Relationships of Impact
1 - Jesus Meets a Woman at a Well
CREATED TO LEAD
Part One: Human Possibilities
Introduction
In the late 1980s, I left traditional Presbyterian parish ministry to serve as a college chaplain and founder of a student leadership program at a small church-related college. In many respects, entering into the world of higher education was like moving to a foreign country. Two experiences during my seven years of service there affected my perspective on the world.
The task before me was to create a chaplain’s program that would represent the church in faith and worship on campus. There were many persons of faith on the campus, but no community of faith. There were plenty of expectations about what should happen, but not a significant commitment to participation.
I was also hired to create a leadership development program for students. I was four years into my own study and reflection on leadership. I thought I knew what I needed to know to create a program that developed leadership on the campus. For three years I failed. I am surprised and grateful that they didn’t fire me.
The other experience I had was the situation of being pressed into teaching the New Testament Survey class when the chair of the college’s religion department had a heart attack two weeks before the beginning of the semester. I quickly realized that what I learned in my Master’s level seminary program was not going to provide me a way to teach students who largely had no knowledge or experience of faith, church, or the biblical text. Everything that I knew about the Bible and the history of the Christian faith was based on the assumption that this was a default base of knowledge resident in American culture. Everyone knew the name of Jesus, but the other prominent figures of the Bible - Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, Paul, and John - were unknown by many in the class.
Two lessons came to me because of these two experiences.
If you are going to teach a course about an ancient religion to students who lack basic knowledge, tell stories. Storytelling could convey everything these students needed to know in a college-level Bible course.
Having failed to produce identifiable campus programs in leadership and faith development, I realized that my perspective was dominated by the notion of recruiting individuals into the program. In the collegiate culture of the early 1990s, this was clearly not going to work. As a result, I enrolled as a part-time student in a seminary doctoral program for ministers where I could develop my own course of study.
The following paper was written for one of my seminary classes. I sought to make sense of two streams of thought within the Christian tradition. One was an understanding of the place and value of humanity. The other was the purpose of humanity.
I wanted to know why the church historically had elevated the value of humanity over the rest of creation. And what are the implications for the philosophy and practice of leadership. Here is the beginning of the idea that leadership is a function of human life. Less than a decade later, I had come to say that “all leadership begins with personal initiative to create impact that makes a difference that matters.” Whether you need a theological rationale for your own leadership endeavors or not, here it is.
This introduction replaces the original one. The paper is divided into two parts.
Part One looks at the description of humanity as made in the image of God and its relationship to leadership.
Part Two goes deeper into the meaning of this idea of humanity as the image of God in the world.
THE IMAGE OF GOD IN HUMANITY
The Judeo-Christian tradition has interpreted human life as a creation of God. The account of the creation of the world and humanity in Genesis 1 has formed the assumptions and guiding principles for how Christians and Jews, and still, to an important degree, Western society, have thought about the meaning of life. In the order of creation as outlined in the Genesis text, during a sequence of five days, God creates all animals, plants, minerals, land, water, air, the universe, space, and time. On the sixth day, a man and a woman are created, and it is said,
"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:26-28)
This passage makes a sharp distinction between humanity and the rest of creation, placing it under their care and responsibility. What is significant is the uniqueness that all humanity bears the image of God. This distinction gives dignity and meaning to human existence. The intention is to make clear that what distinguishes men and women from the animal world is their destiny to live out God's likeness. Jurgen Moltmann notes,
"what makes the human being God's image is not his possession of any particular characteristic or other...it is his whole existence. The whole person, not merely his soul; the true human community, not only the individual; humanity as it is bound up with nature, not simply human beings in their confrontation with nature-it is these which are the image of God and his glory."[1]
Theologians and social scientists have debated this question of what human nature is without reaching a consensus because of the lack of common ground. Wolfhart Pannenberg writes about these different perspectives:
"Modern anthropology no longer follows Christian tradition in defining the uniqueness of humanity in terms of God; rather, it defines this uniqueness through reflection on the place of humanity in nature and specifically through a comparison of human existence with that of higher animals"[2]
Humanity's relation to nature is unique as described by Moltmann.
"Nowadays it is generally given a two part answer: man is a biologically defective creature and, at the same time, a culture-making creature....As a biologically defective creature he is open to the world without a protective environment, overstimulated by signals from the external world and uncertain in his instincts...He is clearly not already born with his real nature, but it is his task to find what his nature is."[3]
This description of the natural condition of human beings implies that there is always a situation of incompatibility and conflict with their surroundings and that, in a positive sense, the future always holds the promise of becoming more adequate to live in this world.
While theologians and social scientists debate about human nature, natural scientists, physicists, and mathematicians have begun to move closer to the perspective of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some scientists have reached the conclusion that the presence of human life on Earth is a special occurrence. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, as it is termed, is
"the conclusion that a physical world which is fruitful in evolving complexity out of simplicity, to the degree that an almost homogeneous ball of energy becomes, after fifteen billion years, a home of self-conscious beings, is not in scientific terms 'any old world', but rather one which is very special in the finely turned balance of its law and circumstance....(It) suggests that quite small variations in any of these fundamental specifications of our world would have rendered it sterile."[4]
Thomas Torrance has referred to the Anthropic Principle to demonstrate the centrality of humanity's place in God's order and meaning of Creation as
"an unexpected feature in the expansion of the universe from its originally dense state and in the finely-tuned structure of subatomic particles....In other words, the universe has been so finely balanced and harmonised throughout all space and time against all the odds as to become the universe that it is and ought to be, a home for man with his science and his faith.
What ever we make of the anthropic principle, it is clear that the central role give to man in the expansion of the universe and the disclosure of its hidden meaning becomes very pressing on the quantum boundary of created reality, where it is brought home to us that this universe of ours is a stratified structure of different levels of contingent reality interacting with one another in such a way as to constitute its wonderful multivariable order."[5]
This is not a static creation, which holds no possibility for it to be radically different. It is dynamic, meaning its potential growth also brings the threat of danger, change, growth, and the end of the world as we know it. The change that is implied in Moltmann's description means that the ability to adapt to changing circumstances and settings is an important aspect of human nature. If plants and animals are restricted by their instincts to a dependence on their environment, then human beings find relative and unpredictable freedom for the same reasons. This is one reason why nature is an object of inspiration and awe for people. From the earliest times, they sought to explain their world in terms that make sense of the natural phenomena around them, even to the extent of divinizing this order of nature. Within this world of change is the oft-unarticulated sense that humanity's place in this order is unique and special and a leading indication of the presence of imago Dei in humanity.
What is remarkable is that with the implanting of the image of God came a command to care for and rule over the natural world in which they were so vulnerable. It was not the strongest being that became lords of the earth, but the one with the least dependable instincts, yet with the keenest, sharpest, most developed intelligence. The one who could interpret and appreciate the design and order in the mind of God, which is seen in nature itself. Consequently, the leadership of creation is given to those who, most importantly, can recognize the true beauty and origin of the natural world.
WHAT LEADERSHIP MODELS DON'T ANSWER
Leadership in the church, as well as in secular social science, has been approached in predominantly pragmatic ways. Thousands of books have been published that promote the various styles of ministry and leadership of Jesus, the disciples, and figures from the Old Testament. Writers have been correct in assuming that the best way to teach leadership is by modeling. And what better model than Jesus Christ himself? Leighton Ford, in his recent book, Transforming Leadership, has written:
"It is my deep conviction that the understanding of Jesus' leadership is not only important but essential to our time. He was able to create, articulate, and communicate a compelling vision; to change what people talk about and dream of; to make his followers transcend self-interest; to enable us to see ourselves and our world in a new way; to provide prophetic insight into the very heart of things; and to bring about the highest order of change."[6]
This is an important attempt to demonstrate that leadership is not just for those in positions of influence and authority but is within the realm of all persons.
The general weakness of the "Jesus as exemplar leader" approach is that Jesus is reduced to a model that too often justifies the author's preferred style or method. Jesus was more than a great teacher, healer, prophet, preacher, and political revolutionary. Leighton Ford has identified ten distinct leadership styles that Jesus utilized to demonstrate this point. As the Son of God, Jesus' effectiveness was the result of his relationship with his heavenly Father lived out through the mission of his life. It was not this or that particular style of ministry that provided the key. It could be said that he is the supreme disciple, except that he was more than that as well. These approaches, though, are useful to practically assist pastors and teachers in developing the leadership skills of their parishioners.
Leadership science, on the other hand, has depended on survey research in psycho-social human development to develop its models. Theories and models for leadership have emphasized how to develop people for their optimum effectiveness and satisfaction. This, as well, is a worthy and appropriate approach to leadership development. It has brought to the forefront how the human dimension either assists or inhibits organizations in their mission.
These models are inadequate to answer the question:
What is the impetus in history toward leadership?
The traditional answer that this is how human objectives and goals are met seems insufficient. Is human action meaningful solely as a utilitarian process? Do we really want to believe that the meaning of human existence is defined by its achievements?
There must a fundamental reason that rises out of the very essence of human creation. My conviction is that each person has been created with a fundamental constitution for leadership. It is this question that the Christian doctrine of the image of God in humanity can answer.
Reference notes:
[1]Jurgen Moltmann. God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1985.), p.221.
[2]Wolfhart Pannenberg. Anthropology in Theological Perspective. Matthew J. O'Connell, trans. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985.), p.27.
[3]Jurgen Moltmann. MAN: Christian Anthropology in the Conflicts of the Present. John Sturdy, trans. (London: SPCK, 1971.), p.5.
[4]John Polkinghorne. Reason and Reality: The Relationship Between Science and Theology. (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991.), p.77.
[5]Thomas F. Torrance. The Christian Frame of Mind: Reason, order, and openness in theology and natural science. Introduction by W. Jim Neidhardt. (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1989.), p.59-60.
[6]Leighton Ford. Transforming Leadership: Jesus' Way of Creating Vision, Shaping Values & Empowering Change. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991.), p.15.
Part Two: Paradigm for Humanity
THE IMAGE OF GOD AS PARADIGM
In his book, GOD IN CREATION, Jurgen Moltmann writes extensively about what the image of God in humanity means. He says, " the fundamental concept of theological anthropology has been Imago Dei: human beings have been created to be God's image on earth."[7] He points out that traditional approaches to this doctrine have tended to focus on humanity in its pre-fallen, ideal state. Moltmann takes the doctrine and expands its scope to include the active life of men and women as representing God on earth. He makes this distinction by altering the traditional "archetype" language of "according to" the image. Moltmann states that "God created human beings 'to be' his image.[8] The position changes the Imago Dei doctrine from a static, all-but-lost reality to a dynamic, developmental one through which persons grow into the likeness of Jesus Christ. The likeness to God is not first anthropological or descriptive of human characteristics that are similar to God's, but rather theological.
"Likeness to God means God's relationship to human beings first of all, and only then, and as a consequence of that, the human being's relationship to God...The nature of human beings springs from their relationship to God....So human likeness to God consists in the fact that human beings, for their part, correspond to God....So as God's image and appearance on earth, human beings are involved in three fundamental relationships: they rule over other earthly creatures as God's representatives and in his name; they are God's counterpart on earth, the counterpart to whom he wants to talk, and who is intended to respond to him; and they are the appearance of God's splendor, and his glory on earth."[9]
This implies that humanity as Imago Dei has far richer meaning than ordinarily accepted. It is not a list of characteristics, such as creative rationality, but the totality of a person's life. The implication should be clear. The course of a human life is the span of the developing reality of the image of God implanted in that life. It grows in significance and effect as the person comes to a deeper experience of Christ's likeness.
According to Moltmann's description of how the image of God in human beings is understood, it is realized in three ways. First, the image of God is the original designation of human beings, the Imago Dei. Secondly, the image of God is conceived as "the messianic calling of human beings: imago Christi." And finally, the eschatological glorification of human beings, the gloria Dei est homo.[10]
These conceptions provide a framework for understanding the purpose and scope of human life, from its beginnings as created in God's image, through the years of life growing ever more closely into the likeness of Jesus Christ, with its culmination in the glorification of God in them at the consummation of history. This perspective opens up a way of understanding the source and purpose of leadership in human society. The reason for leadership comes out of the purpose of humanity to live out the progressive nature of the Imago Dei in each person. The fulfillment of life is not found in specific achievements but in the eschatological fulfillment of being a human being as the image of God on earth. To find greater clarity about this perspective of leadership, it is necessary to interpret how each of Moltmann's understandings applies to the questions of leadership.
IMAGO DEI
One of the central existential questions of the modern age is whether there is meaning to life. Why are meaning and personal achievement so closely linked? Is there any reason for being that rests apart from the preferences of human beings? For many people, there is no inherent meaning, only values that groups of individuals share. These traditions of meaning hold no claim to universalized truth. This is at the root of many modern approaches to human existence. Human values are treated as more or less self-created ideals. The foundation for human society from this perspective is the utilitarian prospect of providing the greatest peace and prosperity for the greatest number. Organizations, communities, societies and even individuals are means toward the realization of this end. But what is that end?
The Judeo-Christian tradition has affirmed that the end or telos of everything is found in the purpose for which God created it. The meaning of human existence is found not through an interior search of one's particular values but in the author and creator of life. This belief implies that there is order and meaning that precedes human entrance into the world. It means that the presence of humanity as a distinctive part of creation points to a purposefulness of human existence which is greater than the sum total of all human lives who exist or have existed. The question, though, is how the Christian tradition has come to have this perspective and what the implications are for human life.
The concept of humanity created in the image of God provides the starting point for understanding the significance and meaning of a person's life. The imprint of God's image points to a distinctiveness which implies that the human creation is special. The implication is that this uniqueness is neither arbitrary nor individually determined. It is a uniqueness determined by God, which serves a higher calling than mere membership in the created order. The imago Dei imprint on human life implies that the meaning of human existence is integral to understanding the nature of God. How this image is expressed through human life is an important key to understanding the purpose of individual life and, ultimately, the basis of the human responsibility to leadership in the created order.
Jurgen Moltmann describes how the Christian tradition has understood what it means for humanity to be made in God's image.
"As his image, human beings represent God on earth; as his similitude, they reflect him....1. According to the analogy of substance, the soul (which is the human being's reasonable and volitional nature) is the seat of human likeness to God, for it is immortal, and similar to the divine nature. 2. According to the analogy of form, it is the human being's upright walk, and his upward glance. 3. According to the analogy of proportionality, the likeness is to be found in man's lordship over the earth, since this corresponds to God's general lordship over the world. 4. According to analogy of relation,...it consists in the community of man and wife, which corresponds to the fellowship of God within the Trinity.
We find the starting point for all these answers in 'the phenomenon human being. They all begin with characteristics which distinguish the human being from animals, and interpret whatever is specifically human about men and women in religious terms as their likeness to God. Likeness to God then means the human being's general relationship to God, which distinguishes him from animals.
But this point of departure is based on a false inference. The human being's likeness to God is a theological term before it becomes an anthropological one....Likeness to God means God's relationship to human beings first of all, and only then, and as a consequence of that, the human being's relationship to God."[11]
The imago Dei, therefore, is descriptive of humanity's relation to God, which directs and constitutes their relation to all of creation. To live life bearing the likeness of God is to live both purposefully and circumspectly. It is incorrect to assume that because of this special relation, particularly as described in the first chapters of the book of Genesis, humanity is permitted to view creation anthropocentrically. To bear God's image in the world as the representative lord of creation does not also mean that the creation is to serve humanity's interest primarily. The implication is that humanity serves at the bequest of God, with the divine intention being the mandate for action rather than human intention. It is at this point the significance of human leadership emerges.
Human action, ultimately, finds its direction, motivation, and reward in the purpose and intention of God. Leadership, consequently, is focused on the fulfillment of that divine purpose. That purpose carries an eschatological importance that transcends human endeavors. God has given to humans, through his creating them in his image, an important role to fulfill in the consummation of his will for his creation in the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Men and women have been given responsibility for the care, nurture, and progress of the earth. This position of responsible leadership is what distinguishes the actions of human beings from those of animals. Therefore, human leadership finds its origin and ultimate fulfillment in living out the reality of being imago Dei.
IMAGO CHRISTI
Just as human beings as imago Dei establish the mandate for leadership, it is the process of becoming imago Christi that provides the character of leadership. The New Testament writers were very explicit that the calling to faith in Jesus Christ meant that the believer would become a follower of Jesus Christ. In following, it was held that the disciple would grow into the likeness of Christ. The character and actions of Christ would become the believers'. The individual would experience a re-creation of their life through repentance of a self-centered existence and the acceptance of a God-centered one. The person of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the Gospels and interpreted in the Epistles, is the exemplary person of God who lives to follow the will of his heavenly Father. To be a leader like Christ is to learn what it means to be a follower of God. It is the change in the content and substance of the person's character into that of Jesus Christ that equips the person for leadership.
The leadership implied by being created imago Dei is not automatically actualized. It requires a process of development. This lifelong process diminishes the effect of human sinfulness while strengthening the natural gifts endowed by God. As gifts and character mature in their Christ-likeness, the value of the God-given leadership role increases.
There is a utilitarian value to this growth. It is not primarily understood in terms of effective and efficient human development. John Polkinghorne has said that,
"...religion is not what one does with one's solitariness, why it can only be pursued within a community and following a tradition, with the correctives they apply to private judgement."[12]
This growth within the structure of human society is rather the calling to live Christ's life in all the fullness of his messianic glory. The individual grows, not for personal fulfillment, as modern human development programs promote. But to realize their relation to God as imago Dei, through the messianic mission of Jesus Christ on earth. Simply put, the development of Christians into leaders is their taking on the character and actions of Jesus Christ. This character can be described through two aspects of his earthly ministry.
Jesus' exemplar life demonstrated what it means for a human being to live their life according to the command and power of God. This followership of Jesus led him to the cross of Calvary, where through his death and resurrection, the power of sin and death over creation was broken. The power that raised Jesus from the dead is the same power that transforms lives into imago Christi. But it is not just this aspect of sacrifice and following of God that is instructive for our understanding of leadership.
Jesus understood the effect of his messianic calling in very specific terms related to human society and creation. In Luke 4:14-21, he reads from Isaiah 61 of the Messiah's calling.
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19 NIV)
These are tangible actions that reflect the glory of God in Christ. They serve to define the all-encompassing reach of Christ's mission. The importance of this statement is strengthened by the recognition that these same activities by Christian believers are part of what it means to be the likeness of Christ. They are direct signs of how the grace of God is present in the actions of Jesus and of the church. Leadership in this sense, must therefore have a socially transformative character. It is not restricted to the individual's relationship to God, but extends to incorporate the outreach of God's grace to the poor, oppressed and afflicted. The mission of Christ in the world confronted the power of sin, which affected the structures and institutions of human society. The cross of Christ was not a mere moralized economic transaction between God and his people but an eschatological event whose effects penetrate the very marrow of the history of creation. The imago Christi empowered leadership of God's people is a realized expression of this eschatological reality. Leadership founded upon the reality of Christ's messianic mission is the true reflection of the imago Christi. Jurgen Moltmann has eloquently said,
"The prophetic mission brings it into conflict with society, in which it lives, and evokes conflict between the powers of the past and the forces of the future, between oppression and liberation."[13]
As with the mission of Jesus Christ, so with the work of Christian leadership, its concern is not just for the sins of the past but for the social structures and human potential of the future. To bear the likeness of Christ is to live out that life seeking to transform people and human institutions to be a reflection of imago Christi.
GLORIA DEI EST HOMO
Human beings are God's glory on earth, as Irenaeus said centuries ago. To be the embodiment of God's glory is to bear his image in both similitude and transformative action. It is a reflection that is not superficial but penetrates into the relationships and structures of human society to recreate it in accordance with its purpose. The telos of human life, and appropriately of human institutions and the whole created order, and consequently, the basis for leadership is to bring glory and honor to God. This is done through the fulfillment of the created purpose of every being. For men and women, it is to serve as imago Dei in the earthly realm, carrying out the responsibility to rule over all that God has created. Therefore, to be truly human is to live as Jesus lived his messianic mission, to be both a follower of God and to bear responsible leadership for the care and progress of the whole creation. And this can only happen as the human society is imago trinitatis, realizing the unity, equality and giftedness which is true of the Trinity.
The eschatological fulfillment of God's will for his creation is realized through the community of human beings who form the Kingdom of God. The complex interplay of relatedness between the individual, God, and others is a reflection of the social reality that exists between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the Trinity. This aspect of the imago Dei is frequently missed through the Western church's emphasis upon the meaning of the individual's representation as God's likeness. The Orthodox perspective emphasizes the community which exists as the Trinity. Anthony Ugolnik writes,
"The Trinity in the West often emerges as an intellectual category, the subject of doctoral dissertations in Christian philosophy and panels at theological society meetings. ...In an Orthodox context, however, the Trinity is a central manifestation of divine life. God manifests himself as divine community; Jesus himself is incomprehensible except within the context of the Trinity. Each complete Person of that divine wholeness gives of himself unto each other Person in total love. Thus the very manifestation of God among us is the perfect exemplar of that Love which God is. The very thematic structure of the liturgy, with its "thrice-holy" theme, continually reinforces that realization for the Russian orthodox, and the Trinity as a concept resonates with the communal vision of personhood."[14]
This approach emphasizes the interrelatedness of the three persons of the Trinity, reinforcing the communal nature of human leadership of the created order. The Russian Orthodox historian Georges Florovsky has affirmed this truth which Eastern churches have understood.
"Christianity is essentially a social religion. There is an old Latin saying: unus Christianus nullus Christianus. Nobody can be truly Christian as a solitary and isolated being. Christianity is not primarily a doctrine or a discipline that individuals might adopt for their personal use and guidance. Christianity is exactly a community, i.e., the church."[15]
The complementary nature of the Eastern and Western doctrines affirm the truth of the unity in diversity of the Trinitarian perspective.
The Orthodox tradition has also understood the imago Dei as including the idea that human beings are the priests of creation. This implies that the calling to serve as God's representative ruler functions in a mediative capacity. In other words, there exists a social environment between God and creation in which humanity is the mediator. The responsibility as priest incorporates a theme of protection and nurture of nature and the celebration of God as creator. Reformed theologian Thomas Torrance, through his writings about the interaction of theology and science, has affirmed a similar understanding.
"To all this, theological science presents a complementary account, for this universe of space and time explored by natural science - far from being alien - is the universe in which God has planted us. He created the universe and endowed man with gifts of mind and understanding to investigate and interpret it....Science properly pursued in this way is a religious duty. Man as scientist can be spoken of as the priest of creation, whose office it is to interpret the books of nature written by the finger of God, to unravel the universe in its marvelous patterns and symmetries, and to bring it all into orderly articulation in such a way that it fulfills its proper end as the vast theater of glory in which the Creator is worshipped and hymned and praised by his creatures. Without man, nature is dumb, but it is man's part to give it word: to be its mouth through which the whole universe gives voice to the glory and majesty of the living God."[16]
The whole of creation, both humanity and its non-human counterpart, exists and lives to bring glory to God. They reflect the beauty and sublimity of his creative nature. From this perspective, human existence is modeled after the social economy of the Trinity, whereby the Son and the Spirit function to bring that same honor and glory to God the Father. The focus for humanity is on God in the context of this world. The fulfillment of human nature is realized through the leadership function as the priest and ruler of creation.
The activity of leadership, in this understanding, is not an individual responsibility. It is shared with the community of God's people. The eschatological fulfillment of God's desire for his creation comes principally through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and subsequently through the leadership that results from believers bearing the imago Christi in their lives. For just as this eschatological promise is realized through the Triune God, so it is through the corporate life of the church that its fulfillment is realized.
Leadership, therefore, is not a title or office a person holds but how a person functions in the totality of their life. Ron Heifetz and Riley Sinder have characterized this idea in their description of the distinction between organizational authority and leadership.
"The tendency is both to equate authority and leadership, and to use the expectations of the group as the frame of reference for defining leadership....From this perspective, 'doing what is expected' outlines the exercise of formal and informal authority, but not leadership....The functions of leadership, in contrast, are never defined by a position....whereas authority can be described in the domains of both function and position, leadership can be described only within the domain of function. To equate leadership with a position is once again to equate leadership with authority."[17]
In other words, leadership has to do with influence and effectiveness rather than the fulfillment of the requirements of the position and group expectations. Leadership's aim is to enable individuals and organizations to fulfill the responsibility for growth and productivity, which is inherent in their God-given nature. And to bring glory to God in the context of transforming people and human institutions is to fulfill the nature of human leadership. For leadership as the priests and rulers of creation is not primarily about the efficient management of the earth resources. It is rather the greater goal of enabling all the created order to express the glory of God as the fulfillment of their God-given telos. Questions of the future of human societies and economies and the sustainability of the earth's resources will be understood and answered as people lead through the service of God.
CONCLUSION
Leadership that is the function of God's image in humanity is the path to human fulfillment. This is so because human nature is created to serve God and bring him glory as the priests and rulers of nature. There is much that is out of the hands of human beings, but conversely there are rich opportunities to fulfill this fundamental part of human existence. Men and women have been created imago Dei to represent and symbolize the presence of God on earth. This happens through individual relationships of love and compassion, as well as through the institutional structures of the church. Wolfhart Pannenberg has summed it up this way.
"The responsibility of the Christian is, in short, to assist other persons...in their realization of their human destiny, in their becoming human beings in the full sense of existing in the image of God."[18]
The imago Dei distinguishes humanity from the rest of creation.
This reality is only realized as the individual matures into the imago Christi.
It is as the likeness of Jesus Christ that human beings are able to function as leaders according to their God-given nature. This likeness is less a snapshot, which only gives a vague glimpse of God's image, than it is a living portrayal of the character of God in words, deeds, and actions.
To be imago Christi is to live as Jesus did as a follower of his heavenly Father, bringing healing, hope, and wholeness to people, institutions, and communities.
Jesus Christ is the exemplar leader, for his influence was born from his attention to the calling of his messianic mission. His example is not just in HOW he lived, but FOR WHOM he lived. Jesus' life as the supreme follower of God could only be the result of his love for God and the desire to bring him glory.
To be imago Dei is to live so that Gloria Dei est Homo.
This is the fulfillment of human life. It is the mission of leadership in human society. Utilitarian leadership schemes confuse means and ends. Effectiveness and efficiency are only important when there is a high calling to fulfill. That calling is to enable all beings of creation to reflect the beauty of God's design and the glory of his love and power. This is the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God's mission in this world. Its consummation will herald a new heaven and a new earth, where the human lives of creation leadership will reach their complete fulfillment.
This foundation provides hope for contemporary leaders. Until leadership's focus and goal are as great as its purpose, it will fail to meet the expectations of those who long for the eschatological world to come.
Reference notes (cont.)
[7]Moltmann, God in Creation, p.215.
[8]IBID, p.217.
[9]IBID, p.219.
[10]IBID, p.215.
[11]IBID, p.219-220.
[12]Polkinghorne, p.59.
[13]Jurgen Moltmann. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1977.), p.76.
[14] Anthony Ugolnik. The Illuminating Icon. (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1989.), p.101.
[15] Georges Florovsky. Christianity and Culture. Vol Two in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. (Belmont: Nordland Publishing Company, 1974.), p.131.
[16]Thomas Torrance. The Ground and Grammar of Theology: The Richard Lectures for 1978-79, The University of Virginia. (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1980.),p.5-6.
[17]Ron Heifetz and Riley M. Sinder. "Political Leadership: Managing the Public's Problem Solving," in The Power of Public Ideas, Robert B. Reich, ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.), p.192-193.
[18]Wolfhart Pannenberg. Human Nature, Election, and History. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977.), p.35.
Part Three: Relationships of Impact
Introduction
In Created To Lead: Paradigm of Humanity, I described a three-part way of understanding ourselves as human beings. I borrow from the history and tradition of the Christian faith to describe how we can understand ourselves as:
created Imago Dei,
living imago Christi
recognizing that gloria Dei est homo.
In this essay, I am going to take each of those terms and use a story from the New Testament to illustrate three core values that can be identified when we see leadership as “personal initiative to create impact that makes a difference that matters.”
The core values are:
Dignity Leading to Transformed Identity
Ethical Character Leading to Peace and Unity in Society
Living a Life of Honor and Respect to the Creator
In the first instance, I am using the story of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman. In the second, I am using the conflict in the Church at Corinth. In the third, I use a passage from Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus to show that our lives have been created with purpose ready to be lived out.
STORY ONE: Jesus meets a woman at a well
Pakistani women go to the village well.
Peshawar, Pakistan July 1981
Listen to this story from John 4.
From many different angles, this is a wonderful, fascinating story. Jesus and his disciples are traveling through a region where they are not welcome and have stopped at a place for rest and nourishment. They are in Samaria, where they are forbidden to interact with Jews. Jesus is resting by a well around midday. A woman with a water jar arrives. She would look like one of the women in the above picture.
Jesus sees the woman and immediately knows the core feature of her story. The woman has come to the well at the hottest time of day instead of in the cool of the morning when the other women of the village come. She is an outcast in the village.
Jesus breaks social norms by asking the Samaritan woman for a drink of water. They enter into a conversation about the water that Jesus offers. Jesus makes it personal without also making it judgmental. The woman who is used to social rejection does not want to talk about her sordid life with men. She would rather talk about religion as an abstraction.
Jesus persists and brings her to realize who he is. The character of this story is that it follows the story where he was with his family at a wedding in Cana. The wine runs out at the party. Jesus’ mother, Mary, knows who he is, not just her son, but the Son of God. She tells him to take care of the problem. He responds to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come?” At this intimate moment with his mother, family, and friends in Cana, he tells her it is not time for him to declare who he is as the Messiah sent from God. Two chapters later, he is in Samaria, where he does not belong, talking to a woman of ill repute, rejected by her community, and he tells her who he is. This is not how most people will announce their campaign to be the Jewish Messiah.
Their conversation goes like this.
“The woman said to him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.’
Jesus said to her, ‘I am he, the one who is speaking to you.’”
He chooses this woman to reveal himself. This doesn’t make sense if the purpose of revealing his calling was to create a spectacle of celebrity to challenge the authorities. Instead, he tells a woman that no one respects. As important as this beginning part of the story is, it is only the beginning.
If the paradigm of humanity that I’ve described is accurate, then each person, regardless of background or reputation has the potential to be a person of impact. If you take personal initiative to create impact, you are looking to create change. Whether the woman’s motivation was to be a person of impact is not known. What is clear is that her life was changed in a manner noticeable by the people of the village. She leaves her water jar behind and goes into town to tell the people who treated her with disrespect about this man who did. She has a story to tell. In telling it, she impacts the community where she was once an outcast. The people of the town listen to her. They must have sensed something about her that was so different they could not ignore it. So, they leave town and come to the well to see who this man is who had this effect upon this woman. This is a picture of leadership impact
STORY TWO: Resolving Institutional Conflict
This story is about the conflict that exists in the church in Corinth. We know of this conflict through the first letter of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian church. Paul writes,
“Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.”
We all know that when there is conflict in a group, whether it is in a family or an organization, it is very difficult to resolve the problem. The conflict tends to be personal. Whatever is in the best interest of the whole group is swept away in the conflict. The Corinthian church had a mimetic conflict, pitting follower groups against one another. Paul describes this conflict.
“For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul, “ or “I belong to Apollos, “ or “I belong to Cephas, “ or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been divided?
This letter goes into a long description of the problems that plague the church. At one point, Paul writes,
“I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. … For this reason I sent you Timothy … to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus … But some of you, thinking that I am not coming to you, have become arrogant …”
The situation that Paul describes is the sort that gets hidden in the power games of organizations, where groups become sequestered in their own circle of influence. The paradigmatic idea is that living in unity is representative of the imago Christi or living according to how Jesus lived. How we live together represents what we believe our common life together means. Paul uses the body metaphor to communicate how to transcend differences to breed conflict so that the body of the church can be unified.
Listen as I read portions from 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul uses a body metaphor to communicate what a healthy church is like.
This passage echoes the past of the individualistic mindset that we see today. What Paul is telling the people of Corinth is revolutionary. He is not like a father complaining to his children to get along. He is saying something much more significant. Continue to hear the story from 1 Corinthians 12.
The real contrast in the Corinthian church is between those who seek power and influence and those who, as Paul describes, are weaker, less honorable, and less respectable. He writes,
“… the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect …”
This is far more counter-cultural than any movement for justice or innovation could ever be. In many situations, righteous anger drives the appeal to address the situation of people who are weaker, less honorable, or less respectful. As we see in our current political climate, those programs are just as divisive as the circumstances that created the need for movements of justice. Paul is not suggesting that we patronize those who are weaker, less honorable, or less respectful. He is saying something radically different.
The Pauline perspective is that leadership within the body, whether in a church or any other kind of organization, must find ways for those who are viewed as nonessential or peripheral to the group to be provided a way to serve. Paul is clearly saying that these people are central to the mission of the group. Not as objects of service, but as the servants who advance the mission of the group. This is the image that we now have of the woman of Samaria.
This reorientation of social relationships is at the center of what it means to live imago Christi or according to the life of Christ. Just as Jesus treated the Samaritan woman with dignity, believing in her capacity to change the life of her community, so it is true for each of us. Her village’s response to the story of the woman who encountered Jesus is testimony to this change in her life.
I am certain that many of you are wondering where do we find churches like Paul describes. Living for the past four decades between the world of the church and the secular world of organizational leadership, I have asked the question myself. I also asked, “Where are businesses like this?” Modern culture tells us that our motivation should be set on achieving personal fulfillment and wealth. Are people just stepping stones to my advancement? Also, are each of us viewed as weaker, less honorable, or less respectful by someone so that they might exploit us for their personal fulfillment? Is this the source of the conflict that exists in the social and organizational structures of our world?
While churches should be different, we see in the Corinthian church that they are no different from any other institution. What was true 2000 years ago remains true today. People and institutions exploit those who are weaker, less honorable, and less respectable. The difference between those eras is that we are far more sophisticated in our exploitation.
For Paul, we must recognize that our relationships, as the metaphor of a body, are about how people treat one another within the church or the workplace, which speaks to the character of the people and their leadership. How, then, do we change this scenario?
In 1 Corinthians, Paul follows chapter 12 with what has come to be known as the Love Chapter, 1 Corinthians 13. This widely-known passage appears most often in wedding ceremonies. It is treated sentimentally instead of how Paul intended as a specific way of being a body of faithful believers. As I read this chapter, consider the people that you view as weaker, less honorable, and less respectable. This is how we are to treat them.
The paradigm of humanity that I am describing is not a religious ritual performance—I’m sure it could be turned into that. Instead, these principles are ways to understand who we are as persons in community. The practicality here has a transcendent character to it. We understand imago Christi through the Gospels’ stories as how Jesus’ interacted with people and the representatives of the institutions of his day.
STORY THREE: The Source of Meaning
I wrote the following in a doctoral paper over thirty years ago. I included in the series, Created to Lead, that I am writing on Substack in the post, Created to Lead: Paradigm for Humanity
Human beings are God's glory on earth, as Irenaeus said centuries ago. To be the embodiment of God's glory is to bear his image in both similitude and transformative action. It is a reflection that is not superficial but penetrates into the relationships and structures of human society to recreate it in accordance with its purpose. The telos of human life, and appropriately of human institutions and the whole created order, and consequently, the basis for leadership is to bring glory and honor to God. This is done through the fulfillment of the created purpose of every being. For men and women, it is to serve as imago Dei in the earthly realm, carrying out the responsibility to rule over all that God has created. Therefore, to be truly human is to live as Jesus lived his messianic mission, to be both a follower of God and to bear responsible leadership for the care and progress of the whole creation. And this can only happen as the human society is imago trinitatis, realizing the unity, equality and giftedness which is true of the Trinity.
Are Human Beings Good or Evil?
Over the past two or three hundred years, coinciding with the banishment of God from the world of science and philosophy, human beings have been viewed by many as the scourge of all the earth. Many today openly proclaim genocide as the solution to the problems of the planet. Reducing population size has been a political agenda since the 1970s. Even the proponents of this monstrous, evil ideology do not volunteer to lead by example. It displays a serious intellectual deficiency that they cannot muster the creativity to figure out how to save the planet without billions of deaths. This lack of a positive, creative impulse is symbolic of a lack of the creative nature of God.
Are Human Beings evil? Any time you lump everyone into a single group designation, you have an abstraction. Some people are good, others are evil, and many are somewhere in between. But for political purposes, which also means for strategic wealth and power concentration purposes, it is easier to treat all people as detrimental to the planet and should be managed. Of course, those who advocate for genocide believe their position in society warrants their exclusion from these plans.
I believe it is fair to say that this belief in humanity coincides with the separation of religion or biblical belief from the Enlightenment program of science and industry. Tens of millions of people have died over the past century as a product of a program to conquer the evils of humanity. In saying this, we are painting with a wide brush, but as many have said, “One death is a tragedy. A million deaths a statistic.”
We must face the question of whether humanity is ultimately good but corrupted or evil and worthy of eradication. This is a choice being discussed by politicians and business leaders on social media, from pulpits, and in private conversations and prayers.
Is There a Purpose to Humanity?
The idea of a person living to bring glory to God is not an alien idea as it might seem. It emerged as the Bible presented a story of humanity’s history from creation then fall from grace to finally the redemption of all creation through in the event of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the fulcrum event of human history.
This story of the redemption of humanity unfolds as the story of human society. Tom Holland in his book, Dominion: How The Christian Revolution Changed The World writes,
“How was it that a cult inspired by the execution of an obscure criminal in a long-vanished empire came to exercise such a transformative and enduring influence on the world? To attempt an answer to this question … is not to write the history of Christianity. Rather than provide a panoramic survey of its evolution, I have sought instead to trace the currents of Christian influence that have spread most widely, and been most enduring into the present day. … My ambition is … to explore how we in the West came to be what we are, and to think they way that we do. The moral and imaginative upheaval that saw Jesus enshrined as a god by the same imperial order that had tortured him to death did not bring to an end the capacity of Christianity for inspiring profound transformations in societies. Quite the opposite. … Certainly to dream of a world transformed by a reformation, or an enlightenment, or a revolution is nothing exclusively modern. Rather, it is to dream as medieval visionaries dreamed: to dream in the manner of a Christian.
Today, at a time of seismic geopolitical realignment, when our values are proving to be not nearly as universal as some of us had assumed them to be, the need to recognize just how culturally contingent they are is more pressing than ever. To live in a Western country is to live in a society still utterly saturated by Christian concepts and assumptions.”
If true, then the particulars of religiousness and secularism operate in a larger universal context of belief that is essentially humanist. The Christ event, as some theologians have called it, was a turning point in human history. Prior to this moment in time, all humanity lived under the subjugation of tyrannical empires. Human beings had no standing as individuals. Human life was cheap, hard, and short. People were essentially beasts of burden. Even the humanitarianism of the Greek classical era did not reach down to provide the common person with the belief that their life mattered.
Read the stories in the Gospels, and you see, as I wrote about the woman at the well’s encounter with Jesus, a validation of the individual as having worth. The power of these stories over the past two millennia is so comprehensive that we recognize that genocide is not a normal belief system. It is explicitly anti-human and anti-Christian. This corrupt and evil system of belief stands in strong relief because of the cultural impact that two millennia of Christian influence has had.
This perspective is not a reason to believe or disbelieve in Christianity. Rather, we are given reasons to ask questions about the source of our beliefs in humanity as either good or evil. Ultimately, the answer leads us to see the purpose of humanity as a core question that we each must answer for ourselves.
Everyone I know lives for some purpose. Even if they are unaware of their purpose, there is some focus to their lives. It may be a question that gets them out of bed in the morning. It motivates them to pursue some endeavor that may lack a clear articulation yet has a powerful hold on them.
To have a sense of purpose elevates an idea, a cause, or an organization to a level that establishes meaning for living. For the past two or three hundred years, a job has served as a focused purpose for many people. The job may be mundane, yet they still show up and give their best selves to the work that is required. Many people I know see their work as a calling by God to live a life of faith as Christ lived. This is the meaning of living imago Christi.
To live gloria Deo est homo is to understand that there is a higher purpose derived from a relationship with God. It is not something I choose from a list of possible choices. It is rather something that has been revealed to me that I receive as a gift. From a biblical/theological perspective, this is how consciousness transcends my awareness of what is happening around me. We see life transcending the material to exist at the intersection of time and eternity.
Throughout the two millennia of the Christian era, this understanding is presented through the image of a relationship between God the Creator and individual persons as Created beings. The metaphor of relationship between a Father and a Son was how Jesus explained his relationship as a human being to the eternal creator.
Two passages from Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church can help us understand what this relationship is like.
Provided below is the text of Ephesians 1:3-14. The letter was first heard by the members of this congregation. Here is the audio version.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. 5He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 8that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and insight 9he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will, 12so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, might live for the praise of his glory. 13In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; 14this is the pledge of our inheritance towards redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.
Paul presents the idea that there is a relationship between God and persons. This relationship is not accidental or simply religious. It is rather a perspective about the totality of all that exists. Whether you call this reality Creation or the Real World, we have a relationship with all things and people existing in time and space within the transcendent context of eternity.
This is clearly not a perspective embraced by the modern world. It is both material and transcendent. It is empirical only in retrospect. It is a perspective that does not lend itself to a priori systemic proof.
How can something that exists apart from this material world be tested in a scientific sense?
How can we reject the phenomenon of experience from our questioning?
How can our systems for understanding existence change to include that which is beyond our control?
My experience has been the constant test to determine whether God is present and I can trust him. It was the question presented to me as a 17-year-old high school student. It was not a question of faith or religious conversion. It was a question of whether God exists and, if so, what a relationship to God means. At this point in my life, I’m thoroughly convinced that both questions are true. However, at the same time, I do not have a final answer. It is still the defining test of my life that gives me purpose to be the person that I am.
Paul presents a perspective that human existence has a purpose that is connected to a relationship with God’s purpose and presence in this world. Over the centuries, we’ve articulated this in religious terms, but it is much more than religious observance. It is rather contained in how we live our lives.
If all that exists is of God, then all that we do has a connection to God’s purpose. Paul is telling the Ephesian people that their work, whatever that may be, has value. He is telling this to people who live under Roman imperial authority. The same rule that crucified Jesus. Paul is speaking not in the context of a middle-class American suburban family. But to subjects of Roman rule. Paul is telling them that their lives do have meaning, not simply in themselves but also in their relationship with God.
Missing Meaning
As a minister who has spent most of his career working in secular environments, I find that people want to talk about the things that matter to them. Questions about the connection between faith in God and meaning in life seem to be present in the background of many people’s thoughts. Some people are religious in their adherence to biblical beliefs and membership in a local congregation. Others are not religious at all. Yet they both share a perspective that human life should have meaning. It is a hard and difficult question for many people because their standards for meaning in life are high. Of course, they should be.
There is no simple way to describe this missing meaning. Each person defines meaning in a different way. Yet, it always has something to do with purpose. It answers,
Why do I do this work rather than something else?
Am I stuck in a job that I don’t like because my purpose isn’t clear?
Do I not understand my purpose because I don’t have a sufficient ground of meaning for my life?
I don’t know. I can’t answer these questions for people. I can only ask the questions in conversation with them.
Recently, in my conversations with people, I found that the COVID pandemic was a turning point for many people. Prior to the pandemic, their lives were challenging yet self-contained. The transition that happened was the realization that certain aspects of their lives had not been given enough attention. Meaning, purpose, fulfillment, and relationships began to take on a higher priority.
I began to have people asking me questions about faith and spirituality. Publically, I had not said much about my faith or my experience as a minister. I felt that there was a kind of binary trap set for these discussions. Religious people would cheer on my presentation of the Gospel. Yet, I knew few would internalize what I was saying. Non-religious people would turn a deaf ear because they had already decided that religion was not relevant to their lives. Childhood experiences of boring church services and weakly argued sermons had released them from having to seek answers as adults. The gap between the two was hard and deep. So, I kept quiet and addressed the more human questions that both sides could hear.
The change I saw taking place was the severing of the ties between people and the institutions they served. Their work at a particular company previously gave them meaning. The institutional relationship of job, performance, financial compensation, and the people at work became the ground of meaning. Challenges related to pay and job culture were endurable because there was acceptable stability in the relationship. Many businesses opted for remote work, and a transition process began for the person and the organization.
New possibilities opened up for people. One of those was the openness to being a person of faith. The expression of belief in Jesus Christ and the experience of newfound faith have become staples of many social media podcasts. In essence, people were beginning to discover meaning and purpose in terms similar to what Paul describes above.
Meaning In Doing
The inspiration for my definition of leadership,
All leadership begins with personal initiative to create impact that makes a difference that matters.
comes from this passage in Ephesians 2:4-10.
But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.
Paul is telling the Ephesian people two things.
He wants them to understand that the life of faith is a gift. It is a gracious gift of kindness and purpose. It is the source of the meaning of faith.
He also wants them to understand that faith is not a passive state of belief. It is a calling to action to fulfill a purpose in gracious response to the gift.
The challenge of this perspective and why it may be easier to speak in purely mechanical terms is that leadership is not simply a role and a title in an organization. Forty years ago, this was the prevailing assumption about leaders. Leaders were acknowledged to be at the top of the institutional hierarchy. There are few leaders and many followers. As soon as this belief became apparent to me, I rejected it.
I did so largely because of the influence of the Gospel stories of Jesus’ encounters with people and Paul’s letters to the first churches of the Christian era. Paul pointed to the dignity and value of every human being. Faith was more than a set of abstract beliefs about God, Jesus, and the church. Faith is measured by how we live.
The implications are many. But two are worth noting.
Life is lived through the decisions we make and the actions we take based on those decisions. Our purpose in life is the interrelationship between what we do, why we do it, and how we conduct ourselves.
My Circle of Impact model is built around three dimensions that provide the basis and context for these decisions and actions.
We seek to be clear about what our values are and how they inform our purpose.
We seek to develop relationships of respect, trust, and mutuality.
We seek to understand how organizational and social structure affects us. We need this clarity so that we are in a position to create the change needed to fulfill the shared purpose that defines our relationships.
The leadership of personal initiative to create impact in our local communities is how we live our lives.
We seek to make a difference that matters.
We seek to build relationships of shared initiative to take on the larger challenges we face.
With a focus on our purpose for impact, we see structures as fluid and malleable.
This is how the Circle of Impact can be utilized as a simple tool for bringing people together for shared purpose.
Meaning from this perspective is not an abstraction but the articulation of concrete action. When the organization is organized in this way, the work has meaning beyond the benefit to the institution. The question of what is the impact that we seek is constantly in mind.
Does this understanding of humanity and its purpose require a belief in God? It does not. For two thousand years, people have borrowed from the culture of Christian belief to give reason to what they do.
Faith, though, does provide a deeper incentive and a wider perspective on the value of our actions. It enriches our purpose. This is particularly true when we see that our acts of leadership initiative bring glory to God.
What, then, does gloria Deo est homo mean?
Think of it as fulfilling the gift of life that has been given to us.
Think of it as acts of thanks to the Creator for the gift of a life of impact.
Think of it as a place to stand above the spectacles of the world and be agents of reconciliation and hope.
Story Four: The After-Dinner Untold Story
There is one more story that incorporates this paradigm of humanity. It is the story of the prodigal son. It is a well-known story about a child who leaves home in rebellion against the family. He is the younger of two sons. He demands his father to pay him his inheritance. In effect, he is telling his father that you are dead to me. The father divides the inheritance between both sons as is the traditions of society dictate. He leaves to live a life of debauchery. His brother remains at home to work beside his father.
This is a very common story. What is uncommon is the return of the son and the father’s response. Listen to the story as recorded in Luke 15:11-32.
The story is traditionally told as a comparison between the two sons. The older son is the good son because he does not abandon his father and family. His brother is the bad son because he takes his family’s wealth and squanders it. Here, we have a simple story of broken family dynamics.
The more important aspect is the father's story. Consider what he did. When asked, he gave the younger son his inheritance. Was this a sign of weakness? Or was he the wise father who knew that this son needed to learn how to be a responsible person?
The older brother did not need this lesson. He was already a responsible adult. Instead, he needed to learn to be grateful and appreciate his father’s love. Both boys, in their own ways, had a selfish streak.
We see the real character of the father when the younger son returns.
How many days, months, or years had the father looked down the road that led up to their house, hoping that someday his son would appear? That day comes, and the father sees him coming. He rushes out to meet him. He embraces the son that he feared was dead. The father has a robe wrapped around the son and a ring placed on his hand to signal to all who were present that the father welcomed him home. He orders a feast to be prepared, and the welcome home party begins.
When the older son returns from working in the fields, he finds a party celebrating his younger brother's homecoming. Feeling unappreciated, he refuses to attend. The father comes out and tells him that he has always loved him.
As modern people, we read this story through the lens of modern relationships. Professor Kenneth Bailey, who spent his entire teaching career in the Middle East, shows us how the culture of Jesus’ time would interpret this story. Watch this five-minute explanation by Kenneth Bailey.
This parable of Jesus provides an image of God as the loving, forgiving father. As we are created imago Dei, this kind of forgiveness is also ours to give. For we are to live, imago Christi, as Christ lived. The parable is a story-picture of love and forgiveness. If we only had the younger son's story to guide us, we would understand the power of forgiveness. But there is the story of the older son that must be accounted for in the parable.
The older son should remind us of the conflicts that Paul addressed in his first letter to the Corinthian church. In that passage, he speaks to the importance of unity being accomplished by welcoming the weaker, less honorable, and less respectable as equal members. We can see how this human desire to establish hierarchies of privilege and power is present in every human situation. The older son had established a hierarchy of privilege based on loyalty to the family. He felt that he was the good son because of his loyalty. He deserves favorable treatment that his brother, the prodigal son, did not. To him his father’s love was earned by obedience and loyalty. In other words, his love was an early form of modern transactional economic relationships. Our place in every relationship is earned by doing that which gains approval and reward. This isn’t a modern human tendency. Just a universal human tendency.
After the Feast
Recently, I moved back to my hometown, where I had not lived permanently in over 50 years. During the first weeks here, I returned to the church where I grew up. In many ways, it is the same as it was when I was a child. Some of the adults I knew as a child are still here, well into their 90s.
One Sunday, I visited a Bible study class at the invitation of a person who had introduced me to me. The subject of the morning was this passage about the prodigal son. As the teacher led the discussion, I realized that in some respects, I am the prodigal son returning home. As I shared this observation with the class, I began to think about why I had been led home. I asked, “What happened the day after the feast?”
The parable is part of a larger untold story, just as my return home is part of a much larger, still unfolding one. It is important that we see the forgiving father welcoming his son home and celebrating a great feast. My family, my sisters, and my father’s widow are very pleased by my return. The feast in the parable symbolizes the restoration of the prodigal’s family's wholeness.
What do you think happened the next day? Did the brothers go out to the fields to work together? Did the younger son follow through on his intention of repaying his father? Did the older son learn to embrace his brother with compassion as he told stories of the trauma of his life?
We do not know because the story is not really about the prodigal son or the older brother, but about the forgiving father. This was the image that Jesus wanted to convey to his listeners.
The Paradigm of Humanity
The paradigm of humanity is a vehicle for discovering where love can be found in the world.
Imago Dei - Dignity Leading to Transformed Identity
Imago Christi - Ethical Character Leading to Peace and Unity in Society
Gloria Dei est homo - Living a Life of Honor and Respect to the Creator
Let’s imagine what the post-feast family life may have been like.
Imago Dei - Dignity Leading to Transformed Identity
The younger son regained his dignity and self-respect by his father's love. The older son discovered that his father loved him, too. Quite possibly, the breaking of the family with the departure of the younger son could have only be healed through the forgiveness of the father to his sons.
Think about your own families where conflict and division exist. You may be prepared to offer forgiveness, but the family may not be ready to receive it, as was the situation with the older son.
Imago Christi - Ethical Character Leading to Peace and Unity in Society
The parable is told so that listeners would gain an understanding of the nature of God’s love. The image of the father in his relationships is also an image of what the image of a Christ-like life is. There is an ethical imperative that is not based my rights. Instead, we are called to love, forgive, restore, and believe in one another. As Paul showed, those who are weaker, less honorable, and less respectable are worthy of our love.
Gloria Dei est homo - Living a Life of Honor and Respect to the Creator
I think about the years that followed the return of the prodigal son.
Did he marry and have children? Did he tell his children of his early life and of their grandfather’s forgiveness? What was the relationship with his brother like? Did they respect and trust one another? Were they able to take care of the family business after their father passed easy? Did the feast become a family ritual to celebrate the father’s forgiveness and the restoration of the family?
Created To Lead
Leadership is not a respecter of persons. People are. As a result, people get shunned, exploited, and treated poorly. Leadership, on the other hand, is open to the potential of each person, regardless of the labels that are applied to them or chosen by them. Leadership is a product of human initiative to create change.
The stories in the Bible show us how people take initiative that creates an impact. It is born out of the belief that each person is of divine creation. You can be an outcast drawing water from an ancient well. You can be an itinerant minister traveling across the ancient world, helping to plant churches. You can be someone others see as weak, lacking in honor and respect, and yet find a tiny call upon your life that makes a difference that matters in a small, out-of-the-way place. It is still leadership. Or you may be a father or mother whose love and forgiveness heal the brokenness of the family. This, too, is leadership because all leadership creates an impact that makes a difference that matters.
This perspective is not primarily a religious expression. Rather, it is a human expression rising from the ideas that human beings have. Now, the meaning of these acts of leadership impact may take on greater meaning because there is a belief that God is at the center of this world. Not everyone believes their actions have this type of meaning. It may mean that the transcendent character of some of the things we do never get recognized as a result.
My own faith has shown me that deep meaning and peace can come when we see ourselves as Imago Dei, called to live as Imago Christi, and our lives are representative of the ancient belief of Gloria Dei est Homo.
The challenge is not to treat them as labels that treat us as some religious abstraction. We already have too much of that in the sociological and political sphere. We need to see that these ideas resonate because we see their reality in action. A genuine difference is being made.
If we begin with terms like dignity, respect, openness, and purpose, we can see how we gain meaning in life. Meaning comes from treating people this way. The relationship comes first. Together we discover meaning in life, in our relationships, and how together we bring reconciliation and unity to
Thank you Ed for this!
My heart was lifted high.
The Paradigm of Humanity:
Imago Dei - Dignity Leading to Transformed Identity
Imago Christi - Ethical Character Leading to Peace and Unity in Society
Gloria Dei est homo - Living a Life of Honor and Respect to the Creator
It is an image of surpassing beauty.
I am so grateful that God brought you into my life.
Yours in Christ,
Craig