THE GENESIS PRINCIPLE OF LEADERSHIP: Reclaiming and Stewarding the Long-Lost Image of God

by

Richard D. Allen, Ph.D. Professor Covenant College Lookout Mountain, Georgia 30750

Copyrighted October 31, 2002 2

Written by Richard D. Allen, Ph.D. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transcribed in any form by any means, including but not limited to electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or other means, without written permission of Richard D. Allen, Ph.D. October 31, 2002.

The Genesis Principle of Leadership 3

Leadership is everyone’s vocation and it can be an evasion to insist it is not. Parker Palmer1

PREFACE:

Leadership is a popular theme in today’s literature. The behavioral sciences,

driven by mechanistic and reductionistic views of the person, provide the philosophical

framework for most current notions about leadership. Many Christians, including some

prominent, high-profile leaders and authors, are reprehensively ransacking prevalent

leadership theories, elevating Shakespeare, Attila the Hun and others as leadership gurus.

Too much of such thinking regarding leadership is left unexamined, is uncritically

adopted and then “Christianized.” It is time to develop a truly biblical theory about

leadership! We can no longer trim secular thinking with pious platitudes, “baptizing”

current notions about leadership with a sprinkling of misapplied scripture verses.

In this paper I will attempt to set forth a biblical response to the age-old question,

“Are leaders born or made?” Central to this response is the biblical understanding that

men and women are created in the image of God (imago Dei); that because men and women are created in His image, they possess the communicable attributes of God; and, that these attributes are the true source of leadership. Leaders are neither born nor made;

leaders are created. Because we are created equally in His image, we all are leaders. As

such, each of us has the responsibility to bear God’s image, that is, to reclaim the long-

lost image of God and steward the attributes given to us by Him into every arena of life.

1 Parker Palmer, Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000), 12. 4

In this sense, leadership must be redefined as “reclaiming and stewarding God’s created attributes.”

I will present the image of God as having both structural and functional aspects which involve man2 in his relationship to God and in his relationship with others.

Further, I will contend that these aspects are that which must govern our definition of a

leader and what we conceive leadership to be. The theological perspective represented

here is that of historic, classic, evangelical Christianity. That is, this paper is an attempt

to address the matter of leadership within the context of a reformed biblical worldview

with its implications for teaching christianly, particularly as it relates to the development

of leaders in the organizational management program (QUEST) at Covenant College.

I offer this paper in a spirit of humbleness and tentativeness. This is not a claim

to the Christian answer to this issue. Rather, this paper is an attempt, not without

conviction, to address the problem in a recognizably Christian way. It is an attempt on

my part to begin to think about and work out a theology of leadership, apply this theology

to anthropology (i.e. the nature of man), and then to develop a model of education for my role as an educator in the QUEST program at Covenant College. In this spirit, I am

hopeful of stimulating and stewarding further thinking on the part of reflective people,

recognizing that any work of this sort is a starting point, a work in progress, and subject

to examination and revision in the light of increased scientific knowledge (general revelation) and greater understanding of the Scriptures (biblical revelation).

2 I use the word “man” here and throughout this paper as meaning “human being,” whether male or female. When the word “man” is used in this generic sense, pronouns referring to man (he, his, or him) must also be understood as having this generic sense; the same is true of the use of such masculine pronouns with the word “person.” It is a pity that the English language has no word corresponding to the German word “Mensch,” which means “human being” as such, regardless of gender. “Man” in English may have this meaning, though it may also mean “male human being.” It will usually be clear from the context in which sense the word “man” is being used. 5

6

We’ve got to hear advice that tells the whole truth about leadership. There’s simply too much advice out there. Barbara Kellerman3

INTRODUCTION:

In 1991 I was bowled over by two unforeseen and disquieting assertions. The

first came from Frank A. Brock, then president of Covenant College on Lookout

Mountain, Georgia. Addressing the faculty regarding new strategies for student

recruitment, President Brock declared, “From now on Covenant College is going to look

for prospective students who are leaders. The others can attend elsewhere.” I was so

astonished I recorded these words verbatim. I discussed this with President Brock but

was not able to move him from his conviction that Covenant College would be helpful

only to those students who possessed inherent leadership traits.

A short time later I met with a senior executive of a large foundation, a major

funder of Covenant College, to present a progress report on the work of the college. As I

entered the office, the executive startled me with this puzzling question, “Tell me

Richard, you’re a professor. Are leaders born or made?” “Made,” I replied. “This is what Covenant College is all about. Covenant College is in the business of making leaders.” I felt rather smug with my equally snappy counter. What followed might be described, graciously, as a rather intense, pseudo-intellectual row, a battle of the wits, as we heatedly debated the age-old question, “Are leaders born or made?” He and I

3 Barbara Kellerman, “Required Reading,” Harvard Business Review (December 2001), 15-24. 7 continue this debate to this day. Though somewhat taken aback by these two provocative events, they did launch me on this pursuit of a biblical definition of leadership.

Indeed, our culture is obsessed with leadership. It’s as if there is a primal need for leadership. Over 2000 books were published in the year 2000 with the word lead, leader, or leadership in the title. This number increased in 2001. Likely, there will be even more titles in 2002. Thousands of articles on leadership appear in hundreds of publications each year. Leadership is the predominant topic of The Harvard Business

Review (HBR) with leadership as the theme of its first ever “Special Edition” in HBR’s

79-year history (December, 2001).

This phenomenon is not unique to the 21st Century. Leadership has been a

significant theme in the literature for at least five centuries. Leadership is a prominent

theme in the study of history itself. People have been talking about leadership since the

time of Plato. And why not? Great leadership, like our need for it, is timeless. As Plato

observed,

Until philosophers rule in the republic or kings and rulers seriously and

successfully pursue wisdom … unless political power and the love of

wisdom unite and those people who follow only one of them are

categorically excluded … neither republics nor the entire human race will

ever be free from corruption. Until that happens, the republic we have

been creating will never come to life and see the light of day.

(Plato’s The Republic)

This infatuation with leadership is not unique to the secular culture either. The

Christian community is equally enchanted with leadership, as evidenced by the explosive 8 propagation of books,4 Christian journals5, inestimable articles in numerous Christian

publications6, Christian associations7, ministries8, endless sermons, Sunday school

lessons, Christian seminars and retreats, and leadership courses offered in hundreds of

Christian colleges and seminaries.9

Leadership is emphasized at Covenant College. The college’s marketing

literature says of its alumni, “They can be found in leadership positions both in the

Church and around the world.” Several management courses are offered through the

traditional and non-traditional programs. Leadership courses are offered to the Maclellan

Scholars, The Character of Leadership I & II, which explores the important

characteristics of effective leaders; Issues in Leadership, which focuses on the

scholarship of leadership; and, Practicum in Leadership, which enables students to

explore and exercise his or her gifts for formal and informal leadership in a variety of

community and organizational settings. These courses are designed to develop the skills

of potential Christian leaders.10 The college offers the so-called “leadership curriculum”

to the Maclellan Scholars in an effort to turn them into leaders. Yet one of the reasons

4 For example: The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader: Becoming the Person Others Will Want to Follow, and 78 additional leadership titles by John C. Maxwell.

5 For example: Leadership Journal, Christianity Today and others.

6 For example: “Your Leadership is Unique” by Peter Drucker in Leadership Journal, Fall 1996.

7 For example: Christian Management Association.

8 For example: Equip, Emerging Young Leaders, and others.

9 For example: Biblical and Theological Foundations of Leadership offered as a required course in the Doctor of Ministry program at Salt Lake Theological Seminary.

10 It is interesting to note that these courses are required of students designated as Maclellan Scholars; however, these courses are open only to a limited number of other students with the permission of the instructor. If Covenant College is recruiting “leaders” and the “others can attend someplace else,” why aren’t these leadership courses required of all students enrolled at the college? 9 these students are selected as Maclellan Scholars is because they seem to exhibit the characteristics of leadership before they matriculate. It’s as if the college is trying to select students that are perceived to be potential Jedi warriors. The criteria for the selection of Maclellan scholars seem heavily weighted in favor of those who possess certain, inherent characteristics such as intelligence (i.e. academic success), physical energy (i.e. extra-curricular success), friendliness, and other criteria as essential to effective leadership.

The focus of the Organizational Management Program (QUEST) at Covenant

College is on leadership. Leadership is defined, re-defined, examined, discussed, taught, explored, and promoted. The theme of leadership runs through every course, assignment, and learning activity. Since 1985 the QUEST Program has been a venue for training and developing leaders who will transform every corner of the culture for Christ. One might say that leadership is the “quest” of the QUEST Program. A newly drafted, proposed

Vision Statement for QUEST reads,

By God’s grace and for His glory, the QUEST Program of Covenant

College will increase the influence for Christ’s Kingdom by transforming

the lives of students who will engage and transform the culture.

However, how does a Christian institution best facilitate the development of leaders? To whom or to what do we turn? Leadership scholars are a factious lot. There is significantly more interest in and rhetoric about leadership than there is agreement.

Few topics are more hotly debated. Indeed, there is a cacophony of contradictory voices clamoring for our attention and allegiance. And to make matters worse, the field of leadership studies seems to consist primarily of questions that can never be answered

10 with certitude. Are leaders born or made? What makes for a good leader? Where does leadership come from? Can leadership be taught? Or is leadership caught? Are leadership skills portable? What are the characteristics, skills, behaviors, habits, abilities, duties, tasks, and attributes of an effective leader? What do good leaders possess that distinguishes them for all the others? Is it 7 characteristics? 10? 13? 17? 21? 44? 48?

180? More? What mechanism drives leadership?

In this paper I hope to show that much of this confusion can be solved by means of a careful, biblical reevaluation of the core issues underlying the debates surrounding our concept of leadership, and that once our concept of leadership is carefully founded on biblical truth, it will have a significant impact on how we educate. I hope to show that leaders are neither born nor made; leaders are created. Because we are created equally in

God’s image, we all possess, equally, the attributes for leadership. Leadership is a matter of reclaiming and stewarding the long-lost created attributes of God!

People have been talking about leadership since the time of Plato. Barbara Kellerman11

HISTORY OF LEADERSHIP:

While people have been talking about leadership since the time of Plato, its history is rather short with its roots in the Rationalist Revolution of the early 18th

Century. Voltaire and other Enlightenment philosophers claimed that people could

control their own destiny by the use of reason alone. Two astonishing viewpoints arose

11 Kellerman, “Required Reading,” 15. 11 from this incredibly optimistic 18th century notion: a belief in progress and a belief in the perfectibility of man. These two viewpoints represented a subtle but profound break from the biblical and personalistic views of man toward a reductionistic and mechanistic view that today distorts the view of man and current notions regarding leadership.

This rather rosy, 18th-century worldview was all but destroyed by the works of

Sigmund Freud and Max Weber in the 19th Century. Freud held that there was something underneath, something even more basic than the rational or logical mind. For Freud the unconscious mind was the underlying driving mechanism responsible for human behavior. Max Weber also argued there were severe limits to reason. For Weber, technical rationality, that is, rationality without morality, was both the compelling and

destructive mechanism driving people and organizations. Weber, citing the works of

Franz Kafka and Hitler’s lieutenant, Adolf Eichmann (whose defense was, “I was just a

good lieutenant” as evidence), argued that technical rationality ran rampant in bureaucracies, and found bureaucracies “frightening” for their efficient capacity to dehumanize people. According to Weber, only charismatic leadership12 could resist or

overcome the debilitating effects of bureaucratization. Much of the current quest for

leadership is a direct consequence of the works of Freud and Weber.

By the 20th Century, the reductionistic views introduced by Freud, Weber, and

others had dehumanized man to the point that there was considerable skepticism about

12 The Charisma Theory has become a popular alternative leadership theory to the traditional personality and behavioral approaches. Charisma, originated in theology referring to a talent given by God as a free gift or favor, was first used to describe political leadership by Max Weber (1864-1920). Recent studies found that people experience personal attractions to a charismatic leader. The attraction leads to a powerful leader-follower relationship. Phenomena associated with such a leader include: Followers full-heartedly, even blindly, trust in the correctness of the leader's beliefs; followers feel affection to the leader and obey the leader willingly; and, followers feel an emotional involvement in the mission they are led into by the charismatic leader. 12 the 18th Century’s notions regarding man’s perfectibility and his ability to reason.

Consequently the first serious research regarding leadership was set into motion. The

Trait Theory13, the first formal leadership model, attempted to identify the characteristics and behaviors common to all successful or effective leaders. Batteries of expansive behavioral tests were developed by which leaders, or prospective leaders, were scientifically assessed and evaluated. But no one was able to identify what, if anything, effective leaders had in common. The Trait Theory suddenly collapsed when the only conclusion reached by all these elaborate studies was that effective leaders were either above or below average height.

No less confusing and inconclusive were the Style Theories of the 1940s. Several behavioral styles of leadership were identified including Theory X14, Theory Y15, Theory

Z16, Motivational Hygiene Theory17, Hierarchy of Needs18, and numerous others.

13 The Trait Theory suggests that certain characteristics, such as physical energy, intelligence, or friendliness, were essential for effective leadership. Because all individuals do not have these qualities, only those who had them would be considered potential leaders. Therefore we should be able to screen “leaders” from “non-leaders.” Education or leadership training would then be helpful only to those with inherent leadership traits. This seems to be the approach Covenant College has taken to student recruitment.

14 Theory X, developed by Douglas McGregor, assumed that most people prefer to be directed and are not interested in assuming individual responsibility and want safety most of all. Therefore, “Theory X Leaders” feel that strong external control is clearly appropriate for dealing with these unreliable, lazy, and irresponsible people.

15 Theory Y, also developed by Douglas McGregor, viewed people as highly self-motivated, productive, and who gladly work because work is inherently satisfying. The essential task of “Theory Y Leaders” is to unleash the potential of these highly energized individuals. 16 Theory Z, developed by William Ouchi, is often referred to as the “Japanese” management style, which is essentially what it is. Theory Z essentially places a large amount of freedom and trust with workers, and assumes that workers have a strong loyalty and interest in team-working and the organization. Theory Z places more reliance on the attitude and responsibilities of the workers. 17 Frederick Herzberg concluded that people have two different categories of needs … which he called hygiene factors and motivators … that are essentially independent of each other and affect behavior in different ways. He found that when people felt dissatisfied with their jobs, they were concerned about the environment in which they were working. On the other hand, when people felt good about their jobs, this feeling had to do with the work itself. 13

McGregor’s Theory Y style of leadership emerged as the dominant leadership style. Tens of thousands of people, mostly males, were shuffled around the country to elaborate hotels and retreat centers to learn how to lead using this particular style. But, this leadership style crumbled just as suddenly as it appeared with the onset of the cold war, which called for a different style of leadership. Again, tens of thousands of people were shuffled around the country only to leave these training programs completely confused regarding which style of leadership was the most effective.

The prominent thinking of the latter part of the 20th Century was dominated by

situational or contingency models of leadership. Paul Hersey, Kenneth Blanchard and

Dewey Johnson,19 leading proponents of Situational Leadership (not to be confused with

situational ethics), argued there is no one, best style of leadership. The best style of

leadership is the style that best matches the specific circumstances of a given situation.

In other words, leadership is contingent upon the situation. The key to effective

leadership is the leader’s ability to accurately diagnose a particular situation and then

prescribe the most appropriate style of leadership. This model of leadership quickly lost

credibility. Since there are endless varieties of situations calling for leadership, there has

to be an endless variety of leadership styles. Consequently, those looking for the most

18 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory was introduced in the late 1960's. These needs represented man is functioning on different levels instead of the simple mechanics of behaviorism introduced by Watson in 1919. Thus man was no longer a knee-jerk mechanism responding only to stimuli and reinforcement. It also indicated that man could overcome the unconscious instinctual impulses implicit in the various schools of psychoanalysis. The highest level of functioning was labeled by Maslow as "self-actualizing.” Self- actualizing meant that people were "fully functional" and possessing a "healthy personality.” It also meant the people on this level thought and acted purely on their own volition. Maslow identified the following need levels: Self Actualization; Ego Needs; Social Needs; Security Needs; and, Body Needs. 19 Paul Hersey, Kenneth H. Blanchard and Dewey E. Johnson, Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources, 8th edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001). 14 effective model or style of leadership in a particular situation became overwhelmed and confused. The issue remained, which style of leadership shall one adopt?

As the 21st Century opens, we see rather bizarre and eclectic models of leadership.

Earlier theories of leadership (Great Man Theory20, Trait Theory, Theory X, Theory Y,

Theory Z, Behaviorist Theory21, Contingency/Situational Theory22, Organizational Man

Management Theory23, Transformational Leadership Theory24, and others) are being ransacked, sorted, and reconfigured into peculiar and beguiling combinations of leadership qualities considered to be essential to success. Take a look at this sampling of

“best-selling” titles of the past few years (it appears as if each successive author attempts to outdo the last): 6 Easy Steps to Leading; The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People;

Seven Traits of a Successful Leader; Lead to Succeed: Ten Traits of Great Leadership in

Business and Life; 13 Fatal Errors; 16 Jackass Management Traits; The 17 Indisputable

20 An expression used to refer to the claim that the course of the historical process is basically governed by the actions of outstanding individuals, a contention encapsulated in Carlyle's famous dictum that history is “the biography of great men.” Its nineteenth-century opponents, who included Engels, Tolstoy, and Herbert Spencer, argued instead that history was ultimately determined by such general factors as economic or social relations, the individuals wielding power being themselves the products or instruments of society. Despite the intrinsic interest of problems concerning the role of the individual in history, debates on this score have tended to be vitiated by uncritically monistic conceptions of historical causation, failures to distinguish between the necessary and sufficient conditions of events, and divergences in the criteria employed for estimating the nature and extent of social influence or importance. 21 The theory that leadership is a set of behaviors acquired through proper training and conditioning. Effective leaders do things right.

22 This model, developed my Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, argues that there is no one best style of leadership Effective leaders must become aware of each particular situation then select and efficiently use the appropriate style of leadership.

23 Adequate leadership performance is possible through balancing the necessity to get out work with maintaining morale of the people at a satisfactory level.

24 A deliberate influence process on the part of an individual or group to bring about a discontinuous change in the current state and functioning of an organization as a whole. The change is driven by a vision based on a set of beliefs and values that require the members of the organization to urgently perceive and think differently and to perform new actions and organizational roles. 15

Laws of Teamwork: Embrace Them and Empower Your Team; The 21 Indispensable

Qualities of a Leader: Becoming the Person Others Will Want to Follow; The 21

Irrefutable Laws of Leadership; How to Think Like a CEO: The 22 Vital Traits You Need

to Be the Person at the Top; The 48 Laws of Power;25 The 101 Dumbest Moments in

Business; and (just when you think “101” tops them all), 180 Ways to Walk the

Leadership Talk: The “How To” Handbook for Leaders at All Levels.

The evangelical community is riding this current postmodern wave regarding leadership. With no universal standard one can expect nothing less than the cacophony

of conflicting and competing theories of leadership which exists today. Perhaps the best

example is the proliferation of publications, over 80 and counting, authored by John C.

Maxwell, accompanied by scores of leadership seminars and speaking engagements he

conducts around the world. In many cases, Maxwell appears to adopt the latest

“leadership flavor of the month,” “baptizes” it, as it were, with a sprinkling of carefully

selected scripture texts, then repackages it as “the” truly biblical model of leadership.

This profusion of theories on leadership may flow from the popularity (or at least

prevalence) of postmodern26 thinking where there are no originals, only copies. There is

no reality, only a reality created by simulation, for which there is no original. As Dick

Keyes put it,

25 This book is not a text about influencing people in a positive, win-win approach. Rather, this is a book about cunning manipulation, teaching people to do anything, anywhere, at anytime regardless of hurting others in order to get what they want. If there is any value to this book, it is to make one aware of the cunning, manipulative people out there.

26 Postmodernism arose as a response to the Enlightenment principles of foundationalism, scientism and positivism. According to postmodernism, a universal epistemological foundation or standard does not exist, nor can one be established. Truth and knowledge are perspectival. They are derived solely from one’s subjective encounter with, and interpretation of, the world. 16

The Christian who lives in the chameleon mode will bend to the currently

respectable viewpoint on each ethical issue, whether abortion, sexual

behavior, accumulation of wealth, or attitude toward other races. Into

none of these issues will the Bible be allowed to speak authoritatively.

Thus a saltless Christianity will always shape itself by taking from within

Christian truth only those things that are socially resonant then and there.

It will neglect or reject those Christian teachings that challenge the most

respectable ideas of the culture.27

Again, we see the need to develop a biblical theory of leadership. Consequently, as I will argue later, few Christians are able to discern the difference between applied humanism baptized with Christian terminology and faulty proof-texts, and genuine biblical leadership.

Not only pagans who have rejected Christ but also believers who have accepted him find it difficult to combine his claims upon them with those of their societies. H. Richard Niebuhr28

CHRIST AND CULTURE

There is an enduring, many-sided, bewildering, and raging debate about the relationship between Christianity and civilization. How one views the relationship of faith (Christ) to reason (Culture) is crucial to the formulation of a biblically responsible counter to the cultural/scientific attack on our personhood. For example, if one

27 Keyes, Dick, Chameleon Christianity, (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1999), 27. 17 uncompromisingly affirms the supreme authority of Christ “over and against culture” (as some extremists would argue), then one must totally reject civilization and everything associated with it as the place(s) where sin chiefly resides. Therefore, culture has nothing to offer but destruction. For that reason we must completely separate ourselves from it.

Everything including political life, military service, commerce, science, philosophy, the arts, etc. must be renounced, shunned, avoided, and prohibited. As “exclusive

Christians” they believe that we must become “crusaders against culture.”29 To them

Christianity and culture are antithetical. Culture is in opposition to, and the enemy of,

Christian belief. Therefore, we must be suspicious and fearful of the conclusions reached by the scientific community as these conclusions are generated by the sinful, sin- producing culture. Culture cannot inform us of the human condition. According to this view, one must totally reject any and all views of personhood and leadership emanating from any source other than biblical revelation. As Berkouwer observed,

The sciences which deal with certain aspects of man can make no more

than a partial contribution towards our understanding of man and cannot

unveil the secret of the whole man.30

In his book, Chameleon Christianity31, Dick Keyes labels Christians adhering to this

perspective as “musk ox Christians.” They form a tight-circle of self-protection, avoiding

all interaction with the world.

28 Richard H. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1951), 60.

29 Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 60.

30 G.C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, trans. Dirk W. Jelleman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962).

31 Keyes, Dick, Chameleon Christianity, 25. 18

At the opposite extreme, there are those who equate their faith with the very best and highest accomplishments of culture. According to Niebuhr:

For them there is no tension between Christ and culture, the church and

the world. The idea of a Christian critique is practically impossible, held

as a perverse and obscurantist enterprise. He is likely simply to revise or

adopt Christian belief and practice in whatever way necessary to square

with the latest in modern culture. These accommodations to culture on the

one hand interpret culture through Christ regarding those elements in it

as most important which are most accordant with his vocation and person.

On the other hand they understand Christ through culture selecting from

His teaching and action as well as from the Christian doctrine about Him

such points as seen to agree with what is best in civilization. So they

harmonize Christ and culture.32

On the one hand there is no sense, no need, for Christian sanction. On the other

hand, because they trust in the full reliability of human reason itself (as being

created by God), they often uncritically accommodate the latest “findings” of

modern culture. They simply christianize these new findings in an attempt to fabricate harmony between Christianity and culture. They modify their Christian

belief to conform well to what seems scientifically and philosophically respectable and prudent.33 Keyes34 calls these “chameleons” … conveniently

32 Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 84-85.

33 This is a serious problem with much of the leadership literature purported to be “Christian” today. The latest leadership “flavor of the month” is uncritically adopted, sprinkled with selected scripture verses, and recycled as “Christian” or “biblical.” In some cases, these “Christian” sources are nothing more than a review of the secular literature which is then “sanctified.” Currently there is an unreflective proliferation of books, articles and seminars marketed as “Christian” on the market today. 19 changing their colors to fit the social/contextual environment. It appears that this has become common practice among many of the Christian leadership gurus of our day.

Niebuhr’s “Christ-against-culture” position views the relationship of faith and reason strictly in terms of antithesis with a strong sense of the impact of the fall (sin).

This viewpoint lacks a biblical understanding of creation. The notion that God is the

Creator and Owner of all things, including man’s created abilities, is not understood or, at best, forgotten. The “Christ-of-culture” position, on the other hand, has a strong sense of

God as Creator of culture, but lacks a sensitive awareness of the effects of the fall. Man’s sinfulness twists and distorts culture, bending it to glorify himself and to meet his rebellious passions.

Between these two basic, antithetical, Christian world views, Niebuhr identified two other perspectives (basically combinations of the “Christ-against-culture” and

“Christ-of-culture” views): Christ-above-culture,35 and Christ-and-culture.36 But as

Niebuhr pointed out, the Christian thinker must strive to hold the two basic world views

(“Christ-against-culture” and “Christ-of-culture”) in dynamic balance between God’s

34 Keyes, Dick, Chameleon Christianity, 25.

35 Niebuhr calls this position the “church of the center.” Culture is created by God and is, therefore, good and rightly ordered. Christ and culture cannot be simply opposed to each other. By nature of his being, man is obligated to be obedient to God in his concrete, actual life of natural, cultural man. Niebuhr argues that though this may sound good on the surface, the “church of the center” places too much emphasis on human works and does not face up to the presupposition of human sinfulness and the radical evil present in all human work.

36 For Niebuhr the “dualist” lives in conflict between God and man, between the righteousness of man and the righteousness of self. The “dualist” lives in paradox. On the one side is man with all his “righteous” activities, governments, churches including both his pagan and Christian works. On the other side is God in Christ and Christ in God. But this is not a matter of Christians and pagans; it is a matter of God and Man. For them obedience to God requires obedience both to the institutions of society and loyalty to its members as well as loyalty to the Christ who sits in judgment on those cultural institutions. 20 work in and through Christ and man’s work in and through culture. Niebuhr claimed that his “Christ-the-transformer-of-culture” view (“Conversionist View”) offers a more positive and hopeful attitude toward culture believing culture was created by God and is still under His sovereign rule. Under the rule of Christ and by the creative power and order of the Word of God the Christian must continue the work of culture as an act of obedience.

Central to Niebuhr’s “Christ-the-transformer-of-culture” view, are the three biblical themes of creation, fall, and redemption. (See Wolters37 and Graham38) One

must see the entire creation, including human culture, as the good creation of God. But it

is also a fallen creation in complete rebellion against its Creator. It is only when the

doctrines of the good creation and the fallen creation are held together, albeit in tension,

does the doctrine of redemption, that is, the re-creation of the fallen creation in Christ,

take on its fullest meaning and significance for the Christian. God, in Christ, is

personally and actively redeeming, reclaiming, and restoring His fallen creation, all of it.

As “re-creations,” those who name Christ are to be actively called and involved in this

divine process of redeeming the created order. From this perspective, faith and reason

(i.e. Christ and culture) no longer stand in antithesis. Rather faith and reason actually

complement each other. Only then can we view the “integration of faith and learning” as

something significantly more than simply “blending” faith and reason together, but

37 Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basis for a Reformational Worldview (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985).

38 Donovan Graham, “Biblical Insights Into the Nature of Human Beings,” unpublished paper written for use in the QUEST program at Covenant College, undated. 21

“interpenetrating” each other.39 One informs and interpenetrates the other, as iron sharpening iron. This interpenetration of faith and reason leads to greater understanding that ultimately leads to greater truth and faith.

Through this dialectical tension, the Christian mind ignores neither biblical revelation (the Scriptures) nor reason (the sciences and the human experience). Science

(reason) is pursued within the context of a biblical worldview (faith). Reason deepens and modifies our faith. Faith deepens and modifies our knowledge. The redemptive thinker strives for greater understanding of the biblical revelation through scientific

(rational) thought and discovery. Thus while scripture explicitly speaks to human nature, science (in this case, leadership theory) not only speaks to human nature but actually deepens and modifies our understanding of the biblical teachings. I am not building a case here for the superiority of general revelation over special revelation. Rather, the dynamic tension between the two is the foundation to thinking christianly. It is from this perspective that I attempt to set forth a biblical response to the age-old question, “Are leaders born or made?”

It is important to begin by asking a more basic, fundamental question, the core existential question of the ages, “What is man?” For some, this may appear to be a simplistic question. But if it is rephrased as, “What does it mean to be human?” its significance becomes apparent. This question is concerned with more than anatomy and physiology, gender, height, physical appearance or the genetic code. Its focus, rather, is on what it means to be human and on how humans are different from other parts of creation. Paul Kooistra, for example, differentiates humans from the rest of creation by

39 Steven C. Evans, Preserving the Person: A Look at the Human Sciences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), 141. 22 stating that they are the only ones who attempt to make sense out of life. Yet, if humans are merely more advanced animals, then one’s life may be regarded as casually as the inanimate objects. Underlying the current debate about the source of leadership (i.e. Are leaders born or made?) is the fundamental question about what it means to be human. It is essential, therefore, to begin with the biblical revelation. What is the biblical view of the person? In other words, what does it mean to be human from a biblical perspective?

What is the biblical response to man’s quest for self-understanding, significance, and reason for existence?

As belief in God becomes more rare, belief in man is taking its place; and so we are witnessing the rise of a new humanism. Anthony A. Hoekema40

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE HUMAN?

The search for the answer to the age-old question, “What is man?” remains a

crucial issue in our day. The quest for self-understanding is ancient, transcending traditional parochial lines between psychology, sociology, philosophy, science, and theology. However, this quest is not essentially academic. Countless novels, plays and music releases seek answers to this question. The rock-and-roll band Kansas offered a pessimistic answer when they sang, “All we are is dust in the wind.” Indeed, it is the most basic, fundamental question pursued by peoples of every culture and age. Plato characterized his mentor, Socrates, as a person obsessed with knowing himself in his

40 Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 1. 23 quest for self-understanding and wisdom. Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Fyodor

Dostoyevski and others tried to give their non-biblical answers to the question. The

Psalmist, David, asked of God, “What is man that you are mindful of him … that you care for him?” (Psalm 8:4) And again, in Psalm 144, he inquired, “O Lord, what is man that you regard him … that you think of him?” (Psalm 144:3)

In fact, there is an undeniable intellectual, spiritual, and even cultural struggle raging over how we are to define the nature of man. What is at stake in this struggle is the very notion of personhood itself. Personhood is assaulted from all sides by the cultural, socio-economic factors that tend to depersonalize humanity including: the growing supremacy of technology; the growth of bureaucracy; the increase of mass- production processes; the growing impact of mass media; advances in biology, psychology, and sociology; practices such as artificial insemination, cloning, genetic engineering, abortion, chemical control of human behavior, and euthanasia; racism; egalitarianism; decreasing respect for authority; use of technology in education and parenting; and, other emerging factors. The image of human personhood that is emerging from these factors, particularly from the human sciences, is not compatible with the traditional, biblical view of personhood. Led by the secular behavioral and social sciences, the traditional, biblical, personal view is under severe attack. As Evans described it,

It is fair to say that the rise of the human sciences in the twentieth century

has been marked by the demise of the person. That is, there is a definite 24

tendency to avoid explanation of human behavior, which appeals to the

conscious decision in favor of almost any nonpersonal factors.41

This attack has been so effective that Evans asked, “What does it mean in the twentieth

century to believe that man, male and female, was created in the image of God?”42

This debate is of the utmost importance, for what one thinks about human beings

is of determinative significance to his or her personal agenda and program of action.

More specifically, one’s personal understanding of man is particularly important to the

Christian faith. The doctrine of man is not merely a cold, tertiary Christian doctrine.

Rather, it is foundational to all of Christian doctrine, for it is implicit in the biblical

account of God’s dealings with people throughout the ages (from the beginning to the end).

Modern science claims to provide the ultimate explanation concerning the nature of man. The traditional anthropomorphic explanation of man has been replaced in favor of pure mechanistic laws. For Rene’ Descartes, the universe was a vast machine whose workings could be explained by mechanical laws (i.e. chemistry, physics, and mathematics). The mind of man is but part of this same vast machine whose ultimate explanation is to be found in the mechanistic, physical, scientific laws of nature. The mind of man is reduced to a mere machine. As Smith argued,

There are no ghosts in the brain’s machinery, no unmoral movers. It is all

a matter of physics and chemistry. An understanding of the burgeoning

brain science of our times depends on a prior knowledge of the

41 Evans, Preserving the Person, 14.

42 Evans, Preserving the Person, 14. 25

thermodynamics of ions, membranes, and aqueous solutions. It is from an

understanding of events at this level that the dawning comprehension of

the entire system stems. It is only from this background that the nature of

the nerve impulse, synaptic transmission, and sensory transduction can be

understood. And it is a combination of these phenomenons, which makes

the ongoing activity of our brains.43

For Smith the mind is nothing but a machine. This mechanomorphic/mechanistic view of personhood is so basic, so prevalent, to culture’s self-understanding, that it is difficult to imagine how individuals saw themselves before such materialistic, reductionistic, and behavioristic views gained credibility (views promoted by Sigmund Freud, B. F. Skinner,

Joe Watson, Max Weber, Carl Rogers, William Van Til, ‘Emile Durkheim and others).

These non-biblical, mechanistic views have even crept into the traditional, evangelical anthropologies.44 Therefore, it is crucial that a sharp distinction is made between the idealistic and the materialistic anthropologies on the one side and a biblical view of man on the other side. These materialistic views are one-sided, considering just one small aspect of the human being to be the ultimate. Assumptions are made which are devoid of any concept of man’s dependence on, or responsibility to the Creator God.

43 C.U.M Smith, The Brain (New York: Capricorn Books, 1972), 35.

44 An examination of the Christian literature on leadership reflects this concern. As I will note later, the latest secular leadership “flavor of the month” is often uncritically adopted, “christianized” with a sprinkling of selected biblical verses, and recycled as “the biblical view” on leadership. In some cases Christian organizations enthusiastically endorse and promote secular leadership books and publications with little to no consideration to the reductionistic framework underlying its approach(s) to leadership. As a close friend recently asked, “How do I help my students see the difference between applied humanism with a sanctified coating and genuine biblical leadership?” 26

Each of these anthropologies are “Guilty of idolatry, worshipping an aspect of creation in the place of God.”45

So how can the truth of the image of God in man be recovered? What does it

mean in the twentieth century to believe that man, male and female, was created equally

in the image of God? How do we preserve the biblical definition of the person in face of

such attacks by the human sciences? The mechanistic worldview demands that we

abandon the conception of man as autonomous or transcendent of the natural order.

Human beings are simply part of Descartes’ “vast machine.” The behavioral sciences,

driven by this massive, reductionistic view of personhood, have become the pervasive

philosophical framework for most current thinking about leadership. As Evans

concluded:

The idea that God is the Creator of all things is forgotten, and so is the

notion that man’s rational and creative abilities are God-given gifts.46

It is time that we recover personhood and begin to think once again christianly about

man. This shift in thought will have dramatic ramifications for how we view leadership.

45 Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 4.

46 Evans, Preserving the Person, 140. 27

We once thought that children were shaped by God … but as the twenty-first century dawns, this notion is becoming more of a fallacy. We know that children are shaped by the interaction of their DNA and their environment. David Brooks47

IMAGO DEI:

What is man? This question continues to be asked today but with a new sense of

urgency and significance. What follows is an overview of the biblical view of man, a compilation, an aide memoire, as it were, of the major foundational realities of the imago

Dei that provide the biblical framework crucial to any view of man that claims to be

“Christian” or “biblical.”48

Fundamental Reality #1

First and most importantly, the biblical view of man must begin with an adequate

understanding of God himself. The biblical record begins with God (“In the beginning

God …” Genesis 1:1); the one living and true God who alone is the “fountain of all

being;”49 not dependent upon any created thing, but who is completely independent of,

and sovereign over, all things created for His glory “whether visible or invisible;”50 who alone throughout eternity “upholds, directs, disposes, and governs all creatures, actions, and things from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence for

47 David Brooks, “The Organization Kid,” The Atlantic Monthly (April, 2001), 8.

48 The intent of this paper is not to present a well worked out treatment of the biblical account of imago Dei nor a comprehensive review of the systematic theologies regarding the doctrine of man. I am grateful for the work of Charles Hodge, John Calvin, David Cairns, G. C. Berkouwer, and Anthony Hoekema for helping me identify the “fundamental realities” of imago Dei.

49 Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), Chapter II, Section 2 (II.2).

50 WCF, IV.1 28 the manifestation of his glory;”51 and, ending with the culmination of God’s redemptive

activity, the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth. An obvious, often

overlooked implication of this truth, especially in the Christian literature regarding

leadership, is that all created reality is created by, owned by, controlled by, and

completely dependent upon God.

Fundamental Reality #2

The second reality is simply this: God created human beings. As such man must

be viewed as a creature, one with the rest of God’s creation. Nevertheless, man is not just

another creature; man is a very special creature, carefully shaped, male and female, in the

very image and likeness of God.

Then God 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.”52

This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he

made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and

51 WCF, V.1

52 Genesis 1: 26-28 (NIV) 29

blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man.”

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his

own image; and he named him Seth.53

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in

the image of God has God made man. As for you, multiply and increase in

number; multiply the earth and increase upon it54

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men,

who have been made in God’s likeness.55

Being made in the image of God is the major organizing principle of human life. As

Hoekema observed,

Any view of the human being that fails to see himself or herself as

centrally related to, totally dependent on and primarily responsible to God

falls short of this truth.56

This fact, that man is a created person in the likeness and image of God, has implications not only for the philosopher and theologian, but for every realm of life, including, for the purposes of this paper, the source of leadership.

53 Genesis 5: 1-3 (NIV)

54 Genesis 9:6 & 7 (NIV)

55 James 3:9 (NIV)

56 Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 6. 30

Fundamental Reality #3

Man, though completely corrupted through Adam and Eve’s fall into sin and

suffering separation from relationship with God, is still an image-bearer of God. In

Genesis 9:6-7, we see that the imago Dei is still intact, even after the Fall:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in

the image of God has God made man. As for you, multiply and increase in

number; multiply the earth and increase upon it.57

As Graham noted,

Being finite and imperfect (because of the fall) does not mean we can be

less than the image, however.58

The effect of the fall was to pervert and distort, not to completely destroy or eliminate.

Francis Schaeffer described man in the fallen condition as “glorious ruins,” part glory and

part ruin. One psychologist friend described this to me as the “magnificence and

malignancy” of the fallen world. Human beings are still human with all of the attributes

(though marred) given to them by the Creator. It is impossible to be made in God’s

image and be without His attributes. Hoekema supported this view from the Old

Testament record,

The picture of man that emerges (from Psalm 8) is similar to that sketched

in Genesis 1: 27-28. Man is the highest creature God has made, an

image-bearer of God, who is only a little lower than God, and under

whose feet all of creation has been placed. All this is true despite man’s

57 Genesis 9:6-7 (NIV)

58 Graham, “Biblical Insights Into the Nature of Human Beings,” p. 1. 31

fall into sin. Thus, according to the Old Testament, fallen man still bears

(possesses) the image of God.59

Abraham Kuyper put it this way,

Before (the fall) he possessed the most exquisite organism which by holy

impulse was directed toward the most exalted aim. Tho reversed by the

fall, the precious human instrument remained, but, directed by unholy

impulse, it aims at a deeply unholy object. Comparing man to a

steamship, his fall did not remove the engine. But as before the fall he

moved in righteousness, so he moves now in unrighteousness.60

Fundamental Reality #4

While we are not God, but only a likeness or reflection of His image, we are

called, in spite of our fallenness, to bear (as in, carry, convey, take) God’s attributes into

every arena of life. Man’s responsibility, his calling, as it were, to be God’s image-

bearers in all of His creation, remains.61 Man was created in the image of God so that he

might reflect that image in every area of creation. Fundamentally, our imaging is to be

that of mirroring the glory of God’s righteous ruling. In other words, God made us to be

righteous rulers. And in as much as we rule righteously, we are reflecting God’s glory

and are filling the earth with the glory of God. Man is given the mandate to fill the earth

59 Hoekema goes on to support this view from the New Testament as well citing James 3:9, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3, 4:15, Romans 8:29 and 2 Corinthians 3:18.

60 Kuyper, Abraham, The Work of the Holy Spirit, (William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1900), 225.

61 All this has a profound impact on the way in which people, as image bearers of God, approach the task of leadership, particularly for those who claim the name of Christ as the Redeemer of their created image. 32 and subdue (i.e. rule) it. The important point is this: God made us in His image so that we could fill the earth with his glory. Man is made to fill the earth with the glory of God.

This is accomplished by applying those attributes given to us that reflect his nature. We must fill the earth and rule it. This is the mandate of Genesis 1 and 2. It is repeated in

Genesis 3 and also reissued in Genesis 9 with Noah. The mandate does not change, but we now must do it under the curse of sin.

Fundamental Reality #5

The biblical record does not end with “fallen man” condemned to the futile,

desperate struggle of bearing God’s image with little hope or possibility of succeeding.

That which was perverted (i.e. the imago Dei) has been redeemed. The effects of the fall

are being reversed. God, through Christ, has redeemed and restored that which was

broken (although not yet ultimately). That which was distorted is being healed. Christ is

the center through which this reorientation is possible. As Graham pointed out,

God is fulfilling his original intended purposes for us and for the creation

in spite of our sin.62

Our calling, as the bearers of God’s image, has been renewed … re-issued. Our task as

originally decreed by God remains the same. As Wolters put it,

“…redemption means restoration … that is, the return to the goodness of

an originally unscathed creation …we are reinstated as God’s managers

on earth. The original good creation is to be restored.”63

62 Graham, “Biblical Insights Into the Nature of Human Beings,” p.1.

63 Wolters, Creation Regained 57-58. 33

Fundamental Reality #6

Bearing the image of God (i.e. filling the earth with His glory) was our created

task. Bearing the image of God is our fallen task. Bearing the image of God is our

redeemed task. This image, though perfectly redeemed, is not yet perfectly restored. It

will not be perfect until the perfect kingdom comes. It is the “already but not yet”

concept heard so frequently from our esteemed colleague, Chuck Anderson. This image

is not perfect; neither is our work. Nevertheless, our task, our call, and our vocation

remains: we seek to fill the earth with the Glory of God as His image-bearers.

Bearing the image of God remains the major organizing principle of human life.

We are called in spite of our fallenness to display the attributes of God in all dimensions

of life. The good creation, distorted by the fall, is being recovered through the processes of redemption in which we, as the bearers of God’s image, play the central and vital role, enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit. This vital role is rooted in our call and obligation to image God.

Fundamental Reality #7

The goal of the redemption of God’s people is that they will be fully conformed

into the image of Christ (the perfect image of God), the one whose glory (image) we are

reflecting. As Hoekema affirmed,

As God was the Creator of man in the beginning, so God is also the

Creator of the new self or the new man believers have put on. As man was

created in the image of God to begin with, so the new self that God has

created for us is in accordance with God, or like God. Since the believer

is not yet perfect but must be progressively renewed, we conclude that this 34

renewal consists of a growing and ever-increasing likeness to God. Here

again, we see that the purpose of redemption is to restore the image of

God in man.64

And as Calvin observed, the manner of the Holy Spirit’s progressive working in the elect is to create faith in our hearts so that,

… the image of God, which had been effaced by sin, may be stamped anew

upon us, and that the advancement of this restoration may be continually

going forward in us during our whole life because God makes his glory

shine forth in us little by little. For we now begin to bear the image of

Christ, and we are daily being transformed into it more and more, but that

image depends upon spiritual regeneration. But (at the time of the

resurrection) it will be restored to fullness, in our body as well as our

soul; what has now begun will be brought to completion, and we will

obtain in reality what as yet we are only hoping for.65

64 Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 27.

65 Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:49 35

Lead in accordance with what you are … how you are created.” Os Guinness66

STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL DIMENSIONS OF IMAGO DEI

Imago Dei in man is both structural and functional. The image of God is not only

a matter of what man is (what he is created to be), but what man does (what he was created to do). The image of God is not just a picture of what we are becoming; it is a verb, imaging in action. It is not merely descriptive (referring to the uniqueness of man among the rest of creation) it is also prescriptive. We are to bear the image of God, a

responsibility which, by the Spirit’s enablement, we will do better and better until that

day in which we shall image God perfectly. This is the duty and responsibility of man.

Structure refers to the order of creation, to the constant creational construction of

any thing (what makes it the thing or entity that it is). Structure is anchored in the law of

creation, the creational decree of God that constitutes the nature of different kinds of

creatures. It designates a reality that the philosophical tradition of the West has often

referred to by such words as substance, essence, and nature.67 When the Bible says that

God created man in His image it implies that man was created in a unique way, distinct

from the rest of God’s creation. This image/likeness is not something accidental to man.

It is essential to man’s structural existence. Others should be able to look at man and see

something of God in him, not only by who he is, but by what he does.

66 Os Guiness, The Calling: Finding and Fulfilling The Central Purpose of Your Life (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1998), 7.

67 Wolters, Creation Regained, 49. 36

In what way(s) is man like God functionally? Man does not merely possess the image of God; he is the image of God. He was created to mirror God in his actions. This is man’s functional response to imago Dei. Man is to represent God. Human beings were created to function in particular ways. It must be noted that man cannot function in these ways unless they have been endowed by God with the structural capacities that enables him to do so. The image of God in the functional sense refers to what it is that man does in harmony with God’s will; it is the practical activities by which he images

God. Though fallen, man is still considered to be an image-bearer of God. The image, though distorted, is still there. Man now uses these attributes in improper, sinful and disobedient ways. The process of redemption renews these attributes enabling man to once again image God properly. God has created us and is now re-creating us so that we may fulfill our mission and calling. As Hoekema stated,

To enable us to perform that task, God has endowed us with many gifts …

gifts that reflect something of his greatness and glory. To see man as the

image of God is to see both the task and the gifts. But the task is primary;

the gifts are secondary. The gifts are the means of fulfilling the task.68

Structure is the agency for function. Structure and function are integral to a complete

understanding of imago Dei and can never be separated or divided.

What, then, should others see? What kind of being is man? What makes man,

man? What are those structural and functional attributes that belong to the image of God

communicated to man in his creation? Typically, Christian theology focuses on man’s

intellectual and rational abilities as among the most important features. Included have

68 Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 73. 37 been such attributes as moral sensitivity, conscience, capacity for worship (Calvin’s sensus divinitatis), responsibility, volitional powers, decisiveness, control, aesthetic sense, language, and the entire endowment of gifts and capacities given to man by the

Creator. In all these ways, man is like God (man is not God, he is like God) and therefore is to image Him.

While making no claim to being comprehensive or all-inclusive, Donovan

Graham selected and discussed twelve created attributes he considered representative and could not be ignored. Only in man, through these created attributes, does God uniquely manifest his glory among the rest of creation. There is no higher honor than the privilege of responsibly stewarding the attributes of the God who made us. According to

Graham,69 these attributes include:

Active and Purposeful: Humans act to create ideas and things, making

sense of things in relation to themselves, in an effort to exercise some

manner of control over the world around them.

Rational: We seek to perceive and understand, to conceptualize, to form

and evaluate, and intellectually relate to what is around us.

Creative: We form and make things and ideas out of what that which God

has created, placing value judgments upon what we have created.

69 Donovan Graham wrote a paper, “Biblical Insights into the Nature of Human Beings,” for use in the Group Dynamics and Organizational Behavior course of the QUEST program of Covenant College. The purpose of this paper was to introduce the students to the biblical point of view in considering the nature of the person. This paper has been well received by the non-traditional students. For many, this was the first time they have ever been challenged with the notion that man was created in the image of God and is responsible to take His image into every arena of life, the workplace notwithstanding. Graham challenged them to view their superiors, co-workers, and subordinates as “made in His likeness.” Because of this new reality, personal and professional relationships were dramatically changed for many. It is this very paper that became the basis, the impetus, for an altogether new perspective on the ultimate source of leadership proposed in this paper. 38

Exercise Dominion: As we think, create, and act in purposeful ways, we

exercise control over that which is around us, creating a culture, acting as

God’s stewards of the creation.

Moral: We act in relation to standards of right and wrong, our actions

tend to bring about justice or injustice.

Social: Relationship is at the heart of our existence, we are meant to live

in fellowship with God and others, sharing meaningfully in experience

with both.

Free: We make choices and judgments according to our purposes, acting

freely within the boundaries and limits of our created nature.

Responsible: We are also accountable for our choices and behavior, not

simply the victims of the environment and circumstances.

Loving: We were created to love and be loved, we are called to

demonstrate that characteristic through forgiving others, doing what is

best for them, and sacrificing ourselves for them.

Merciful: As part of our love for others, we are called upon to extend

mercy to others as we have received God’s mercy.

Faithful: We are creatures of faith, believing something to be true with

sufficient commitment to it to act upon it, the commitment being to the one

true God or some substitute created by human beings (things or ideas), we

worship something.

39

Dependent: We are created and totally dependent upon the Creator for

our being and continued existence; we also are dependent upon fellow

human beings and the environment around us.70

According to Graham we are called, in spite of our fallenness, to display these attributes

of God in all dimensions of life, as divinely created and called leaders.

Perhaps never was there more secular thinking about things Christian. Harry Blamires71

BORN, MADE, OR CREATED?

On the basis of the structural/functional framework of imago Dei, I suggest that

leaders are neither born nor made, they are created. Leadership is not a product of chance or the mathematical roll of the genetic dice. Leadership is not a consequence of having been born, by happenstance, into the “right” environment, or of having had the good fortune of having attended the “right” college, or of having read the latest best-selling book on leadership. Championing the “born versus. made” argument of leadership leads to the conclusion, “Some people are leaders and others are not.” Or, “From now on

Covenant College is going to look for prospective students who are leaders. The others can attend elsewhere.”

Rather, people are created leaders. They are created to reflect God as righteous rulers, filling the earth with His glory. Structurally, leadership is found in, and,

70 Graham, “Biblical Insights Into the Nature of Human Beings,” 107-108.

71 Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind: How Should A Christian Think? (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1963), 45. 40 functionally arises out of, the created attributes. The traits, qualities and characteristics of leaders are reflected in these attributes. Each of us (male and female) is created equally in His image. Each of us possesses, equally, God’s attributes. Consequently, each of us possesses “the right stuff” for leadership. Structurally, we have equal capacity for leadership. Leadership is in every one of us. If, as we believe, the cultural mandate is a call to bear God’s attributes into every arena of life, then it follows that we are to bear, functionally, these leadership attributes into every arena of life. We have been created, structurally, as leaders. We have been mandated, functionally, to lead. Genesis 1: 26-28 is man’s call to lead. It is his both in his nature and capacity to do so. It is in this sense that we are neither born nor made leaders; we are created and called to be leaders.

Leadership is to see ourselves as image-bearers of God.

In its attempt to settle the question, “Are leaders born or made,” popular culture has, for all intents and purposes, defined biblical leadership out of existence. Today, leadership is defined in positional terms. One is a leader because of title, rank, or position. Anyone who is elected, selected, anointed, appointed, self-appointed, promoted, or successful is deemed to be a leader in positional terms. A leader is described as a charismatic personality who has attracted followers. A leader is defined as one who is indispensable, the one without whom the “show cannot go on.” A leader is one who matriculated at the “right” school such as Harvard, Wheaton, or Covenant. Or a leader is someone who works for a prestigious organization or owns his/her own company. A leader is one who has the ability to lead, to show the way to, to guide the course or direction of, or to be the first or foremost. Certainly this is not an exhaustive summary of pop culture’s taxonomies. However, it is indicative of the current

41 postmodern leadership paradigm that distorts, confuses, and paralyzes the leadership debate. Covenant College can ill afford to effectively respond to its calling in the twenty- first century if it unwittingly and uncritically adopts any of these impersonal and mechanistic myths about leadership.

It’s time to reclaim the debate over leadership by developing a working definition that will guide the exploration of leadership and leadership development in a biblically coherent and consistent manner. We should begin by re-defining a leader as one who is actively reclaiming and stewarding those created attributes that reflect the image of God.

As Guinness said, we are to “…lead in accordance with what you are … and how you are created.”72 It’s in this way that the corporate body of Christ can fulfill the cultural

mandate (Genesis 1:26-28), and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19&20); thereby

filling the earth with the glory of the Lord.

I lead … simply because I am here doing what I do. If you are also here, doing what you do, then you also exercise leadership. Parker Palmer73

THE “STUFF” OF LEADERSHIP

Because everyone is created equally by God in His image, everyone has the right

stuff of leadership. Guinness called this stuff “enlightened leadership” and claimed that it

is in every one of us.74 So, what is the “stuff” of leadership? Where does leadership

72 Guinness, The Calling, 7.

73 Palmer, Let Your Life Speak, 76.

74 Guinness, The Calling, 7. 42 come from? I suggest that it is not a title (positional leadership); nor is it power (personal leadership); it’s not certain behaviors or habits (i.e. behaviorism); and, it’s not holding a diploma from the “right” college. Leadership is reclaiming and stewarding the image of

God. It is stewarding the created attributes such as those identified by Donovan Graham

who views man as: active, purposeful, rational, creative, exercising dominion, moral,

social, free, responsible, loving, merciful, faithful, dependent, and others. This is the

essential “stuff” of leadership. The created attributes are the structural and functional

characteristics of transformational leadership.

Secular leadership guru’s come close, sometimes. In their attempt to define the

traits or behaviors of effective leaders, some writers have identified and described,

unwittingly, the God-given attributes. For example, most leadership sources identify

control as one of the core traits or characteristics of leadership. That is, successful

leaders skillfully lead, manage, and control by effectively directing, changing, and

influencing the behavior (again, note the influence of behaviorism here) of other people

through the exercise of their positional and personal power. This is strikingly close to the

created attribute of exercise of dominion identified by Donovan Graham. Some argue

that the source of this trait is genetic (nature theory). One is either born with this trait and

is, as a consequence of the genetic code, a leader. Or, one is not born with this trait and

is, consequently, not a leader. Others argue that this trait can be acquired through proper

training, education, and experiences (nurture theory). Neither of these camps (nature or

nurture) acknowledges, to their detriment, that the control trait is an attribute given to us

43 by God (i.e. exercise of dominion). As such, this trait is already there. It is to be reclaimed and stewarded, by the power of Jesus Christ.75

The same can be said of many of the other leadership traits identified, described

and marketed in the popular media of the day. In the final analysis, the source of

leadership arises from and reflects the imago Dei, the created attributes already within us.

The Christian must discern what is biblically consistent and responsible from that which is irresponsible and reductionistic. We can no longer trim secular thinking with pious

platitudes, “baptizing” current notions regarding leadership with a sprinkling of

misapplied scripture verses. As Blamires warned, “Perhaps never was there more secular

thinking about things Christian.”76

The goal of education is the restoration within us of the long-lost image of God. John Amos Comenius77

THE TASK OF EDUCATION AT COVENANT COLLEGE

President Brock had it wrong! The task of Christian higher education is not to

recruit “Jedi leaders;” the task of the college, through the enterprise of academics, is to

enable every student to be fully conformed to the long-lost image of God by helping them

identify, reclaim and steward God’s created attributes. The renewal of the image of God

within us is both a gift from God and the responsibility of man. This, I suggest, is THE

75It is my conviction that on the Day of Judgment, we will, in fact, have to give a full account/reckoning of all that has been entrusted to us, notwithstanding the created attributes. See: I Peter 4:10, Matthew 25:14- 30, Romans 12:6&7, Luke 12:42, Titus 1:7, I Corinthians 4:1-2,7, and others.

76 Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind: How Should A Christian Think? 45. 44 central task of Covenant College. Covenant’s task (in reliance on the Holy Spirit) is to restore the image of God to its proper structure and function in every student, so that these students can leave the college better equipped and enabled to fill the earth with the glory of God. Students must understand who they are before they can know what to do.

Another way to state this is that the indicative precedes the imperative. In other words,

God’s relationship with us precedes any laws or directives He gives us to teach us how to act. He calls us to be his children before showing us how to act like his children. This is the essence of grace oriented/redemptive teaching. If we do not teach students who they are and simply give them a list of do’s and don’ts…we are teaching legalism and motivating them to obey what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls “slavish fear”

(XX.1). This is yet another way of showing the necessity of the interconnectedness of the structural and functional aspects of the image of God in man. We teach the image of

God, so that students understand who they are (or how they have been equipped) and then we teach them how to fill the earth with the glory of the Lord as righteous rulers.

“The restoration within us of the long-lost image of God” was the goal of education for John Amos Comenius.78 The essential purpose of the educational

77 John Amos Comenius, The Pampaedia VII: 7, trans. A. M. O. Dobbie, M.A., M.Litt. (Glasgow)

78 John Amos Comenius (Jan Amos Komensky) was born in 1592 in Nivnice, Moravia, in the area that is now the Czech Republic. Known today as the "Father of Pedagogy," he pioneered modern educational methods. A contemporary of Galileo, Descartes, Rembrandt, and Milton, Comenius, a protestant minister in the reformed tradition, contributed greatly to the Enlightenment. He was the first to use pictures in textbooks (The Visible World In Pictures, 1658), and believed in what might be called a holistic concept of education. He taught that education began in the earliest days of childhood and continued throughout life. He advocated the formal education of women, an idea which was unheard of in his day. His philosophy of Pansophism (meaning "teaching all things to all people in all ways") attempted to incorporate reformed theology, philosophy, and education into one. He believed that learning, spiritual, and emotional growth was all woven together. What Comenius referred to as the Via Lucis, or "way of light," was the pursuit of higher learning and spiritual enlightenment bound together. His educational thought was profoundly respected in Northern Europe. He was called upon to completely restructure the school system of Sweden, and there is some evidence he was asked to become the first President of Harvard, an honor he declined because of his leadership in the troubled Moravian Church. Comenius was a Bishop of the Unitas 45 enterprise was rooted in man’s call to image the communicable attributes of God and, thereby, cooperate with His divine redemptive purpose. Human beings were to be reoriented toward God and equipped for true dominion (leadership). This, in turn, leads to the liberation of the entire creation described in Romans 8:20-21.79 For Comenius, authentic human living was the imitation of God. The role of education was to present the biblical model for that imitation. “From the very beginning it is necessary to form practical and not theoretical Christians, if we wish to form true Christians at all.”80

Comenius approached all educational matters guided by the biblical understanding of the nature of the human person who was to be educated. The school was to be a “garden of delight” where the teacher, as the “gardener,” was to “water God’s plants” enabling each student to “find his voice” and, consequently, become “a garden of delight for his God.”81

For Comenius the root of evil lay in the fact that education was not in harmony with true human nature (imago Dei) or with man’s ordained role (that is, to bear the

Fratrum, commonly known as the Moravian Church during its darkest days. He became its President during the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) which decimated the ranks of the Unity. At the close of the war, Bohemia and Moravian were ceded to Rome in the Peace of Westphalia. The few surviving members of the Unity had to either become Catholic or leave their homeland. Comenius led a small band to exile in Poland. Others simply went underground, feigning loyalty to Rome. This period, known as the "Hidden Seed," continued until a small group resettled in Saxony on the estates of Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf, a Lutheran noble. There, the denomination was reorganized and entered a period of great missionary endeavor. Comenius died in Amsterdam in 1670 without ever seeing the "hidden seed" revived. His grandson Daniel Jablonsky, later elected as a Bishop, would later pass on the unbroken line of ordination to the renewed Unity. During his lifetime, Comenius published 154 books, mostly dealing with educational philosophy and theology. One example, which is available online, is The Labyrinth of the World, an allegorical novel which predated Bunyan's much better known Pilgrim's Progress. Comenius is buried in Naarden, Holland.

79 Romans 8:20 (NIV): For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

80 John Amos Comenius, The Great Didactic, 2nd edition, trans. M.W. Keatinge (New York: Russell and Russell, 1967), vol. xxiv: 22.

81 Comenius, The Great Didactic, vol. xvi: 2. 46 image of God) in the creation. Comenius’ worldview prohibited the separation of reason and piety. As a result he actively emphasized bringing reason and piety into harmonic interrelation in such a way as to teach all things to all men and from all points of view, thereby promoting the restoration of the image of God. For Comenius the idea of the image of God operated both structurally and functionally defining both what every human person (male and female) is and what every human person must strive to become.82

Comenius called for varying pedagogical approaches for learning differences due

to age, cognitive development and other developmental factors. However, the common

creation of all men and women for one purpose, to bear the image of God, meant that the

ultimate goal of education was to bridge the gap from imago Dei as structure to imago

Dei as function. For Comenius there was no exception; education must take mankind

back to its first and original condition, the good creation. Though distorted by the fall,

the creation was recoverable through the processes of redemption in which God’s work

through His agencies, particularly education, played a vital role. Comenius was not only

confident that to promote the restoration of the image of God was the goal of education,

but because such an education is rooted in the call to reclaim the image God, it could be,

in large measure, attained. Consequently, both students and instructors (Comenius did not accept a dichotomy between teacher authority and learner autonomy) could delight in

God and experience sweetness and joy in learning. Learners would delight in His image

82 Comenius was among the very first to call for a “universal education.” Because all of the young of both sexes are equal partakers of the image of God and share in His grace equally, then both must be equal partakers of education which seeks the restoration within us of the long-lost image of God. “They (females) are endowed with equal sharpness of mind and capacity for knowledge … and are able to attain the highest positions since they have often been called by God Himself to rule over nations, to give sound advice to kings and princes … even to the office of prophesying and inveighing against priests and bishops.” (GD IX: 5) 47 and become His garden of delight; people would delight in God; and, God would delight in His images. As Comenius prayed,

Do thou, everlasting wisdom, who dost play in this world and whose

delight is in the sons of men, ensure that we in turn may now find delight

in thee. Discover more fully unto us ways and means to better

understanding of thy play with us and to more eager pursuance of it with

one another until we ourselves finally play in thy company more

effectively to give increasing pleasure unto thee, who art our everlasting

delight! Amen!83

A person’s image is such a concentration of His essential features as to make it the very impress of His being. Abraham Kuyper84

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AT COVENANT COLLEGE

John Amos Comenius had it right! His paradigm for education, “…to restore

within us the long-lost image of God,” puts forward an innovative conceptual framework

for integrating faith and learning that is biblically informed yet practical in bringing

together the theological, philosophical, and practical perspectives of personhood.

Comenius’ 17th century work is an innovative approach to the integration of Christian

theology, philosophy, and teaching and remains significant to the whole arena of

83Comenius, Pampaedia, Introduction: 6.

84 Kuyper, Abraham, The Work of the Holy Spirit, 219. 48

Christian higher education, particularly for Covenant College. Comenius’ work is worth our serious examination yet today.

The renewal of the long-lost image of God in us is, I suggest, the central task of the QUEST program at Covenant College. One of the main objectives of the QUEST program is to train leaders for all fields of endeavor, profit and not-for-profit. Every organization needs all the good managers it can find. However, finding managers (in other words, those people who know how to do things right) is not all that difficult.

Seldom, if ever, do organizations collapse because there were not enough good managers.

Organizations collapse for the lack of leaders. In spite of the glut of leadership literature and seminars, organizations continue to fold because there are simply not enough people who know how to lead. Most professional development seminars and books are ineffective because they miss the mark regarding leadership. Leaders are not born or made. Leaders are created. Leadership is reclaiming and stewarding the image of God, the created attributes, already within us.

What you do with what you know is what Christian knowing is all about. Os Guinness85

APPLICATIONS

In the Preface I stated that this paper is but an attempt on my part to begin to think about

and work out a theology of leadership, apply this theology to anthropology (i.e. the nature

of man), and then to develop a model of education for my role as an educator in the

85 Os Guinness, Chapel Address at Covenant College 49

QUEST program at Covenant College. I am making several preliminary attempts to apply a biblically informed theology of leadership to my teaching in a variety of ways.

Obviously, these are not “heaven-shattering” examples of integration. These are simply offered as evidence of how it is that I am attempting (struggling) to help others teach and learn christianly. Perhaps this will help QUEST students reclaim the long-lost image of

God within them and steward these attributes to the glory of God.

Andragogy:

Andragogy86 has been the primary model of adult learning and the rallying point for those of us who teach in the QUEST program since its inception in 1983. Andragogy

gives the program “a badge of identity” that distinguishes it from other models of

education, especially the pedagogical model used (primarily) for the traditional programs

on the main campus. Personally, I have enthusiastically embraced and advanced the

andragogical model as revolutionary and efficacious for over twenty-five years … but,

perhaps, somewhat uncritically.

Nearly thirty years ago Malcolm Knowles87 proposed a new title and a new

technology of adult learning to distinguish it from pre-adult schooling. The European

concept of andragogy (contrasted with pedagogy, the art and science of teaching

children) is based on five fundamental assumptions about the adult learner:

86 A term coined by Malcom Knowles that refers to” the art and science of teaching adults.” Knowles’ theory of andragogy is an attempt to develop a theory specifically for adult learning. This theory emphasizes that adults are self-directed and expect to take responsibility for their own learning and decisions based upon the following assumptions: 1) Adults need to know why they need to learning something; 2) Adults need to learn experientially; 3) Adults approach learning as problem-solving; and, 4) Adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value. In practical terms, andragogy means that instruction needs to focus more on the process of learning and less on the content being taught. Strategies such as case studies, role playing, simulations, and self-evaluation are most useful. Instructors adopt the role of a facilitator of learning rather than lecturer, grader, or pontiff protector of all knowledge.

87 Knowles, Malcolm, The Modern Practice of Adult Education, (Follet, Chicago), 1980. 50

ƒ As a person matures his or her self-concept moves from that of a

dependent personality toward one of a self-directing human being.

ƒ An adult accumulates a growing reservoir of experience, which is a

rich resource for learning.

ƒ The readiness of an adult to learn is closely related to the

developmental tasks of his or her social role.

ƒ There is a change in time perspective as people mature … from

future application of knowledge to immediacy of application.

Thus an adult is more problem-centered than subject-centered in

learning.

ƒ Adults are motivated to learn by internal factors rather than

external ones.

From each of these assumptions Knowles drew numerous implications for the design, implementation, and evaluation of learning activities for adults. For example, with regard to the first assumption that as adults mature they become more independent and self-directing, Knowles suggested that the classroom environment should be one of adultness, both physically and psychologically. The classroom climate should cause adults to feel accepted, respected and supported. Further, there should be a spirit of mutuality between teachers and students as fellow scholars in pursuit of knowledge.

Being self-directing also means that adult students can participate in the diagnosis of their learning needs, the planning and implementation of the learning experiences, and the evaluation of those experiences. 51

However, more recent critics have pointed out that the contemporary practice of andragogy must be judiciously re-examined in view of its predominant reductionistic and humanistic views of man. Knowles’s reliance on behavioristic psychology formulates the individual learner as one who is the product of his or her environment … the product of the socio-historical and cultural context of the times. Knowles chose a mechanistic philosophy reducing the adult learner to a technically proficient droid operating in a world where formulaic social planning and self-directed learning mantras are the order of the day.

The andragogical model has made significant contributions to adult learning in the QUEST program since its inception in 1983. And it will continue to make vital and indispensable contributions to learning in the QUEST program for years to come.

QUEST faculty (full-time and adjunct) should continue to strive to become “master teachers” within the andragogical framework. BUT … this model must be critically scrutinized in view of the biblical view of man insuring that instruction does not step onto the slippery slope of reductionistic behaviorism. This “problem” has recently become a particular concern and focus for me as the newly appointed Academic Department Head as I mentor the instructors in the QUEST program.

Faculty Development:

I collaborated with Dr. John McMillian and Ms. Virginia Garrison in designing a

new adjunct faculty development model implemented in the Fall, 2002. There are three unique features of this model:

1. QUEST Adjunct Faculty Status: Adjunct faculty can achieve higher status

levels based upon their ability to teach (as annually evaluated by the Academic 52

Department Head and the students) and by demonstrating their scholarly efforts to teach Christianly. Particular emphasis is placed on upon the instructor’s ability to encourage and guide students to think about the connections and relationships between biblical truths and what they have learned; to encourage and guide students to think about the relationships between biblical truths and the application of what they have learned to their vocational and personal lives; and, their ability to create for students learning opportunities in which the content from each of the class activities are clearly related to real life exercises in quiet and reflective thinking.

2. Adjunct Faculty Development: Adjunct faculty are required to attend two

faculty development workshops each year. Teaching christianly is a major

emphasis in each of these workshops. It is crucial that each instructor understands

that culture was created by God and is still under His sovereign rule for His

purposes and that how one views the relationship of faith (Christ) and the various

arenas of culture (family, work, institutions, etc.) is critical to the preparation of men and women (i.e. QUEST students) who will be biblically and culturally responsible. Every QUEST instructor must provide opportunity to enable students to make (integrate) these connections.

3. Integration Papers: In order to achieve Levels II and III, QUEST faculty

members are required to read selected books and write brief papers demonstrating

how these perspectival sources inform their teaching strategies. These papers will

be read and approved by members of the full time faculty at the college. 53

What It Means to Be Human:

Students are required to read Dr. Graham’s paper, What It Means to Be Human in the very first course in the QUEST program (Group Dynamics and Organizational

Behavior). The purpose of this paper is to introduce a biblical view of man (imago Dei) in an attempt to counter the predominant, reductionistic views of man that is driving the literature in organizational management and leadership. I designed two exercises to follow the reading of this paper: 1) Action Plan which is designed to enable students to make an application of imago Dei to their professional and/or personal lives and, 2)

Integration Grid which is a “homemade” device used to enable students to begin to think about how they can become bearers of God’s image in every arena of their personal and professional lives. Most of the QUEST students, even though most are Christians, have never been introduced to the concept of imago Dei. Many comment on how revolutionary and meaningful Dr. Graham’s paper is to them not realizing that it is, in fact, possible for them to take their faith into the workplace. I am personally aware of a handful of students who have committed their lives to Christ because of Dr. Graham’s paper and the subsequent “integration” assignments (as elementary as these may be).

Essentials of Leadership:

Leadership is a major emphasis of the Management and Supervision course in the

QUEST program. Students are asked to read two additional papers written by Dr.

Graham: The Biblical Principles of Leadership and The Biblical Principles of Motivation.

The class discussions that follow these required readings are designed to enable students to view these two important leadership concepts (leadership and motivation) through the lens of scripture. I also introduce the Genesis Principle of Leadership (the theme of this 54 paper) as part of the Essentials of Leadership packet. I designed this learning activity for use in this course and in public workshops and seminars. The purpose of this activity is to enable each student to view themselves as God created them by inventorying their assets (created attributes, spiritual gifts, talents, skills, abilities, passion, etc.) and to begin to think about stewarding those assets through the development of a personal mission statement and strategic plan. Frankly, at the risk of sounding boastful, this is, often, an arresting transformational experience for many of the QUEST students.

Biblical and Theological Foundations of Leadership:

Finally, I recently designed a graduate level course based upon the Genesis

Principle of Leadership. The purpose of this course, The Biblical and Theological

Foundations of Leadership, is to examine the biblical and theological teaching on leadership as it has been understood throughout the history of the church with special attention given to developing a biblical and theological understanding for one’s calling and vocation. The vision for this course is to see maturing leaders reclaiming and stewarding God’s created attributes in personal and vocational ministry. I will be teaching this course in January, 2003 in the Doctor of Ministry program at Salt Lake

Theological Program in Salt Lake City, Utah. Candidly, I look forward to the time when

I might offer this course to all undergraduates at Covenant College.

Further Work:

As a work in progress, the Genesis Principle of Leadership raises as many questions as it answers. If leadership does, in fact, originate from the created attributes, then how can one develop and cultivate (i.e. steward) these attributes in themselves?

What andragogical models or methodologies can instructors employ to enable students to 55 reclaim the long-lost image of God (i.e. created attributes) within them? What techniques can instructors employ to train, coach, or mentor these attributes without falling back into the reductionistic pitfalls of behaviorism? These and similar questions need to be investigated further.

To see my students in the passionate pursuit of their personhood is my “garden of delight!” Richard D. Allen

CONCLUSION:

The key to developing effective leaders through the QUEST program is helping

students restore the long-lost image of God within them, that is, reclaiming and stewarding the created attributes of God. Covenant College, particularly the QUEST program, must become more conscious of its students as men and women who are made in the image of God and possessing God-created/God-given attributes. As such, the

evolutionary forces of genetics or the developmental press of the environment does not

drive them. Our students are not in the process of perceiving, behaving, becoming the fully functioning self; or in the life-long pursuit of self-actualization and finding their own voice. Rather, each course, each class, each learning activity must be specifically

designed to enable each student to reclaim (structurally) the long-lost image of God and

to steward (functionally) each attribute as leaders in their families, churches, places of

employment, and community. Each learning experience, in and out of the classroom,

must enable each student to restore the long-lost image of God (every trait, every

characteristic, and every attribute found in the image of God in man) to its redeemed 56 structure and function, to the greater glory of God. This is leadership training in its ultimate, created, eternal, fullest sense. This is the college’s “garden of delight.” This is the task of education at Covenant College. This is the Genesis Principle of Leadership!

Sola Deo Gloria! 57

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Required Reading Sources:

Holmes, Arthur F., The Idea of a Christian College, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Revised Edition, 1987.

Kuyper, Abraham, Lectures on Calvinism, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931.

McCartney, Dan & Clayton, Charles, Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible, Wheaton, Illinois: A Bridgepoint Book, 1994.

Niebuhr, H. Richard, Christ and Culture, New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1951.

Wolters, Albert M., Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Perspectival Readings Sources:

Anderson, Charles W., “Creation/Fall/Redemption: A Mandate for Redemptive Activity,” Unpublished Paper Presented at the Faculty Forum, Covenant College, Lookout Mountain, Georgia, April 29, 1989.

Berkouwer, G. C., Man: The Image of God, (abbrev. Man), Trans. Dirk W. Jellema, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962 (orig. pub. 1957).

Blamires, Harry, The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think? Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1963.

Comenius, John Amos, The Great Didactic, Translated by M. W. Keatinge, New York: Russell and Russell, 2nd edition, 1967.

Comenius, John Amos, The Labyrinth of the World and the Paradise of the Heart, Translated and introduced by Howard Louthan and Andrea Sterk. Preface by Jan Milic Lochman, New York: Paulist Press, 1997.

Evans, C. Stephen, Preserving the Person: A Look at the Human Sciences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977. 58

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology: Abridged Edition, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1992.

Hoekema, Anthony A., Created in God’s Image, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Kuyper, Abraham, The Work of the Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1900.

Meeter, H. Henry, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990.

Postman, Neil, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.

Palmer, Parker, Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2000.

Rogers, Carl R., On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961.

Smith, David, “Gates Unlocked and Gardens of Delight: Comenius on Piety, Persons, and Language Learning,” Christian Scholars Review, XXX: 2, Winter, 2000, pp. 207-232.

Steele, David N. and Thomas, Curtis C., The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1963.

Van Til, William, Editor, Perceiving Behaving Becoming, Washington, D. C: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1962.

Williamson, G. I., The Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1964.

Additional Reading Sources:

Baldoni, John, 180 Ways to Walk the Leadership Talk: The “How-To” Handbook for Leaders at ALL Levels, Texas: The Walk the Talk Company, Dallas, 2000.

Bennis, Warren, & Biederman, Patricia Ward, Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1997.

Bennis, Warren & Goldsmith, Joan, Learning to Lead: A Workbook on Becoming a Leader, Reading, Massachusetts: Perseus Books, 1997. 59

Blanchard, Ken, Hybels, Bill, & Hodges, Phil, Leadership by the Book: Tools to Transform Your Workplace, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1999.

Brooks, David, “The Organization Kid,” The Atlantic Monthly, April 2001.

Cashman, Kevin, Leadership From the Inside Out: Becoming a Leader for Life, Provo, Utah: Executive Excellence Publishing, 1998.

Goffee, Robert & Jones, Gareth, “Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?” Harvard Business Review, Volume 78, Number 5, September-October, 2000, pp. 62- 70.

Goleman, Daniel, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, New York: Bantam Books, 1995.

Graham, Donovan L., Teaching Redemptively, Unpublished Book Draft, Covenant College, Lookout Mountain, Georgia.

Guinness, Os, The Calling: Finding and Fulfilling The Central Purpose of Your Life, Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998.

Harvard Business Review: First Special Issue, Volume 79, Number 11, December, 2001.

Hersey, Paul, Blanchard, Kenneth H., & Johnson, Dewey E., Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.

Hesselbein, Frances, Goldsmith, Marshall, & Beckhard, Richard, editors, The Leader of the Future, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

Hill, Linda A., Becoming A Manager: Mastery of a New Identity, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992.

Jacobs, Debra L., Watson, Kittie W., & Barker, Larry L., Leadership Coaching: Pathway to Peak Performance, New Orleans: SPECTRA, Inc., 1999.

Knowles, Malcolm, The Modern Practice of Adult Education, Chicago: Follet, 1980.

Kouzes, James M. & Posner, Barry Z., The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995. 60

Maxwell, John C., Developing the Leader Within You, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001.

Maxwell, John C., The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader: Becoming the Person That People Want to Follow, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Maxwell, John C., The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.

Piaget, Jean, John Amos Comenius on Education: Classics in Education No. 33, New York: Teachers College Press, 1967.

Sanders, J. Oswald, Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer, Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Schaeffer, Francis, A Christian Manifesto, Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1981.

Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Science of the Learning Organization, New York: Currency Doubleday, 1994.

Tichy, Noel M., The Leadership Engine: How Winning Companies Build Leaders at Every Level, New York: Harper Business, 1997.

Wheatley, Margaret J., Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organization From an Orderly Universe, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1994.