Christological Hymn: the Leadership Paradox of Philippians 2:5-11
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHRISTOLOGICAL HYMN: THE LEADERSHIP PARADOX OF PHILIPPIANS 2:5-11 DAVID R. GRAY A paradox occurs when a situation or condition challenges popular beliefs or conventions. Philippians 2:5-11 provides an example of a paradox relative to the traditional beliefs of leadership. A cross-disciplinary approach that integrates current social definitions and theories of leadership demonstrates that the Pauline model of leadership as propagated in Paul’s letters to the Philippians is a valid model for leadership study and application. Utilization of the principles of sacred textual analysis relative to socio-rhetorical criticism addresses application of organizational behavioral theories and extant leadership theories to Philippians 2:5-11. A paradox is a situation or condition that typically arises when conditions challenge popular beliefs or conventions. Philippians 2:5-11 provides an example of a paradox relative to the traditional beliefs of leadership, such as the great man theory or trait theory. Generally, the traditional view of a leader is an individual with power, who has substantial control over others.1 Early leadership models and theories, prior to the 1970s, concentrated on the behavioral styles associated with great leaders.2 For example, writers routinely use the characteristics of confident, iron-willed, determined, 1 Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organizations (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2002), 142. 2 Stephen Robbins, Organizational Behavior (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1998), 349. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 2, no. 1 (Winter 2008), 3-18. © 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University ISSN 1941-4692 Gray/JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES IN LEADERSHIP 4 and decisive to describe Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister of Great Britain and an acknowledged leader.3 In addition to the traits of determined and decisive, enthusiasm is another acknowledged leader trait. In some organizational cultures, being overtly expressive in both verbal and non-verbal body language demonstrates leadership ability. In such cultures, a quiet person with less expressive body language is unqualified to lead. For those subscribing to the traits of leadership associated with Margaret Thatcher, or expressiveness, a quiet unassuming individual in a leadership position may appear as a paradox. Few would probably question the leadership abilities of individuals such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Sir Winston Churchill, or Theodore Roosevelt. Yet many might question the leadership ability of a mild-mannered waiter, performing menial tasks of servitude. Certainly, many would question a modern day business leader, possessing the power and ability to orchestrate events, folding when faced with stiff competition. However, if the reader agrees with the two latter cases, then the reader would have to question the leadership ability of Jesus Christ. In fact, certain portions of scripture, such as Philippians 2:5-11, when interpreted through the lens of traditional leadership theory, challenge the image of Christ as a role model for leadership. In essence, Philippians 2:5-11 is paradoxical to the traditional view of how to effectively role model leadership behavior. The purpose of this paper is to apply a cross-disciplinary approach that integrates current social definitions and theories of leadership and to demonstrate that the Pauline model of leadership as propagated in Paul’s letters to the Philippians is a valid model for leadership study and application. Utilization of the principles of sacred textual analysis relative to socio-rhetorical criticism addresses the following points: 1. Scriptural analysis of Philippians 2:5-11 2. Historical analysis of Philippians 2:5-11 3. Application of organizational behavioral theories 4. Application of extant leadership theories The purpose of using both a scriptural and historical lens in textual analysis, through socio-rhetorical analysis, conforms to Robbins’ notion that socio-rhetorical criticism should explore a text in a broad, yet systematic manner that provides a meaningful platform of interpretation and dialogue.4 Further, socio-rhetorical criticism focuses on the values and beliefs in the text as well as the world in which we live.5 However, the world in which we live relative to our values and beliefs is not the same world of the Apostle Paul. In Philippians, Paul’s writings may speak to present day values and beliefs that are not necessarily apropos to Paul’s time. For example, in present times the word rhetoric encompasses connotations of falsehood or manipulation, while in Paul’s time readers would have understood the term rhetoric to 3 Ibid., 347. 4 Vernon Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 132. 5 Ibid., 1. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 2, no. 1 (Winter 2008), 3-18. © 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University ISSN 1941-4692 Gray/JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES IN LEADERSHIP 5 mainly deal with craft of reasoned persuasion typified by the writings of philosophers such as Aristotle.6 Ergo, to appreciate a scriptural analysis of Philippians 2:5–11 and its application to modern leadership and organizational theories, it is necessary to view the text in a historical context in order to understand the social factors that influenced both Paul and his audience. I. SCRIPTURAL ANALYSIS Most biblical scholars agree that Apostle Paul authored Philippians, a letter written to the congregation of the church he had founded in Philippi, the first Pauline church of Europe.7 Philippians is a thank-you letter to the parishioners, who had made considerable sacrifices to establish and maintain the church in Philippi, to bolster the Philippi congregation’s faith and their continued commitment to spread of the Gospel.8 Paul’s letters to the Philippians illustrate the effective use of rhetoric, through a well-crafted letter, to promote a persuasive argument. Aristotle and other philosophers of antiquity were well aware of how the persuasive effect of communication depended on a careful arrangement.9 Typical of such oration or argument were the use of the exordium, narratio, propositio, probatio, and peroration.10 Philippians 2:1–3:21 represent the probatio portion of Paul’s letters, with 2:1-11 being the centerpiece of Paul’s communication.11 Philippians 2:6-11, the Carmen Christi, is a poetic recitation of the story of Christ, and serves as a compelling example of how the Philippians should seek to serve each other as well as others outside the church.12 Although Paul was not the author of the Carmen Christi or Christological Hymn, it was likely a byproduct of Paul’s ministry, and used by Paul to make an emotional appeal to members of the church at Philippi.13 Thompson posits that Paul recognized the complexity of communicative processes through written communication as evident in his use of emotion (pathos) and cognitive (logos) appeals in 2:6-11.14 Paul’s letters to the church of Philippi, through rhetorical effect, sought to promote a compelling vision that would offer the congregation a model of conduct.15 6 Joseph Marchal, “Expecting a Hymn, Encouraging An Argument: Introducing the Rhetoric of Philippians and Pauline Interpretation,” Interpretation 61, no. 3 (2007): 245-255. 7 Jay Gary, “Self-Sacrificial Leadership and Islam,” JayGary.com, http://www.jaygary.com/sacrificial_ leadership.shtml; Daniel Wallace, “Philippians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,” Bible.org. 8 Wallace, Philippians; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 216; James Thompson, “Preaching to Philippians,” Interpretation 61, no. 3 (2007): 298-309. 9 Thompson, “Preaching to Philippians,” 303. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., 305. 12 Ibid.; Ronald Allen, “Between Text & Sermon: Philippians 2:1-11,” Interpretation 61, no. 1 (2007): 72- 74. 13 Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 226. 14 Thompson, “Preaching to Philippians,” 302. 15 Ibid., 306. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 2, no. 1 (Winter 2008), 3-18. © 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University ISSN 1941-4692 Gray/JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES IN LEADERSHIP 6 In reading Philippians 2:6–11, it is crucial to remember that the hymn is part of a letter, in a series of letters that Paul wrote, which were intended to be read by an orator to the Philippi congregation. Scriptural text, such as Paul’s letters, is an intricate tapestry of complex patterns and images, and concentrating on a single image or pattern may limit or distort the meaning of the narrative.16 Paul’s letters provide prayer (1:3-11), examples (2:19-30), the hymn (2:6-11), autobiography (1:12-26; 3:2-21), and exhortation or paraenesis (1:27-30, 2:12-18, 4:2-9) to establish a vision and guide for the congregation’s behavior.17 Philippians 2:1-30 forms three distinct units (a) 1-11, (b) 12-18, and (c) 19-30, with verses 2:1-11 containing two narratological units (a) verses 1 to 4, and (b) verses 5 to 11.18 Bekker posits that the rhetorical structure of Philippians 1:1-30 serves as the probatio, with three exemplum or role models presented to support Paul’s argument with the first exempla being Christ in verses 5-11.19 In Philippians 2:5, Paul encourages his audience to “have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus,” following 2:4, where Paul explains that Christians should look to the interest of others, as one would seek to attend to one’s own self-interest. Thompson posits that Paul’s use of phronein or mind goes beyond simple cognition and promotes inner reflection to go beyond agreement to a level of shared mental models that promotes group loyalty or cohesiveness.20 Paul’s appeal to the Philippians early on to be like-minded has important implications. According to social cognitive theory, signs of status and power enhance the cueing function of modeled conduct.21 The congregation of the Philippi church included members from all levels of society.