Let me just say that the way Bobby Clinton formulated his "Leadership Emergence Theory" back in the 80s really grates on me. Lots of important elements of leadership development. But he presents it in a Calvinist framework of "I fell down the stairs," what is God trying to teach me today. And of course I'm sure the Bible professors at Fuller used to make fun of him for having no clue how to read the Bible in its socio-cultural contexts.
Here's a sample:
Integrity checks: “An integrity check is a test that God uses to evaluate intentions in order to shape character” (58). A biblical text that embodies for Clinton this sort of check is the story of Daniel 1 where Daniel has to decide whether to keep Israel’s food purity laws or to participate in the food of Babylon. In Clinton’s view, “God won’t use a leader who lacks integrity” (63).
Clinton has several assumptions here. For example, there is the question of whether God micro-manages our development in such an orchestrated way or whether we should more think of these kinds of events as opportunities for development as leaders that we are bound to face. Another question is Clinton’s penchant to see things as almost having to occur in a particular order.
Further, if God can use the Babylonians and Persians (e.g., Hab. 1:6; Isa. 45:1), then surely God can use anyone, even a leader who lacks integrity. Indeed, Christians reached this conclusion in the 300s during the Donatist controversy, where the church concluded that God's work in a church was not dependent on the integrity of the minister. Obviously God would rather use a leader with integrity. Presumably the days of a leader without integrity are numbered. On the other hand, some of the most wicked kings of Israel and Judah had the longest reigns and died peacefully in their beds (e.g., Jeroboam II and Manasseh).
None of these questions are meant to deny that our integrity as leaders will be checked, that it is important and formative for us to pass these checks with integrity, or that God will not use those checks to help us grow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ken, in the context of human development, what is integrity? For those that are Calvinists will believe that if they are in leadership, then they are "God appointed" and God ordained, such that others should submit, irregardless! It is a penchant for "order" without understanding complexity (choice ). That way, those that don't obey are ignoring "God's ordained authorities" and can be condemned!
This was the basis of judgment in heresy trials throughout Church History (or any religious cult). Free thinkings or those who threatened the understanding of a given situation apart from the Church authorities were athema. NOw, people are condemned and judged if they don't concur with the interpretation of the "Bible" as "God's authority....
Integrity has to be a personal commitment of value, which will not be divyed out neatly and directly. Ethical decisions are made based upon one's greates priority. And it is deflection which would answer the question of one's greates priority as "God"...as God is known and understood in so many different ways....That is why a universal appeal to Constitutionality is the question for judges in our courts and the people in our nation to evaluate. Directly the courts decide, but indirectly we have decided by who we voted to place in office, as President, for he appoints the Supreme Court judges and our Congress affirms the nomination.
As to States rights, that is being tried to balance the power of the Federal government, but it seems as if the Feds have so much power, people wise and money wise, that it might be a hard road to win...But that was the origninal intent...as the locals are more prone to know about a person's real situation and situadedness..
The university has used the book, "The Change Leader" (a Gestalt approach with work groups) by H.B Karp. In it, Karp argues that self-interest and power are what motivates change. An ordering such that some can be left out of the "information loop", as they have specified or "determined" positions that might not be palatable...
That left me a little "disgruntled", because of my background, I suppose...But, this is how organization's do their work in becomign successful...
Abortion has been a "hot topic" and is useful to exemplify the tension of our public policies. All Christians believe that life comes from God, the question is how do we understand what life is and how life becomes? These are questions for science, not religion.
Even when there is agreement about abortion, there is disagreement about birth control, etc. The best way to protect everyone's interests is to resolve the problem on rational debate using science as a means to discuss one's position. Religion just does not answer those questions....And I have read very good defenses on both sides of the "life" argument using science language...what then? It will become a matter of debate and power...welcome to the real world of politics...where one's integrity is judged by one's political/religious opinion...
So which leadership theories do you like?
I'm not opposed to Clinton's pieces... it's his rigidity and determinism. I suppose he's typical of a "developmental stages" mentality from that era.
Developmental stages era" meaning....?
Today's neuroscience is deterministic too, isn't it? Doesn't it presuppose an individual's tendencies? Liberal or conservative?
I think that both the liberal and conservative positions are necessary for the tension needed to maintain a free society, that is humane (valuing liberty of conscience, i.e. brain tendency) and just (considering a person's background/interets/values)...But those societies that are intolerant are those that are based on one position, the progressive, or the other, the conservative. Such ideological stances tear the fabric of a free society, where the individual can function without overbearing rule....communisim, socialism, facism, dictatorship....
Libertarianism is the best political philosophy, at least in my limited understanding....
You know on second thought, science doesn't answer the ethical, as the ethical is about what should society do or not do...That is a matter of philosophical debate...I don't think the Divine Command Theory does anything other than uphold Calvinistic understanding about God's intervention and control of the universe....So, whether one believes God controls, or determines all events in the world, either through "God ordained rule", "God ordained leadership", "God ordained Natural selection"....all are deterministic or rely on man's understanding the abilities of other men apart from their potentialities...some men have surprised people one way or another with their abilities or inabilities in a given area...so how can one predict what another is capable of in their "organizational planning" or social engineering, or political obviscation?
Aren't such tactice like governmentt regulation? Wouldn't they demoralize a person? Personal boundaries must be respected, if we value liberty, as the rule of law does limit power ideally, doesn't it?
Scriptures affirm lying, cheating, stealing, obfiscation, deceit, and all kinds of other means to get the end desired! Such were the likes of Jacob. And since Jacob was the father of Isarel, then is that supposed to justify the means to the end? That is usurping a brother natural right to inheritance? Does desire that runs rough-shod over another deserve "God's sanction" and "approval"? It does in Scriptures!
What about Tamar who desires to have a child? Doesn't she decieve and prostitute herself? Is that "okay"? yes, as children are "God's gift"!!
And on and on....
Post a Comment