A long-time friend, mother of three, married for over twenty years, Cheryl (not her real name) sat in my office and cried. Her abusive husband had beaten her for years, and now, despite her strong biblical convictions, she simply could no longer contemplate intimacy with him. He had confessed his sin to her, and therefore “required” that she forgive him and make herself vulnerable to him again. He who had once controlled her with his fists, now sought to control her with his confession. The leaders of his congregation took his side. In their view, Cheryl was obligated to receive him back, and return to square one. When she had wanted to join the congregation, one of the elders told her not to. “If you join, Cheryl, we’ll have to denounce you from the pulpit. Your husband says you have not been submissive to him in accord with the teachings of Scripture.” Indeed, Cheryl had herself heard the leader denounce a female member from the pulpit for just this reason.

Does this true story make your blood run cold? It does mine. And it illustrates all too well some of the abuses that are perpetrated every day when power is abused, even by well-meaning people, in the name of God.

The “P-Word” Despite the abuses often associated with the term, power is not a dirty word. Rather, power can be either a blessing or a curse. In the hands of God, it has always been a source of blessing. When power is in the hands of someone else, however, even the hands of servants of God, we have cause to be jittery.

God can be trusted totally; but can we really trust others? If you are like me, you often see power in the hands of others as at least an incipient threat. And isn’t it interesting that the first use of the term “power” in the Bible connects it with threat? The term is used by Laban, who tells his son-in-law Jacob, “I have the power to harm you; but last night the God of your father said to me, ‘Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, either good or bad’” (Genesis 31:29). It is comforting to know, as this quotation illustrates, that God cares about abuses of power, and sooner or later intervenes to make his will known.

Power as a Necessary Component of Leadership

When we speak of leadership, we must speak of power; power in the hands of the kinds of ordinary people God raises up to lead his people in accomplishing his work. Power is an intrinsic component of leadership. This truth was highlighted in ground-breaking leadership studies at the Fuller Seminary School of World Mission in Pasadena, California. From studies of over 600 biblical and post-biblical leaders, Professor of Leadership Studies Dr. J. Robert Clinton defines a leader as “a person with God-given capacity and with God-given responsibility who is influencing a specific group of God’s people toward God’s purposes for the group.” [1] This definition comprises several components. First, a leader is a person with God-given capacity for leadership. This capacity comes from a combination of natural abilities, acquired skills, and spiritual gifts.

Second, a leader is a person with God-given responsibility for the group he leads. Ultimately, a leader is called by God and is accountable to him not only for accomplishing the tasks to which his group is called, but also for nurturing their well-being. Leadership studies aridly refer to these spheres of responsibility as “task-behaviors” and “relationship-behaviors.” It is easy to see that failures in leadership generally fall under one or the other of these labels: leaders either fail to adequately address the tasks to which their group is called, or they fail to adequately care for the people in the group. It is in this latter area that we find most occasions for abuses of power.

The third component of this definition reminds us that a leader is a person “who is influencing a specific group of God people toward God’s purposes for the group.” It is in this area of influence that we encounter the phenomenon of power.[2] Inevitably, leaders employ various means to exercise influence.

Some of those means are unintended. For example, a leader may have great influence over a group of followers because he looks like their previous leader. He did not plan it that way, and there is nothing he has done or does to enhance the effect. Yet, he has great influence due to an unintended factor: here, physical characteristics. In this article we are more concerned with intended means of influence. These fall under two broad categories: leadership styles, and power forms (also termed “influence means”). The remainder of this article will explore each of these in turn.

Paul was a highly goal-oriented leader with a strong personality. One would expect that his leadership styles would all be highly directive. This is not so, however: he was a multi-style leader. Yet three of his leadership styles were highly directive.

1 The apostolic leadership style is a method of influence in which the leader assumes the role of delegated authority over those for whom he/she is responsible, receives revelation from God concerning decisions, and commands obedience based on role of delegated authority and revelation concerning God’s will. [6] Paul demonstrates this style consistently, and more than once refers to it as a privilege he chooses not to exercise (see 1 Cor. 7:6; 2 Cor. 8:8; 10:6-11.) In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul confronts the congregation concerning the “wicked man” (v. 13), who is living with his father’s wife (v. 2). Note especially his strong words of authority in 4:21, where he asks, “What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?” It is his most highly directive, or one might say, authoritative, leadership style.

Can this style be employed today? Opinions vary. Prolific author and church growth specialist C.
Peter Wagner is currently researching a book on what he terms the “new Apostolic Reformation”, a leadership model gaining ground in independent churches.[7] Wagner believes the key distinctive of such churches is the authority structure, in which authority is (allegedly) delegated by the Holy Spirit to individuals rather than to structures. According to Wagner, under this model, emphatically the pastor leads the church. Everything is top-down from the pastor who is anointed by God.

This autocratic leadership style has been evident, to varying degrees, in our movement. Although such a model of congregational government may appear lean and efficient, there are obvious dangers. This is especially so because such leaders tend to be so task oriented that they neglect the personal needs of followers. In addition, since all of us are flawed, any congregation or organization that bears the imprint of one personality will inevitably magnify and extend the weaknesses as well as the strengths of that particular leader. Finally, we must be concerned whenever any governmental structure is implemented without checks and balances to forestall abuses of power. As poor Jimmy Swaggart demonstrated, even very gifted and called leaders need real accountability that they might continue to flourish under the blessing of God.

2 Confrontation leadership style is an approach to problem-solving which brings the problem out in the open with all parties concerned, which analyzes the problem in light of revelational truth, and which brings force to bear upon parties to accept recommended solutions. [8] A good example of this style is Paul’s approach to resolving the conflict between Eudodia and Synteche in Philippians 4:2-3. This is a style often used in the Messianic context. Indeed, good leadership requires that we employ this style in appropriate ways at appropriate times. Not only primary congregational leaders, but also committee leaders, small-group leaders, and simply friends of conflicting parties ought at times to intervene. They will bring the conflict out into the open with all parties involved, analyze the problem in accord with Scripture, and not only admonish but also require the parties to accept the recommended solution. This ought not to be some sort of “power trip”, but a responsible use of spiritual authority in accord with Scripture, in the best interests of the parties, and with all sobriety.

3 The father-initiator leadership style is related ... to the apostolic style [and] uses the fact of the leader having founded the work as a lever for getting acceptance of influence. [9] Paul exhibits this style in 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 where he appeals to the Corinthians for compliance because he has been their father in bringing the Good News to them. Founders of congregations often use this approach either consciously or unconsciously. It is effective, but ought not to be overused, as it is dangerously close to a guilt-based approach. Guilt is a very efficient short-term motivator, but people will get out from under guilt as soon as they can. Thus, overuse of guilt-tinged approaches inevitably results in membership turn over.

DIRECTIVE PAULINE LEADERSHIP STYLES

Moving across our continuum, we find that Paul used other styles that were less highly directive, but directive nonetheless.

4 Obligation-persuasion is a close cousin to the father-initiator style; indeed, all of these styles tend to overlap at points. The obligation-persuasion leadership style is an appeal to followers to obey some recommended directives which persuades, not commands, followers to heed some advice, leaves the decision to do so in the hands of the followers, but forces the followers to recognize their obligation to the leader due to past service by the leader to the follower and strongly implies that the follower owes the leader some debt and should follow the recommended advice as part of paying back the obligation and finally reflects the leader’s strong expectation that the followers will conform to the persuasive advice. [10] The classic example of this approach appears in the book of Philemon where Paul urges Philemon to show mercy to Onesimus on the basis of Paul’s prior ministry to him. Although this is a directive approach, it is effective because it protects and even highlights the freedom accorded to the party being persuaded. Again, in practice, once must be careful not to abuse this style and use it as a form of guilt inducement that deprives the party being persuaded of their freedom of choice. Uses of power that deprive people of freedom of choice are forms of manipulation.

5 The father-guardian leadership style “is similar to a parent-child relationship and has as its major concern protection and encouragement for followers.”[11] Paul alludes directly to this style in 1 Thessalonians 2:10-11. Like other approaches, this style is certainly open to abuse. It can easily deteriorate into a kind of paternalism that accords power to the father or mother figure while maintaining the followers in a dependent, powerless, and immature condition. In other words, the appropriateness of this style is contingent upon the maturity level of the followers. Keeping the followers immature to keep the leader in charge is abusive leadership.

NON-DIRECTIVE PAULINE LEADERSHIP STYLES

Paul was an amazing leader. That a person with so strong a personality was able to lead in non-directive ways is a sure evidence of the mellowing influence of the Holy Spirit! Clinton classifies two of Paul’s leadership styles as non-directive.

6 The maturity-appeal leadership style counts on godly expertise, usually gained over a long period of time, an empathetic identification based on a common sharing of experience, and a recognition of the force of imitation modeling in influencing people in order to convince people toward a favorable acceptance of the leader’s ideas. [12] Paul employs this style in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33 where he alludes to spiritual experience, hard work, suffering for the gospel, deprivations of all kinds, and anguish on behalf of the congregations as an incentive for the Corinthians to heed his appeal. This kind of approach is effective but suffers from the dangers inherent in “tooting one’s own horn”, something which Paul was loath to do. The wisdom of Proverbs (27:2) is good advice: “Let another praise you and not your own mouth.”

7 The nurse leadership style is characterized by gentleness and sacrificial service and loving care which indicates that a leader has given up rights in order to not impede the nurture of those following him/her. [13] Paul refers to this style directly in 1 Thessalonians 2:7. This style is somewhat rare among male leaders in our culture, yet it is very much like Yeshua, the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep, the Servant who washed the disciples’ feet to encourage us to do likewise. Often congregational shepherds seem to assume that the sheep exist for their benefit rather than that they exist for the sake of the sheep. Although we shepherds are not simply doormats without rights, neither are we kings seated high on lofty thrones. We have much to learn from the nurse leadership style, and we might well have greater influence with our congregations if we displayed these characteristics. This will especially be a challenge for highly goal-oriented leaders. But then, hasn’t God called us not only to accomplish goals but also to personal growth?

HIGHLY NON-DIRECTIVE PAULINE LEADERSHIP STYLES

Finally, Paul demonstrates three highly non-directive leadership styles. It was undoubtedly through a combination of meditation upon the Scriptures, consideration of the example set by Yeshua, illumination by the Spirit, and training in the school of hard knocks that Paul, a goal-oriented choleric personality, developed the flexibility to employ such a wide range of leadership styles.

8 The imitator leadership style refers to a conscious use of imitation modeling as a means for influencing followers. The user models appropriate thinking or behavior with an expectant view that followers must, will, and should be encouraged to follow his/her example. [14] Yeshua certainly employed this approach, as in the foot-washing lesson, when he said “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (John 13:15.) Peter alluded to this approach in his first letter, stating “Messiah suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21), and John referred to it as well, saying “whoever claims to live in him must walk as Yeshua did” (1 John 2:6). For Paul, this model is axiomatic and implicit in all his dealings with his congregations. For example, in his letter to the Philippians, he refers to following the example of Yeshua (2:5-12), and exhorts them to follow his own example (3:17; 4:9.)

Anyone who has ever raised a child knows that “do as I say not as I do” is a waste of breath and a self-delusion. Spiritual and moral instruction rises and falls upon the example set by its proponents. If we call ourselves spiritual leaders, we must be able to unashamedly say with the apostle, “be imitators of me as I am of Messiah” (1 Cor. 11:1).

9 The consensus leadership style is the approach to leadership influence which involves the group itself actively participating in decision making and coming to solutions acceptable to the whole group. The leaders must be skilled in bringing diverse thoughts together in such a way as to meet the whole group’s needs. [15] This style is evident in Acts 13 when the congregation in Antioch, guided by the Holy Spirit, sent off Paul and Barnabas to the ministry to which God had appointed them. This model of the body of Messiah being collectively involved in ministry and ministry decisions is somewhat eclipsed in American culture. Yet, this passage demonstrates that such a model is not incompatible with strong leaders (like Paul!) and supernatural charismatic intervention. What makes this model highly non-directive is the diffusion of influence factors throughout the group, rather than in just one person. It is comforting to know that even when we leaders choose to be non-directive in our leadership style, God is still a directive God. He is able to get his message across!

10 The final highly non-directive leadership style which Clinton discerns is the indirect conflict leadership style, an approach to problem solving which requires discernment of spiritual motivation factors behind the problem, usually [resulting] in spiritual warfare without direct confrontation with the parties of the problem. [16] Paul alludes to this model in Ephesians 6:10-20, where he mentions our fighting not against human beings but against wicked spiritual forces in the heavenly realm. We employ this style whenever we approach conflicts or problems through prayer rather than through direct confrontation. An example would be when some potentially disruptive person comes into a congregational meeting, and someone in leadership senses that this person is sent by or at least vulnerable to the enemy. At such times, the person can often be removed or neutralized simply by shooting up a prayer and silently asserting God’s authority against the darkness driving the person. (I trust I am not the only congregational leader who has experienced this!)

Power Forms In conjunction with the many leadership styles they employ, leaders use a variety of power forms, or influence means, to influence followers. The diagram on the following page provides a useful overview of the types of power forms employed by leaders.

Beginning from the left side of the diagram, we see that leaders can exercise influence unintentionally through something incidental which causes followers to be more responsive to them. However, our focus is on intentional means of influence, means of exercising power. Broadly speaking, leaders exercise power in four ways: through force, manipulation, authority and persuasion.

FORCE Looking at each way of exercising power in turn, we first consider force, which Clinton defines as “the use of physical and psychic influence means to gain compliance.” This is certainly one of the more distasteful leadership power forms, and one that crops up in cultic and occult groups. It is used even in our circles, however, such as when some disruptive persons must be taken by the arm and escorted out of a meeting. This is certainly a form of physical force. And what of those who practice the phenomenon of “slaying in the Spirit” as a means of boosting their influence with those who experience it? Is this not some form of, generically speaking, psychic means to gain compliance?[17] Because this kind of spiritual activity involves involuntary compliance, I categorize it as a form of force, and as such it differs form the influence leaders exercise because others see them to be spiritually gifted.

Figure 2.

Adapted Tree diagram for Influence, Power, Authority (unavailable at this time)[18]

MANIPULATION

A manipulative power form is a means whereby a leader gains compliance from a follower without the follower being aware of the leader's intentions. Therefore, the follower is not accorded freedom of choice or moral responsibility in the decision. All of us employ this influence means more than we realize. We do so whenever we get people to do what we want them to without explaining why. Although this is not necessarily evil, this power form becomes abusive when we gain compliance from people who would not comply if they knew what we are up to, or when we involve them in ends contrary to their own standards.

AUTHORITY

The authority power forms express themselves in at least five ways. In the diagram, as we move from the left to the right, the forms become more user-friendly.

1 Coercive authority involves "using influence means such as threat of force or of punishment."[19] Despite our distaste for the term, Hersey and Blanchard indicate that a follower low in readiness generally needs strong directive behavior in order to become productive.... The behavior of people at low levels of readiness seems to be influenced by the awareness that costs will be incurred if they do not learn and follow the rules of the game."

[20] Most parents use this approach with their children, and it seems more appropriate to the workplace than to the congregational setting. Yet even in the workplace, there are checks and balances on this leadership style. Although slaves (equivalent to today's employees) are told to obey their earthly masters (equivalent to today's employers) with respect and fear, masters are also told to not threaten their slaves (Ephesians 6:5-9). This text stigmatizes the use of fear and intimidation, varieties of coercive power, as management tools. People and organizational cultures that routinely use threats and intimidation to gain compliance abuse their followers, create tremendous turn over problems for themselves, and in reality undermine their own authority. More to the point, such leaders and systems risk the disapproval of the One to whom all leaders are accountable.

As a subset of this category, I find myself utterly opposed to those leaders and leadership structures that seek to gain compliance by making people feel bad about themselves. God does not operate this way: He never seeks to get us to do what He wants by making us feel bad about ourselves, although He surely does lay out for us the consequences of our rebellious acts. Making people feel bad to get them to do something good is a form of psychological coercion which, though widespread, seems untrue to the character of God. How much more in accord with the values of the kingdom it would be for us to protect people's sense of well-being while seeking to influence them for the work of the kingdom.

I remember with admiration a recent conversation with a congregational leader who makes it a practice to not make people feel guilty when they decline involving themselves in some congregational project. He responds by saying, "I understand, We all lead such busy lives. Maybe some other time." Is it not better to lead in this way, expecting people to offer themselves freely rather than subtly coercing people into doing what we want them to do? Judges 5:2 expresses this well: "When the princes in Israel take the lead, when the people willingly offer themselves – praise the LORD!"

2 Using induced authority, "a leader gains compliance by using influence means of promise of reward or some gain for the follower."[21] This seems to be God's favorite means of influence. Visionary congregational leaders would do well to employ this strategy with their people, painting a credible portrait of the anticipated satisfactions that await those who will put their hand to the plow in accomplishing what the congregation is called to do. This ought not to be viewed as some sort of bribery. After all, bribery involves getting people to violate appropriate standards of conduct in exchange for the promise of gain. Induced authority sets before people appropriate rewards and incentives for involvement in worthy goals. And the best of these rewards are those which are intrinsic to the projects being undertaken. We ought not to despise this form of influence and motivation. Even Yeshua did what he did "for the joy that was set before him" (Heb. 12:2).

3 Legitimate authority

is the form of power in which a leader obtains compliance by using influence pressure consonant with common expectations of the role or positions held by the follower and leader." [22] Many of us who allow ourselves to be called "rabbi" fall heir to this kind of authority, due to the great respect and influence accorded to rabbis in Jewish culture. Similarly, in many settings, the role of congregational leader, rabbi, or pastor comes with built-in authority, and members of such congregations stand ready to accord respect to the person filling that role.

Of course, people in such positions can erode their authority through inappropriate behavior. They or their surrogates may insist upon respect and compliance by virtue of their position, but if their conduct fails to sustain the respect their position accords them, their demands for compliance become a form of coercion.

4 Competent authority is a form of power in which a leader obtains or can expect (but not demand) compliance by virtue of acknowledged expertise in some peld of endeavor. The authority is limited to that field of endeavor." [24] Using myself as an example, because of my reputation in the field of music, I can expect that personnel in my congregation will heed my directions on musical decisions. That does not mean they will accord equal respect to my decorating ideas!

Competent authority and legitimate authority have a converse side as well. In Jewish culture, the rabbi is accorded great position power, or legitimate authority by virtue of his competence in the lore and lifestyle revered by the people. To the degree that our leaders fail to demonstrate an equivalent level of personal holiness and learning, we undermine our credibility when we take the name "rabbi." For this reason, more often than not I am uncomfortable with the title, although I defer to my congregation's preferences in this matter. On the positive side, bearing such a revered title is a constant incentive to humility, to personal growth and to study.

5 Personal authority is a form of power in which a leader obtains or expects compliance (but cannot demand it) by virtue of the followers recognition of the leader's personal characteristics." [25] This kind of power includes the personality, sincerity and charisma of the leader, his connections with influential and powerful people, and his natural abilities, spiritual gifts, and acquired skills. All of these contribute to making the person attractive and influential in the lives of followers, PERSUASION The persuasive power form refers to any influence means such as arguments, appeals or exhortations whereby the leader gains compliance of the follower yet protects the freedom of the follower to exercise moral responsibility.  This approach underscores all of Scripture. Indeed, even God does not compel compliance, and attests through the prophets how his people consistently resisted his appeals. Perhaps this truth is best seen in Yeshua's weeping indictment of Jerusalem: "how often would I have gathered you to me, ... but you would not" (Matt. 23:37).

Even though persuasion is all the way over on the right- hand side of our diagram, I find it still subject to abuse when persuasive people, gifted in argumentation fail to accord to their listeners the freedom to say "No." I remember a believing friend, thirty years ago, who was such an intimidating arguer and proponent that she won too many arguments on the force of her personality alone. This is not the kind of persuasion which God commends. Whenever people are denied their rightful freedoms, even their freedom to disagree, abuse occurs.

Spiritual Authority: Breakfast of God's Champions One of Clinton's key insights is this: "effective leaders value spiritual authority as a primary power base."[26] We see from an examination of Figure 2. that it takes a whole range of power forms to lead God's people, but it should be the goal of every leader to increasingly lead his people toward maturity. This means moving them toward the right in the power forms to which they respond.

God's leaders should be leading God's people to respond to spiritual authority. But what exactly is spiritual authority? It is "the right to influence conferred upon a leader by followers because of their perception of spirituality in that leader."[27] There are three ways spiritual authority is developed. First, as leaders have deep experiences with God in which they discover His sufficiency, they develop an experiential knowledge of God, leading to spiritual authority. Second, as the Spirit conforms leaders more and more to the image of Messiah, the fruit of the Spirit and character of the Son become more and more manifest. This also confers spiritual authority. Third, when leaders demonstrate gifted power in ministry, when they demonstrate the anointing of God upon their efforts, they have spiritual authority among their followers.

Characteristics and Limits of Spiritual Authority Clinton stresses six characteristics of spiritual authority.[28]

First, spiritual authority is delegated by God and comes from Messiah and his Spirit working in us. He legitimates our authority, and we are accountable to him for how we exercise it.

Second, spiritual authority rests upon an experiential power base. It comes from an ongoing relationship with God and the accumulated wisdom and development this entails. The Spirit enables followers to detect a leader who knows God, as opposed to one who simply knows about God.

Third, spiritual authority relies upon persuasion. Such leaders are virtually always gifted in word gifts such as teaching and prophecy. They exercise legitimate and personal authority. To have longevity, such authority must be buttressed by competent authority.

Fourth, the ultimate aim of the leader is the good of the followers, not just the task before them. Paul speaks of this in 2 Corinthians 10:8 where he refers to his authority to build the believers up, not to tear them down. Would to God that more leaders lived by this credo!

Fifth, spiritually authority is best evaluated over time as one assesses the spiritual growth of those being led. This means that coercive and manipulative forms of power, although effective in the short term, simply reproduce like qualities in followers, and fail to produce real Messiah-like maturity. On the other hand, leaders who exercise spiritual authority will produce followers who in turn make mature choices and mature disciples.

Last, a leader who truly operates in spiritual authority will recognize that his authority comes from the God to whom he is accountable. Such a leader relies upon God as his vindicator. He knows that those who disobey his leadership ultimately are accountable to God. This kind of leader is neither insecure nor defensive.

When Power is Abused Two recent books on the theme of spiritual abuse – The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1991) and Faith That Hurts, Faith That Heals by Stephen Arterburn and Jack Felton (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992) – have helped many to recognize and respond to abuses of power in congregational and organizational contexts. These books are reviewed expertly elsewhere in Kesher, but a few comments are in order to integrate their insights with the studies I have summarized.

Johnson and VanVonderen define spiritual abuse as follows:

Spiritual abuse is the mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining or decreasing that person's spiritual empowerment.[29] This definition of abuse is relationship centered. As leaders, we dare not forget that God gives us responsibility not simply for tasks, but also for people. Sadly, many spiritual leaders are so task oriented that their people's well-being loses importance.

Johnson and VanVonderen state that spiritual abuse can occur "when a leader uses his or her spiritual position to control or dominate another person."[30] They expand upon this focus, showing how leaders can treat people as less than people in pursuit of "the Lord's work." It is true that Yeshua spoke much of the harvest, but we also find Ya'akov (James 5:4-5) excoriating those who abuse the harvesters.

Leaders of God's people should balance concern for ministry tasks with an equal concern for people, expressed in protection of their rights, dignity, and growth. When leaders feel powerful and their people feel powerless, something is desperately wrong.

In their book, Arterburn and Felton concentrate on religious addiction, "a relationship with a religion that allows the religion, not the relationship with God, to control a person's life."[31] This would also include allowing spiritual leaders or organizations to usurp God's role in one's life. This occurs more easily whenever the leader or organization is clearly concerned for the Lord's work. They attract high-quality people who are highly motivated spiritually and easily prone to worship the work of the Lord instead of the Lord of the work. The leader or organization embodying that work too often becomes an idol to be served and protected. As Arterburn and Felton state:

Persons connected with a harmful faith system must be able to work under the authoritarian, manipulative rule of the head of the family or organization. They become order takers and must exhibit blind faith in the leader [who] becomes so strong that he or she replaces God in the lives of those in the dysfunctional faith system.[32]

So then, let us never let the work become more important to us than people: Messiah died for people, not projects. And let us never allow ourselves or our leaders to usurp the role of God in the lives of the people whom we are called to serve. They serve God, not us: and God calls us to serve them. We serve them and him best when we keep this in mind.

Stuart Dauermann chairs the UMJC Theology Committee and leads Ahavat Zion Synagogue in Beverly Hills. He is on the Editorial Staff of Kesher.

End Notes:

1. Dr. James Robert Clinton. Leadership Emergence Theory: A Self-Study Manual for Analyzing the Development of a Christian Leader. (Altadena, CA: Barnabas Publishers, 1989) p. 36

2. Hersey and Blanchard define power as "influence potential - the resource that enables a leader to gain compliance or commitment form ohters." Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Fifth edition. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988) p. 202

3. Ibid., p. 146

4. Dr. James Robert Clinton. Leadership PerspectivesL How to Study the Bible for Leadership Insights. (Altadena, CA: Barnabas Publishers, 1993) p. 42

5. Hersey and Blanchard term their leadership model "Situational Leadership: and suggest that "there is no one best way to influence people. which leadership style a person shuld use with individuals or groups depends on the readiness level of the people the leader is attempting to influence." 1988, p. 171

6. Clinton, 1993, p. 46

7. Graduate workshop at Fuller Theological Seminary. June, 1996.

8. Clinton, 1993, p. 47

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid. p. 48

11. Ibid. p. 49

12. Ibid. p. 50

13. Ibid. p. 51

14. Ibid. p. 52

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Here we are using the term "psychic: stripped of its fortune-teller connotations, but rather as pertaining to something outside of natural or scientific knowledge, or broadly speaking, anything int he spiritual realm.

18. Based on Robert Clinton's adaptation of a schema developed by Dennis Wrong. Clinton, 1993, p. 54. Used by permission.

19. Clinton, 1993, p. 56

20. Hersey and Blanchard, 1988, p. 214

21. Clinton, 1993, p. 56

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid. p. 57

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid. p. 58

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid. p. 60

29. Johnson and Van Vonderen, 1991, p. 29

30. Ibid.

31. Arterburn and Felton, 1992, p. 21

32. Ibid. p. 194