Shifting Ecclesial Leadership (Jesus and Paul)

Jesus has been the most influential leader in the history of humanity. No other human has had the impact that Christ has had on the world. His leadership was unique in modernity and continues to be unique in post modernity. However, the church, within either modernity or post modernity, valued different aspects of the leadership of Jesus. As an illustration, the church of modernity looked at Jesus as an orchestra maestro. The one whom stands before the orchestra and instructs the followers exactly what to play, at what time, how loud, and in what count. A scriptural example of Jesus as leader to the modern church would have been the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5-7 is filled with straightforward advice on how to act within the world. Jesus’ words were filled with wisdom on what to do, what not to do, who is blessed and who is not. He gives a very specific way to pray, he speaks of light and dark, and gives concise instruction on fasting. All in all, his words as a leader were succinct, to the point, and while they were life altering, they were regularly black and white. On the other hand, the church in the post modern world should view the leader Jesus as the point person for a jazz band. Quoting Eddie Gibbs,

“The jazz band leader is in facilitating creative improvisation by every member of the group… Jazz bands cannot simply be assembled on the spot as a group of strangers able to perform together. Time is required for each player to understand the others’ personalities and style.”


In other words, jazz bands require relationship. Scripturally this type of leadership is seen in Jesus as he functions in relationships with the people that he pursued. He tells them stories that connect the ultimate reality of God to their personal stories. Jesus as this type of leader is encountered as he speaks the Parable of the Shrewd Manager to the Pharisees, or as he tells numerous farming parables to a people whose lives are centered upon farming. His words are relevant to the current cultural context that he is dwelling within. Both modern and postmodern contexts have allowed the church to highlight Jesus as a leader. While the emphasis on different scriptures may be different for the two contexts, overall Jesus’ revolutionary message and leadership create space for influence in either.
While the church within modernity may never admit it, in many ways, the apostle Paul was their “leader” of choice. Much more than that of the life and ministry of Jesus, Paul set forth a relatively rational approach to reality. From the earlier definition of modernity, a rational approach to reality fits well. So as Paul writes letter after letter to communities articulating logical hierarchal ecclesial structures, laying forth rational systematic theologies, and communicating numerous black and white lists of “dos” and “don’ts”, the modern church latched on in agreement. However, the transition into post modernity does not mean the death of Paul as a leader! In fact, there are two clear examples of how post modernity will bring to light a different side of his person. The first side of Paul as leader that will be rediscovered in post modernity is his relational side. People of the postmodern generation do not prefer to live in isolation, and neither did Paul. For example, Paul lived in Ephesus for 27 to 36 months, building relationship networks with people and therefore building the church. The second side of Paul’s leadership that will be better articulated in post modernity will be his passion for different people groups and for diversity. There is increased differentiation and fragmentation in the postmodern world, as there was in the numerous different communities that Paul spent time leading. Unlike the majority of the modern world, the postmodern world celebrates diversity. Paul also celebrated diversity, and this was especially made known in Paul’s letter to Galatia as he wrote that all are one. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Similar to the leadership of Jesus, the leadership of Paul can handle both modern and post modern contexts.
The leadership gifts of both Jesus and Paul are able to sustain either modern or postmodern contexts. We must not make the “modern” mistake in our shift into post modernity of forgetting the work of modernity. I submit that unlike modernity, post modernity gives humanity the opportunity to better “balance”. Whatever the balance may be, leaders must encourage churches into balance, rather than into extremes. So often modernity became a time for extremes. The time was filled with the divisive “either/or” framework of speech, thought and action. Post modernity is an opportunity to leave behind the division of “either/or”, and emphasize the balance that comes in “both/and” thinking, speech and action. The most important balance for leaders within the church in the culture of post modernity will be the proper balance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. So often the either/or of modernity led churches to only focus on one or the other. The rest of this paper will argue that the people in North American churches that 21st century ecclesial leaders will be leading, strongly desire a proper balance of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy, which will best be able to happen with an emphasis upon the often missing link between the two, orthokrisis.