Incarnational
Leadership in a
Postmodern Culture
Peter M. Dickens
Integrative Paper
Masters of Theological Studies
Modular Program (M10)
Mailbox 1519
April, 2003
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
There are a great many people I need to thank for guiding this paper as well as the
support they have given me through the whole MTS adventure. I am grateful to the
faculty and staff at Tyndale Seminary, especially Donald Goertz and Byron Wheaton
who directed the program. I am particularly indebted to three specific professors who
really inspired me: Dennis Ngien, Bob Webb and my advisor, Jeff Greenman and I am
indebted to my spiritual friends and mentors: Mike Baer, Bruxy Cavey and Walter
Moodie.
I am incredibly grateful to my wonderful wife Shelly and my daughters, Lindsey and
Shannon. Without their support and encouragement, this could never have been done.
Finally, I have to acknowledge the personal, professional and financial support of Ken
White, President and CEO of Trillium Health Centre. As friend, mentor and
accountability partner, Ken has shown me what it means to be a servant-leader and it is
to him that I dedicate this work.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 2
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................
3
The Call to Leadership .........................................................................
5
Old Testament Perspectives on Leadership .....................................................
7

Introduction ..........................................................................................
7

Nebuchadnezzar: ..................................................................................
7

Saul ......................................................................................................
10
New Testament Perspectives on Leadership....................................................
14

Introduction ..........................................................................................
14

Mark 10: Jesus on Leadership..............................................................
14

Ephesians 4: Paul on Leadership .........................................................
16

A Trinitarian Perspective .....................................................................
19
Putting it together: Character and Role of a Leader ........................................
23

Introduction ..........................................................................................
23

Character ..............................................................................................
23

Attributes..............................................................................................
24

Roles ....................................................................................................
26
Postmodernism: The Emerging Context for Leadership .................................
28
Leadership in a Postmodern Culture ................................................................
35
Organizational Metaphors and Postmodernism ...............................................
40
Conclusion .......................................................................................................
48
Appendix: Diakonos – Leadership Development Ministry Strategy ...............
51
Bibliography ....................................................................................................
53

Peter M. Dickens
P. 3
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Introduction
It has been my observation as a consultant that, as organizations struggle to come
to terms with the many shifts and changes that affect their performance and capacity to
survive, they are becoming increasingly sensitive to the need to focus resources on
improving the depth and breadth of leadership. “Good CEOs – like GE’s Jeff Immelt,
3M’s Jim McNerney, and Nokia’s Jorma Olillia – treat leadership development as their
number one priority.”1 Given this challenge the church has a unique opportunity to
exercise its capacity to influence and inform the character of people in leadership roles,
whether they are in private, public and social sector organizations. There is a looming
crisis in secular organizations at the very time that there is an emerging opportunity for
the church and its understanding of its mission in and to the world. The Chinese ideogram
for the word ‘crisis’ is ‘danger/opportunity’ and it is inherent in the very nature of crisis
that we can respond to an opportunity to see business as an extraordinarily important and
verdant mission field. It is my conviction that, while new paradigms of leadership in the
church are equally vital, my particular perspective and experience can speak more
coherently to the challenge of developing Christ-like leaders who are capable of living
the Gospel in their workplaces – and in the process transforming their organizations.
My hope is that we can develop a strategy that would help form the character of
individuals who were recognized and respected as influential leaders in their secular
organizations when evaluated by whatever ethical standards their organizations choose to
use. While their senior management and colleagues may not recognize, understand or
even value the basis on which this leadership capacity was developed, the individuals
themselves would humbly acknowledge that their ability to influence is grounded in their
understanding of Christ’s call on their lives and their work. It is my sense that many if not
most Christians who are not professionally involved in the work of the Church live two
very independent lives. They have their lives at work and their lives within their
community of faith. For some there may be a degree of overlap guided by people like
Larry Burkett, Doug Sherman and William Hendricks who help us see how to apply
1
Noel M. Tichy. “Leadership Development: Perk or Priority?”. Harvard Business Review. May, 2003. P. 36
Peter M. Dickens
P. 4
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
biblical ethics in the workplace. What we need to do is to put much more thought into
how we live fully integrated lives that do not change as the environment around us
changes. To say that a Christian in the marketplace will be marked simply by their ethical
behaviour is to conform to a theology of works righteousness that is insufficient and
ultimately inconsistent with the salvific affect of grace. If we are to be known as
Christians by our love, then that must be apparent in every aspect of who we are in all
contexts and environments.
To this end, I will try and develop a biblical model of leadership and then look for
some of the key ways in which that model can inform the way that individuals live out
their leadership on a day-to-day basis. In this regard, I take Carson’s caution seriously
when he points out the risks in trying to develop a systematic theology of leadership
rather than “considering the Bible’s plot-line, and its priorities and scales on that plotline.”2 My first reading of the Old Testament left me with a perception that “powerleadership” was the dominant model of Old Covenant leadership and that it was the
inauguration of the New Covenant that ushered in service-oriented language related to
leadership. However, wise counsel and a closer reading have demonstrated that there are
clear markers throughout the Old Testament that point to the servant heart of Christ.
There are several passages that speak to the issue of leadership and I could be accused of
taking an deductive approach in terms of the verses I have identified and in the limited
exegesis I have done, but I am trying to establish an overall framework.
I have identified two key Old Testament passages that speak to the issues of
leadership along the Biblical plotline. The first is Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniels
subsequent interpretation and the second is the story of Saul in 1 Samuel. Both speak to
the issue of power and leadership. In the New Testament, I believe there is value in
paying particular attention to Jesus’ firm words about leadership in Mark 10:43 – 47 and
then look at Ephesians 4: 1 - 16 through a leadership lens. Finally, I will look at the
leadership models that emerge out of our understanding of the “differentiated unity”3 of
the Trinity, which will help us understand the nature of leadership in the Kingdom of
God.
2
3
D.A. Carson. The Gagging of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. P. 545.
A phrase I attribute to Dr. Dennis Ngien, professor of systematic theology at Tyndale.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 5
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
With this biblical framework in place, I will try and develop a clear, concise
understanding of the issues of leadership as they relate to our current culture and
environment. This will mean an assessment of modernism and postmodernism from the
perspective of leadership. In order to understand what is being said about leadership in
the 21st century, I have surveyed a sample of current secular leadership material in
order to develop an antithetical framework. In this regard, I have also surveyed a
sample of Christian literature and perspectives on leadership in order to see where
potential bridges might exist. Whether we are coming from a Christian or secular
perspective, much of our understanding of management and leadership is framed by the
language or images that we use to describe or define the organizations in which we
work. I will examine six different metaphors, look at the implications for leadership and
try and identify those metaphors that are most useful in a postmodern culture. This will
be the framework within which I then develop some foundational principles of
leadership.
Based on these principles, I will try to articulate leadership development strategies
in order to create an approach that I believe will be effective in terms of creating
significant and sustained change in the hearts and minds of young leaders in the
marketplace.
The Call to Leadership
It is my sense that leadership is not limited to a task or a position on an
organizational chart. Hence, it should never be confused with ‘management’. While we
would hope that effective, efficient managers also have the capacity to be leaders, it is
not always the case. Leadership is not a set of skills, or even an attitude. I believe that it
speaks to the very core of who a person is: how they see the world, the moral, ethical
and experiential framework within which they make decisions, how they live out their
lives, interact with others and, ultimately, how they view themselves in relationship
with God. When a true leader looks at the world, they don’t see products or programs,
structures or marketplaces; they see people. They see people and they see those people
in dynamic, interdependent relationships. If they are biblically based, they also see
those people as made in the image of God and recognize that all share in the common
Peter M. Dickens
P. 6
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
effects of sin. As Bob Greenleaf once suggested, leadership would be easy if everyone
was perfect.4 However, it is within those people and those relationships that true
leaders see the potential for positive change and they feel called to take a role in
effecting that change. Ultimately, they see that an important role requires that they
engage in relationship with others. Leaders do not necessarily claim to be the one who
will direct and control the change. Words like directing and controlling belong to a
short-term, power approach that has never proven its long-term value. True leaders
have a key role to play but it is not necessarily a highly visible one. On some occasions,
often in times of crisis, they must have the courage to step out in front and take charge.
Over the long-term, however, the role is more often one of equipping and supporting
others so they, too, can play their roles as leaders. This means that there are no limits to
leadership in the sense that it is confined within an organizational structure. Anyone in
any circumstance can begin to look at the world around them through a leadership lens
and begin to affect change.
In the final analysis, leadership is a calling. As we will see in the case of Saul, it
is sometimes a calling to a very specific task in a particular moment. Over the long
haul, however, it is a calling to fully integrate who we are called to be with what we are
called to do. In other words it is about the character of the leader as it is lived out in
their particular set of circumstances. The ‘incarnational’ leadership that Christ calls us
to is a full integration of both. We cannot live in a vacuum but must rather express who
we are in the daily challenges and opportunities of our daily lives.
4
Bob Greenleaf. The Power of Servant Leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1998. P. 12
Peter M. Dickens
P. 7
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Old Testament Perspectives on Leadership
Introduction
We can see patterns of many of our modernist perceptions of leadership in the
attitudes and behaviours of several of the rulers of the Old Testament. By and large,
leaders from Saul to Caesar are role models for the sort of “power leadership” that
many today continue to embrace. It is no surprise that even avowed Evangelical
Christians such as George Bush turn to the Old Testament to bolster their self-image
and credibility. This OT perspective emphasizes what Paul Stevens would call a
“reverse service model in that the ‘followers’ provide service to the person in
authority.”5
For many of us, the only consistent image we have of a ‘leader’ is a military
hero astride a white horse leading their forces into battle. Little wonder that virtually all
of the titular leaders of the OT are associated with military ability. The images may
vary but the effect is the same. These leaders rely almost exclusively on structural or
physical power to achieve results. However, when we seek out God’s perspective, a
different picture begins to emerge. We begin to see that God’s perspective on human
leadership is a paradox.
Nebuchadnezzar: The Ultimate Warrior
Biblical accounts as well as the writings of Josephus6 give clear testimony to the
military and organizational prowess of Nebuchadnezzar. The Cambridge Ancient
History describes him as “a vigorous and brilliant commander, and physically as well
as mentally a strong man, fully worthy of succeeding his father. He was to become the
greatest man of his time in the Near East, as a soldier, statesman and an architect.” 7 For
our purposes, we can accept Nebuchadnezzar as the quintessential example of power
5
Robert Banks and Paul Stevens. The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity. Downers Grove:
intervarsity, 1997. P. 565.
6
Paul L. Maier. Josephus: The Essential Writings. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1988. P. 180 –
183.
7
Vol. III page 212, quoted by Michael Sanders in an article on Saddam Hussein. http://
www.biblemysteries.com/ library/saddam.htm
Peter M. Dickens
P. 8
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
leadership and yet he is completely humbled both physically and metaphorically before
the God of Daniel.
In the dream and subsequent interpretation described in Daniel 4, we get a clear
sense of the type of leadership that God requires. Interestingly, Nebuchadnezzar’s own
perception of Daniel’s God, as described, in 4:1 – 3 is framed in the language of power.
In his dream, the king sees an enormous tree that was “visible to the ends of the earth”
(4:11)8 echoing God’s dominion. In his dream, the king hears a messenger from heaven
ordering that the tree be cut down, “so that the living may know the Most High is
sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over
them the lowliest of men” (4:17). This is the decisive passage in that the messengers
confirm that all temporal kingdoms, all power, all rights of leadership flow not from the
leader themselves but from the authority of God. It is God’s choice to appoint leaders
and it is His decision whom to appoint. As has been pointed out, “The Aramaic term
(the lowliest of men) has the sense of positive humility rather than a negative sense that
may possibly communicate the idea of ‘the scum of the earth’. It is therefore perhaps
better to translate something like ‘the most humble person.’”9 This is echoed in
Hannah’s song of thanksgiving. “He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy
from the ash heap to make them sit with nobles and inherit a seat of honor.” 10
As Towner points out, the price that temporal leaders pay for setting themselves
above God is both swift and decisive. “Nebuchadnezzar the earthly king affirms his
sovereignty in a reasonable mild statement, ‘Is this not the great Babylon which I built
for a seat of government by my mighty power and for my majestic glory?’ The
heavenly voice announces that this arrogation of glory has triggered the sentence of
God, whereupon Nebuchadnezzar becomes the pitiful grass-eating and claw-bearing
beast that the dream had anticipated.”11
8
All biblical quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise specified.
Rene Peter-Contesse and John Ellington. A Handbook on the Book of Daniel. New York: UBS
Handbook Series, 1993. P. 112.
10The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation)
1996.
11
W. Sibley Towner’s commentary on Daniel in Harper’s Bible Commentary. James L. Mays, General
Editor. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988. P. 700.
9
Peter M. Dickens
P. 9
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Daniel’s interpretation of the dream and the subsequent fulfillment (28 – 30)
leave no doubt as to who is in complete control and who has the real power. What is
extraordinary is Nebuchadnezzar’s response. Rather than bitterness towards this foreign
God who claims – and demonstrates – a sovereignty far greater than the king’s,
Nebuchadnezzar “praised the Most High; I honoured and glorified him who lives
forever” (4:34) and affirms the absolute power of God to both give and withhold power.
This passage helps us begin to define God’s vision of leadership both by what it is
and by what it is not. Leadership is not synonymous with the exercise of power and control
because those belong to God. However, God clearly chooses to give specific individuals
enormous power and the trappings and wealth that go with it. How they respond to this gift
reflects the inevitable affect of sin. Even if the leader initially acknowledges the source of
their power is from God, sin seduces them into believing that it is theirs by right not grace.
The deeper affect of sin is that they come to believe that their power is a consequence of
their own actions, abilities or wisdom. They are no longer in relationship with God,
operating as His agent but set themselves apart from God, operating independently.
God’s expectation of leadership is first and foremost humility before Him. This is
demonstrated when Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges God’s sovereignty because all of his
honour and splendour are returned to him. This suggests that there is nothing inherently
wrong with the marks of leadership as long as they are recognized as coming from God at
His pleasure. It also suggests that there is nothing wrong with desiring to lead. Certainly
Nebuchadnezzar never indicates that he wants to lay aside his power. What matters is the
relationship the leader has with God and the degree to which they “Praise and exalt and
glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just.
And all those who walk in pride, he is able to humble.” (4:37)
From this, the lesson learned for the Christian leader is that they must have a very
clear understanding of their relationship with God. They must see themselves in service to
Him and must acknowledge that all of the marks and resources available to them as leaders
are there by the grace of God not as a right or consequence of their action. It is too easy to
see oneself in a leadership role based on one’s ‘career development’ and personal growth,
both very popular concepts on the workplace, but this does not reflect the biblical reality of
God’s role in calling us for His purposes.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 10
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Saul: An Impressive Young Man Without Equal
I think that there are some important lessons to be learned about the difference
between God’s perspective on leadership and that of a fallen humanity when we look
all too briefly at the calling of Saul into leadership. Saul, famously described by Milton
as “he who, seeking asses, founded a kingdom”12, initially bore all the marks of a
“heroic leader.”13 Because of the fallen-ness of Samuel’s sons, the people of Israel
came to the prophet seeking a king so that they would be like all the other nations (1
Samuel 8:5). Although they had been called out and declared a holy nation, the people
of Israel failed to understand the import of that calling. Rather than giving glory to the
very God who claimed them as His own, they wanted to be like all the rest. God
recognized their folly and through Samuel warned the people that this strategy could
only lead to ruin. As Long points out, “Ideologically, monarchy in Israel was
acceptable only insofar as it was not ‘like (that of) all the other nations’: that is, only
insofar as the king was willing to acknowledge his subordination to the Great King and
his designated spokesman.”14 God as King constantly provides for His people, as he
demonstrated time and time again. By contrast, the sort of power leadership implicit in
an earthly king is very resource hungry. It does not provide but rather it demands. Five
times in 1 Samuel 10 – 18 we are warned how an earthly king will take from his people.
However, Samuel’s arguments are to no avail and Saul is anointed king. His primary
attributes seem to be that he is the son of a man of standing (9:1) and is himself “an
impressive young man without equal among the Israelites – a head taller than any of the
others.” (9:2). These characteristics are so often what we look for in charismatic
leaders even today. We want people who will stand out in a crowd, regardless of their
character. Saul is not only impressive looking he is the only king in the Old Testament
who is both king and prophet. We are told that he is transformed by the Spirit of the
Lord and that God ‘changed his heart’ (10:9) He also has very clear direction on the
12
Quoted by Eugene Peterson. First and Second Samuel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press,
1999. P. 59
13
I am indebted to Jimmy Long for introducing me to this term during and its postmodern counterpart,
postheroic leadership during a private conversation. Both will be explored further in subsequent sections
of this paper.
14
V. Phillips Long. The Reign and Rejection of King Saul. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. P 90.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 11
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
regulation of kingship (10:25). All of this should have equipped him for a superb reign,
but instead he falls into the trap that so often ensnares leaders. He feels compelled to be
decisive and to take action on his own. While it can be argued that he abides by the
letter of Samuel’s directions he misses the spirit and Samuel rebukes him. “You have
acted foolishly”, Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the LORD your God
gave you.” (13:13). The foolish aspect of Saul’s act was that he thought he could
strengthen Israel’s chances against the Philistines while disregarding the Lord’s prophet
Samuel. He waited the appointed time (10:8) but then took matters into his own hands.
Samuel had made it very clear that it was to be he who offered offerings and sacrifice,
not Saul. As a consequence, the Lord’s favour is withdrawn from Saul. At first reading,
it seems the punishment greatly exceeds the crime. Saul is not an evil man, the
progenitor of the many truly wicked rulers that the people of Israel will be forced to
endure. Indeed, “commentators are in some disagreement as to the sin in 1 Samuel 13.
Abrogation of the priestly role or failure to be obedient to the spirit of Yahweh and his
appointed prophet.” 15 In my mind, this element of the story reminds us that God often
uses the most unlikely of people to carry out His will. “It is one of the many signs of
the reality and truthfulness of Scriptural history, that the examples most held up for our
warning are not those of the worst men, but those of persons in whom there has been a
doubtful conflict between good and evil, and the evil has ultimately prevailed.”16
Samuel makes the distinction between God’s expectations and our earthly
perspective clear in 15:22 when he says, “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and
sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better that sacrifice.”
Clearly there is more to our submission and obedience as servants of God than simple
doing the right things. God’s vision of leadership is confirmed in Micah 6:8. “What does
the LORD require of you? To act justly, love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
This walk with the LORD is not just something that takes place for the Christian when
they are engaged with other Christians. As Peterson points out when discussing 1 Samuel
13, “The way the story is told guarantees that we will recognize that acts of faith take
place in the so-called ‘real world’ – a world of named towns, of strategic troop
15
Peterson. P. 59.
James Hastings quoted in David M. Gunn. The Fate of King Saul. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of
Old Testament Supplement Series, 14, 1980. P.27.
16
Peter M. Dickens
P. 12
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
deployments, of military statistics, of probability and odds. This is the setting for
understanding faith and obedience.”17 In the same way, the Christian leader in the
marketplace of today must understand the consequences of not living out their faith and
obedience in their daily lives.
What then is the character of a leader who will be pleasing to God? The lesson
learned from the story of Saul is that we must make very clear distinctions between the
human and divine perspective. The leadership displayed by Saul, despite all the
preparation that he received, demonstrates the effect of sin. In the hands of fallen
humanity, leadership becomes rooted in human rather than divine power and we
misconstrue many of the key aspects of leadership. Building on the lessons learned
from Daniel and extended in 1 Samuel, let me suggest that we need to consider four
elements of leadership.

Position. From a human perspective, positions of leadership are either seized by
force of arms or are appointed by other people. From a biblical perspective,
leadership is the free gift of God and can be given to the most humble. Therefore,
one of the attributes of a Christian leader is that they are not dependent on their
position to exercise influence. They are empowered by the character and will of
God, not by human structures. This is enormously liberating because it shapes a
paradigm for Christians in the marketplace to lead from wherever God has placed
them rather than limiting their potential to formal roles. It also removes an excuse
for inaction based on a lack of positional power.

Resources. Just as Samuel warned he would, Saul became a king who wanted to
control the wealth of the nation. Resources became a means for exercising
control. From a biblical perspective, we have to acknowledge that all resources
come from God and are to be used for His glory, not our own. God also
demonstrates His faithfulness in providing exactly the resources that are required
to fulfill His purposes. A second attribute of a Christian leader is that they have
confidence in God’s willingness and ability to provide the required resources.
17
Peterson. P. 79
Peter M. Dickens
P. 13
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
They do not use a lack of resources as an excuse for timidity but rather have the
courage to take faith-based risks.

Conformity. Leaders who are grounded in their own power demand that followers
conform to their desires and expectations. Leaders who are biblically grounded
understand that they and their followers must conform to the will of God. “Saul
violated a fundamental requirement of his theocratic office. His kingship was not
to function independently of the law and the prophets.”18 A third attribute of a
Christian leader is that they are willing to stand apart from the norms and
expectations of the organizations in which they work when those norms are not
aligned with God’s expectations. This may take enormous courage but it is the
basis on which Christian integrity and authenticity must be formed.

Interdependence. Leaders rooted in their human power often act independent of God
and of those around them. We even celebrate the fact that charismatic leaders often
‘walk to the beat of a different drum’ and insist on doing things their own way and in
their own time. Certainly Saul demonstrated that propensity. Biblically-based leaders
acknowledge first and foremost their total dependence on God but they also
acknowledge that they must work interdependently with, and often in submission to
others. As the point was just made in regard to conformity, Saul was to rule in
relationship with Samuel, not separate and apart from him. The fourth attribute of the
Christian leader is that they must place the highest priority on relationships.
As Os Guinness reminds us, “God alone needs nothing outside himself, because
he himself is the highest and only lasting good. So all objects we desire short of God
are as finite and incomplete as we ourselves are and, therefore, disappointing if we
make them the objects of ultimate desire.”19 It is when the leader loses their
understanding that they are called to serve God’s plans rather than to have God serve
theirs that they face the same harsh consequences that befell Saul.
18
19
Notes from the Concordia NIV Study Bible. Saint Louis: CPH, 1984.
Os Guiness. The Call. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998. P. 13.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 14
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
New Testament Perspectives on Leadership
Introduction
In many ways, the story of the Old Testament is the story of how leadership has
been perverted by the affects of sin. The stories we read are of leaders who have
forgotten their relationship with God and who have become enmeshed in a very
elevated sense of their power. From these stories we get a very clear picture of what
leadership is not and we see that there are dire consequences for a leadership paradigm
that is rooted in our humanity. Along the way, however, we see many pointers to the
true character of Godly leadership.
In the New Testament these attributes seem to become more explicit as Jesus
and then Paul become very intentional about discipling people. They are not willing to
let the attributes of Godly leadership be inferred from the consequences of failure but
rather want to define positive models in very clear terms.
Mark 10: Jesus on Leadership
When Jesus is confronted by James and John (Mark 10:35), who want to be
seated on his left and right hand in heaven, he turns their thinking upside down. They
are looking ahead with eyes and hearts that are conditioned by a very human leadership
paradigm. They think they are prepared to suffer with Jesus, to drink the cup he drinks,
but only because they assume that in the end it will mean that they will be in positions
of extraordinary power and influence. Jesus uses this opportunity to impress upon all
twelve disciples the true meaning of leadership and, as Waetjen suggests, “in this
context of the Zebedee brother’s pursuit of elitist positions for themselves, and the
indignation of the other disciples, Jesus proceeds to reinforce his teaching by
contrasting the pyramidal verticality of the kingdoms of this world and the kind of
human relations that maintain the horizontality of God’s rule which he is building. This
is how authentic community and communion are constituted and maintained.”20 He
confirms their understanding of the secular paradigm, that leadership is about lording it
Herman C. Waetjen. A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark’s Gospel.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1989. P. 176.
20
Peter M. Dickens
P. 15
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
over others and exercising authority. “There is biting irony in the reference to those
who give the illusion of ruling (cf. Jn 19:11) but simply exploit the people over whom
they exercise dominion. In their struggle for rank and precedence, and their desire to
exercise authority for their own advantage, the disciples were actually imitating those
whom they undoubtedly despised. (James and John are still thinking in terms of a
Messiah who will free them from the rulers of Rome)”21 Jesus, with uncharacteristic
bluntness declares, “Not so with you” (Mark 10:43). From Jesus’ perspective,
leadership is first and foremost about being a servant (diakonos) and ultimate power is
about ultimate submission, as a slave (doulos). “The order of life for the common
dealings of the disciples is to be love, expressed in the form of service. This transforms
the question of rank and greatness into the task of service.”22
To confirm the point, Jesus points ahead to the cross and says, “Even the Son of
Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
The implications of Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream become
fulfilled. This is the cup Jesus challenges James and John to drink, the baptism with
which they must be baptized. As we will see with Peter, it is not a cup any of them, or
any of us, can take unless we are transformed through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The lessons to be learned for the Christian leader are clear. While the Old
Testament has indicated that God can, and will put even the most humble in positions
of power, Jesus challenges each of us to make that descent into the lowest of positions a
choice of the will, empowered by the Holy Spirit. It is not so much that God can invest
the lowliest with power but that he expects his people to lead from that position. To
make his point crystal clear he comes himself in the form of a slave, making himself
nothing (Phil 2:7). What then are the attributes and character of a slave that we need to
understand?

Position. They have no formal standing status, but are in fact ‘bondsmen’ whose
very existence is dependent on another.
21
William L. Lane. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. P 382
22
Lane. P. 382.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 16
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture

Resources. They certainly have none of their own but are in fact viewed simply
as a resource themselves, something to be used to meet the needs of another.

Conformity. They are expected to fully conform to the will of others.

Interdependence. They have no rights or privileges of their own but are to
depend entirely on others for their care and keeping.
These perspectives present enormous challenges in a Western culture that puts such
a high premium on self-esteem, independence and power. In fact they fly completely in
the face of much of the advice we receive in our workplaces and from authors rooted in
a secular perspective although it is interesting to note how more and more secular
literature is beginning to reflect the language of servant-leadership.23
Ephesians 4: Leadership In Community
In Ephesians, Paul rebukes the idea that faith is the work of the believer and
states clearly: “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith – and this is not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that none may boast.” (2:8 – 9)
Like the OT passages we have examined, it expands our thinking from simply the
praxis of leadership to an ontological view. In the eyes of God, we are who we are
because of the saving work of Christ not because of anything we have done. This is as
true of our faith as it is of our ability to influence others. Ephesians 4 helps us to
understand the leader within the context of community. While the chapter speaks in
terms of the whole body of believers, we can extrapolate the same message to those
whom God has called to serve as leaders within that community or in a workplace
environment.
In 4:2, Paul immediately establishes his expectations in a way that echoes the
language of each of the passages we have heretofore examined. “Be completely humble
and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.” It is important to note that the
words Paul uses for humbleness and gentleness are not words that the Greek would
23
Examples include the aforementioned Bob Greenleaf, Peter Senge, and James Autry.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 17
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
recommend.24 Bruce puts it well when he says that, “Lowliness or humility was
regarded as more of a vice than a virtue in pagan antiquity, although the Old Testament
anticipates the Christian revelation by affirming repeatedly that God chose the humble
to be his companions. It was the influence of One who was meek and lowly in heart,
operating in His followers, that elevated a term which had formerly been despicable
rather than praiseworthy”25 Bruce ties a direct link to the passage from Daniel and
ensures that we construct our understanding of what it means to be a Christian on the
basis of humility, in direct contrast to the world’s expectations.
Paul then moves from unity to diversity, anticipating Ngien’s ‘differentiated
unity’. Barth puts it beautifully when he says, “The contract and expansion (systole and
diastole) of the heart would be an analogy to the movement from unity to diversity in 4:
1 – 16. He (Paul) offers no security to saints seeking to dodge any responsibility of their
own. No one among the saints can say he is not equipped or has nothing to contribute,
for everyone is given a gift and an appointment.”26 This suggests to me that each of us
is called to leadership. It may be simply effective leadership of self or at varying levels
with an organization, but there are opportunities to influence others available to all who
accept the call. One CEO I have worked with championed the idea of a thousand
leaders across the organization. The number itself was simply symbolic of a desire to
help others identify and engage in their unique leadership opportunities.
Paul identifies four leadership roles that “prepare God’s people for works of
service.” (4:12). It is useful to examine these roles in order to get a sense of what they
might mean for leaders in a postmodern context.
Apostles
An apostle is one who has been commissioned or sent to proclaim the gospel.
While we tend to think of the original twelve apostles, Paul also considered
himself an apostle (Romans 1:1) and we know that both Matthias (Acts 1:26)
and Barnabas (Acts 14:14) were also considered apostles. In the modern
As pointed out by Markus Barth. Ephesians 4 – 6. New York: Doubleday, 1974. P. 458
25 F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1961. P. 75
24
26 Barth. P. 452.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 18
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
context, Christian leaders, including leaders in the workplace, must see that at
the core of who they are they are called to proclaim the gospel. Everything they
do and say must reflect the good news of their freedom in Christ.
Prophets
Strong’s defines a prophet as “one who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence
is his organ or spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by
inspiration, especially concerning future events, and in particular such as relate
to the cause and kingdom of God and to human salvation.”27 A prophet can be
one who ‘foretells’ the future or ‘forthtells’28 or speak with forthrightness when
they see things that they know are not pleasing to God. In the leadership
context, it means that we must be bold in challenging injustice and unethical
behaviour when we see it in the marketplace. We must not only live lives that
reflect God’s will but we must also serve as advocates for truth and equity. We
see that role being taken up consistently by OT prophets and, of course, by
Jesus himself.
Evangelists
There are only three references to euaggelistes in the New Testament. Philip,
one of the seven (Acts 21:8) and Timothy (2 Timothy 4:5) are referred to as
evangelists but the role is clearly identified in the Ephesians passage we are
discussing, thus giving it a significant and, I would suggest, future-oriented role.
In the context of the Early Church it was possibly assumed that everyone would
‘know the story’ so there was no specific designation for the proclaimer of the
Gospel. However, as time separated the events of the Cross from the hearers, it
would become increasingly important for leaders to take on the role of
evangelist. In the marketplace, we must earn the right to share the gospel29
through the way that we lead and conduct ourselves. Having earned that right,
we must seize upon the opportunity and be prepared to share our passion for
27Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.
28
I am indebted to Dr. Donald Goertz of Tyndale for this very useful distinction.
29
A phrase I attribute to my friend and mentor Mike Baer.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 19
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Christ. This suggests to me that we cannot simply be ‘good citizens’ of the
Kingdom and hope for others to do the specific work of evangelism. This is our
responsibility as well.
Pastors and Teachers
Pastor (Poimen30) has an interesting double meaning. It means literally
“shepherd” but it also refers specifically to leaders within the church. The
continuation of the gospel metaphor of Christ as the Good Shepherd into the
role of human leadership is significant. Like Christ, we are called to protect and
care for God’s people. The teacher or didaskalos has very similar symantic
range, referring to those who lead or instruct. The role of the leader today is
often associated with the one who guides and equips others rather than simply
supervising their activity. In our role as a servant-leader, the best test is often
the degree to which those led become more skilled, more effective and,
ultimately, more capable of serving.
We begin to understand that leaders must have characters formed of humility,
gentleness, patience and forbearing and that their primary task is to teach, offer reproof,
correction and training (2 Tim 3:16) as well as to engage in the expansion of the Church. This
is not an optional role but the result of the gifts they have been provided. This begins to shape
our understanding of the primary role of Christian leaders as equippers of others, always in the
context of community.
A Trinitarian Perspective
Perhaps one of the most pervasive ‘truths’ regarding leadership is that it is, by
definition, a singular role. Very few organizations in the private, public and social sector have
been able to develop or sustain a ‘team’ model of leadership in which different people bring
their unique gifts and talents to bear. The concept of differentiated unity has a great deal of
intellectual appeal and yet it does not seem to work from a practical basis. However, when we
look to the Trinity we see a perfect model of exactly the sort of team leadership that leverages
30Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 20
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
individual capacity while maintaining perfect harmony between the different elements. In an
extraordinary speech he gave when he accepted the first Chair of Systematic Spirituality at
Regent College, J.I. Packer said the following:
Sound spirituality (and I would argue sound Christian leadership) needs
to be thoroughly Trinitarian. In our fellowship with God we must learn
to do full justice to all three Persons and the part that each plays in the
team job (please allow me that bold phrase) of saving us from sin,
restoring our ruined humanness, and bringing us finally to glory. Neglect
the Son, lose your focus on his mediation and blood atonement and
heavenly intercession, and you slip back into the legalism that is fallen
man's natural religion, the treadmill of religious works. Few
Evangelicals, perhaps need to be reminded of this, but some do. Again,
neglect the Spirit, lose your focus on the fellowship with Christ that he
creates, the renewing of nature that he effects, the assurance and joy that
he evokes, and the enabling for service that he bestows, and you slip
back into orthodoxism and formalism, the religion of aspiration and
perspiration without either inspiration or transformation, the religion of
low expectations, deep ruts, and grooves that become graves. More
Evangelicals, I think, need reminder here. Finally, neglect the Father,
lose your focus on the tasks he prescribes and the disciplines he inflicts,
and you become a mushy, soft-centred, self-indulgent, unsteady, lazy,
spoiled child in the divine family, making very heavy weather of any
troubles and setbacks that come.31
The Trinity is an extraordinary model of distributed leadership. By contrast, the
concept of heroic leadership invariably suggests a single leader. We saw that in the
expectations of the people of Israel when they called on God to appoint a leader and we
saw it in the expectations of the Apostles as they waited on a Jewish Messiah who
would single-handedly liberate them from Roman occupation. However, post-heroic
leadership, at least in the mind of people like Jimmy Long, seeks to embrace a
Trinitarian perspective. However, this can only happen when the leaders shift from
power to service as their plausibility structure. They must fully embrace not only the
concept of service, but intentionally lead from a position that does not rely on power.
The affect of sin is that, in our pride, we constantly want to rise up and ascend humanly
designed power structures. In the Trinity, there is an apparent understanding of the
unique role of each person of the Trinity and deference each to the other. Christ is
31
This quote was contained in an article I read but I cannot confirm the specific source.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 21
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
willing to serve the will of the Father, even unto death. His choice to serve is conscious
and intentional, a product of his will. The Father invests all power and authority in the
Son. The Spirit is the mediating agent between Father/Son and their people and, as
Augustine would argue, the Holy Spirit is the love of God. This is affirmed in Romans
5:5 where we read that “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy
Spirit which is given to us”. The affect of this ‘team job’ as Packer described it is that
each person of the Trinity is aware of their unique role and lives out that role in a
consistent manner. At the same time they are not only aware of but defer to the role of
the other two persons of the Trinity.
“What we see in the Godhead is an incredible picture of interdependence, and of unity
and diversity, where the One leading and the One being led change according to need and
contribution.” 32The lesson learned for the Christian in the marketplace is that the acceptance,
and even the pursuit, of heroic or singularity of leadership is inconsistent with the ideal
standard set by the Trinity. It is the affect of sin that causes us to set ourselves apart, and
inevitably try to set ourselves above others. It is only when our plausibility structure shifts
from power to service that a distributed leadership model is possible. Stacey Rinehart points
the way to several significant messages that are applicable to leaders when we observe the
operation, interrelationship, and outworkings of the Godhead.33 Among the more significant
that we have not already addressed include:

Leadership is not hierarchical or organizational; it is relational

Relationship, not the task of the organization, should be the glue that holds
human leaders together

The possibility of “shared authority” flows from the model of the Trinity

Though we are all brothers and sisters before Him, we all have unique roles
and contributions to make

Respect for one another and dependence on God are the qualities that mark
our characters as spiritual leaders
32
Stacey Rinehart. Upside Down: The Paradox of Servant Leadership. Colorado Springs: Navpress,
1998. P. 88.
33
Rinehart. P. 89
Peter M. Dickens
P. 22
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
From the Old Testament, the New Testament and a Trinitarian perspective, a
consistent pattern of expectation is emerging. Leadership that reflects the will of God is
not defined by human standards, but by God’s. It is not something one acquires on
one’s own but it is a calling before God. In the following section, I will try and distill
the character, attributes and roles of a leader who serves God first.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 23
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Putting It Together: The Character, Attributes and Role of a Leader
Introduction
When we draw all of the threads together, a consistent pattern begins to emerge
that defines the character of an effective Christian leader, the key attributes they need to
display and the sort of roles they are called to fulfill. The character of Christ becomes
the only one to which we should aspire. Our leadership needs to be ‘incarnational’ in
that we seek only to be a reflection of the one to whom and for whom we are called.
Character
The character of the Christian leader begins with humility. In all of the biblical
passages that we examined, we are challenged to think in terms of paradox. Those who
are called to make the greatest difference must do so from a place of the least apparent
influence. Jesus himself was an outsider who consistently challenged the religious
authorities and structures of his day and yet he has exerted more influence on the course
of history than any other human being.
Secondly, if we are to reflect Christ, we must be fully grounded in love
manifested in self-giving that furthers the growth of another. As Greenleaf has stated,
the ‘best test’ of a servant leaders is that ‘those being served grow as persons; they,
while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more likely to become servants
themselves.”34 Rinehart adds his own thought when he points out that, “towards the
end of his life, John – as the only surviving apostle – could have pulled rank on
everyone in the body. Instead he wrote and spoke about love and its preeminent
importance among God’s people and their leaders.”35 This means that we see ourselves
as a resource to be used for the benefit of others, not as one who acquires resources or
who uses resources as a means of controlling or motivating others.
Thirdly, the Christian leader must live in conformity to the will of God in all
aspects of their lives. A great many people, and many leaders among them, seem to
34
35
Greenleaf. P. 33.
Rinehart. P. 96.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 24
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
spend an inordinate amount of time trying to live in the very centre of God’s will and
can be held captive to indecisiveness because they are not clear exactly what it is that
God wants of them. God’s will is in fact made very clear, and given very wide
parameters in the Great Commandment of Matthew 22: 37 – 40 and Mark 13: 29 – 31.
If everything we do simultaneously reflects our love of God and of each other, we can
be assured that we are within the will of God.36 This clearly has to begin with living a
life that is above reproach in terms of the ethics we display in the workplace. In the
same way that tithing is the baseline of a life that is really committed to radical
generosity, so too ethical behaviour is the non-negotiable behaviour of the Christian
leader. Sherman and Hendricks have done a fine job in books such as Your Work
Matters to God and Keeping Your Ethical Edge in helping us define specifically what
this means and why it is important so it need not be repeated here. However, I think we
need to understand it as a starting point and explore broader elements of character.
Fourthly, the Christian leader is called to live interdependently. Based on the
model of the Trinity, as members of the body of Christ we are called to live in
community with one another. Community isn’t about structures and positions on an
organization chart. It is the networking of our lives together. Christ said that our
relationships with each other are so significant and central to the Gospel that he gave
the world the right to judge the validity of his message by the love they observe among
us (John 13:35).
Attributes
I think that there are three key attributes that we can draw out of the concept of
servant-leadership that Jesus not only calls us to, but models so perfectly.37 First and
foremost, Christian leaders must feel called to what Michael Cassidy describes as “a
deep sense of instrumentality under God.”38 We serve because Christ first served us
and so there is no other option for the Christian. This means that we have to have the
I am grateful to Pastor Bruxy Cavey for challenging some believers’ propensity to wait on a clear
understanding of the precise will of God rather than a willingness to go forward boldly based on the
Great Commission.
37
Some excellent work has been done by Bob Greenleaf, Stacey Reinhart and others in trying to define
‘servant-leadership’ but brevity doesn’t allow for more than a few key points.
38
Michael Cassidy. Reflections on Christian Leadership. Tape Series
36
Peter M. Dickens
P. 25
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
patience to wait on the will of God, which Saul was unwilling to do. Too often, in our
gung ho, charge forward business environment, we lack appreciation for the attributes
of patience and deep reflection. We are pressed to achieve instant results and it will
sorely test the Christian leader who tries to honour the need to wait on God’s will. We
must also recognize that we are not only called by God, but that we must be willing to
sublimate everything to the will of God. For Christian leaders in the marketplace, this
means that they cannot differentiate their Christian identity from the workplace
identity. As Cassidy points out, this does not come easily to the Christian struggling
with the realities of the marketplace. I would affirm Henri Nouwen when he suggests
that this is only possible through consistent contemplative prayer and theological
reflection.39 From a practical perspective, this means taking the time to pray through
difficult decisions and to seek out the will of God. All too often we feel compelled to
make decisions before their time and both Christian and secular leaders would do well
to engage in more reflection before they take action.
The second attribute must be that the leader is theologically biblical and
evangelical. This means that in all circumstance they must seek God’s will in his word.
That must be the basis on which they make all of their decisions. I very much
appreciate Carson’s continued emphasis on the necessity to look at the overarching
metanarrative of the Bible and not just the specific verses that might speak into a
situation or relationship. For example, as leaders we need to reflect deeply on the
consistent way in which Christ puts relationships above all things. If, in the course of
my day, I am forced to make a decision that does not honour the people with whom I
work, then regardless of the economic drivers of that decision, I need to prayerfully
identify alternatives. As Christians, we are reminded in 1 Peter 1:16 that we are to be
holy in all our behaviours and that that holiness comes as a result of what God has done
for us in Jesus Christ and in us through the Holy Spirit. These are anchors from which
we can never detach– even for a moment. We must also recognize that the workplace is
seldom welcoming of over evangelical efforts. If we are going to be truly evangelical,
we must constantly remind ourselves that our role and calling is to earn the right to
share the Gospel. This will only happen when our behaviours, attitudes and actions in
39
Hanri Nouwen. Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 26
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
the marketplace are not only biblically based but also contribute to the wellbeing of the
people for whom and with whom we work. As I have indicated, it would be my dream
that Christian leaders in the marketplace, when they focus on being biblical, are the
finest leaders in their organizations when judged against any reasonable ethical
standard. This demonstrated capacity would, in itself, be an incredibly compelling
witness.
The third attribute would be the willingness of Christian leaders to demonstrate
authenticity and vulnerability in the marketplace. We all have our strengths and
weaknesses and we must always come from a mindset that is willing to share our
strengths with others so that they can succeed and be willing to recognize our
weaknesses and find ways to mitigate the effect of those weaknesses on others. We
must also be willing to accept and forgive the weaknesses of others. This means that we
must bring such concepts as contrition, confession and forgiveness into our daily lives.
These are not the historic behaviours of power leaders who have often relied on the
mythology of invincibility to maintain their position. However, I am encouraged by the
new language of the marketplace that seeks to encourage and support much more open
and honest behaviours.
Roles
The four roles that are described in Ephesians 4:11 establish some important
principles for the sorts of roles that leaders in the workplace must assume, regardless of
their specific task of function.. Leaders must:

Equip others so that they are more capable, more confident and more likely
themselves to become servants. This means helping them develop the skills,
abilities and confidence to deal effectively with change, no matter what the
context. It also means challenging them to move out of their personal comfort
zone and take on new roles and responsibilities that will help them grow and
develop.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 27
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture

Speak out when they see injustice or inequity in the workplace. As modern-day
‘prophets’, leaders must accept the responsibility for challenging strategies and
behaviours that are not only inappropriate by Biblical standards but are often
immoral and even illegal by secular standards. This role may put the Christian
leader at risk within a corporate culture that tacitly or even intentionally
condones such actions, but the Christian must have the courage to make the
appropriate moral choices not only for themselves but for those who are
encumbered by fear.

Maintain a kingdom perspective, which means looking beyond the day-to-day
‘function’ of the workplace and seeing it as a place where God’s work is active
and where Christ’s message of hope and redemption is as important as it is in
any other setting.
The specific tasks of the leader will be different based on their spiritual gifts and the
natural skills and abilities. However, the common ground seems to be that all of these
must be used in the service of others. By this, I mean serving others so that they may
grow and develop, rather than serving others in such a way that they themselves feel
like masters. In the marketplace, the fruit of other-centered service will be that the
Christian earns the right to share the Gospel and thus serve the will of God.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 28
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Postmodernism: The Emerging Context for Leadership
One of the great challenges for sociologists, theologians and business strategists
alike is to try and develop a consistent understanding and common language around the
apparent shifts and changes we are experiencing, particularly in the Western world.
Terms like the Information Age, the Knowledge Age or even the Experience Economy
have tried to ground themselves in the economic levers of change. The term
‘postmodernism’ that is appearing more and more frequently – even in advertising for
home renovations’ retailers – is less than satisfactory because it seems to be mostly a
reaction against something – modernism – than it is a pointer to something we can
understand and engage with. However, it is the term that is in current usage and at least
it is indicative of a journey or process.
A character in a postmodern novel described themselves in the following
manner. “Naturally I would always be tolerant, skeptical, permissive,
pragmatic, good-hearted, late liberal. I would also assume nothing is true
or certain. No ideology or philosophy, sociology or theology is any better
than another. Life for me would be a spectacle, a shopping mall, an
endless media show in which everything amusing or grotesque, erotic or
repulsive, heroic or obscene, sentimental or shameful is an acceptable
world view and anything could happen. There would be no great wisdom
and no great falsehood. A mule would be equal to a professor.”40
This description seems to capture so much of our emerging understanding of the
cultural context within which we are being asked to lead. This paper is not intended to
be an in-depth discussion of postmodernism but will try to gather together two or three
key themes in order to establish that context. If the people we are being asked to lead
resemble the character described above, we begin to get a sense of some of the
challenges we will face. This is a person who will not be motivated by traditional
leadership strategies that revolve around individualization, promotion, and competition.
40
Quoted by Cassidy.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 29
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
David Bosch, a leading South African theologian, delineates six paradigms
between the time of Christ and now41. The second to last is the Modern Enlightenment
paradigm, which he suggests spanned the period from 1600 – 2000. Certainly the
‘Enlightenment Project’42 has its roots in Descartes’ doubt in all things but the thinking
human and Newton’s mechanistic worldview. Others would suggest that it may have
begun as much as 100 years earlier with the Columbus’ “conquest” of the “new”
world43 and thus ground modernity in the politics of expansion and resource control
rather than simply mathematics and science.
At the other end, there is good argument that the end of modernism has it seeds
in the carnage of the Great War. Bosch suggests that the current or “emerging”
ecumenical-postmodern paradigm has its beginnings in the mid 1960s. The specific
timing is less important for our purposes than an understanding of the scope and
significance of the transformation that is occurring.
It would seem that the modern period was characterized by four primary traits:44
The first is the unquestioned belief in objective truth. Reason was supreme and
mankind had the capacity to pursue truth through the application of scientific
principles. Conversely, nothing was to be accepted on faith. The possibilities of
mystery and miracles were discounted. If something couldn’t be proven on the basis of
available data, it could not be accepted as truth. The scientific method exercised an
absolute faith in human rational capabilities.
The second trait is the ascendancy of the autonomous self which has become
entrenched in such documents as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As
Grenz puts it, “The modern human can appropriately be characterized as Descartes’
autonomous, rational substance encountering Newton’s mechanistic world.”45 When we
look at the world through a modernist lens, we hold out the expectation that each
individual will rise and fall based on their individual skills and abilities. We honor the
41
Bosch, David. Transforming Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999.
42
A useful phase from Stanley Grenz. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996, P. 3.
Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton. Truth is Stranger Than It Used to Be. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press. 1995. P. 11
44
As described by Long, Jimmy. Generating Hope: A Strategy for Reaching the Postmodern Generation.
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. 1997. P. 69
45
Grenz, P. 3.
43
Peter M. Dickens
P. 30
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
great American hero: the John Wayne or Jimmy Cooper-like characters capable of
taking on the world. We give away any sense of interdependence in favour of rugged
individualism.
The third trait of modernism is the celebration of scientific discovery. Our
Western belief system has become firmly grounded in the ascendancy of science. It
became the methodology through which society advanced and only good things could
come from the relentless pursuit of science.
The fourth trait is the belief in human progress. In all things and in all ways,
the goal of life was improvement. Alongside the pursuit of resources that drove colonial
expansion lay the belief that a Western way of life could be exported for the betterment
of those colonized. In my mind this seems to have been the frame of reference behind
many of the missionary movements of the 19th century.
Postmodernism seems to be characterized less by what it is than by a rejection
of each of these traits of Modernism and – one could argue – that rejection is well
founded. None of them have proved that they lead to a significant improvement in the
quality of life for those who embraced them. In fact, by the end of the 20th century, the
evidence was quite to the contrary. “In the postmodern world, people are no longer
convinced that knowledge is inherently good. In eschewing the Enlightenment myth of
inevitable progress, postmodernism replaces the optimism of the last century with a
gnawing pessimism.”46 The relentless pursuit of, and proclamation of ‘truth’ had led to
increased alienation at every level of society. Individualization has led people to live
lives that are often characterized by extraordinary self-centeredness and loneliness.
There is limited acceptance of the need to make real commitments to others and, as
postmodernism began to emerge as a frame of reference, divorce rates were never
higher. Scientific discoveries that brought us such life-saving gifts as penicillin also
brought the now ubiquitous ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Finally, the dream of
human progress seems as ephemeral as ever. Global communication systems allow us
to look into the lives of people who live in the most deplorable conditions.
Postmodernism can be seen as a rejection of all four of these traits so it is
important to get as close as we can to an accurate understanding of the attributes of
46
Grenz, P. 7.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 31
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
postmodernism. As Jimmy Long pointed out to me, “If we can describe the difference,
we are 50% towards closing the gap.”
Instead of truth, there is individual preference. This trait is aptly described by
the character at the beginning of this section. As Long suggests, “instead of human
reason that leads to truth, postmodernism posits multiple truths that lead only to
preferences… truth is not so much found as it is created”47 through consensus
agreement. This leads to a societal commitment to embracing pluralism as the highest
good. However, it should be noted that there is a significant difference between the
relativism that was prevalent in the late stages of modernity and the postmodernism
pluralism. As Grenz points out,
Relativism and pluralism are not new. But the postmodern variety differs
from the older forms. The relativistic pluralism of late modernity was
highly individualistic; it elevated personal taste and personal choice as
the be-all and the end-all. Its maxims were “To each his/her own” and
“Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion.” The postmodern
consciousness, in contrast, focuses on the group. Postmoderns live in
self-contained social groups, each of which has its own language,
beliefs, and values. As a result, postmodern relativistic pluralism seeks
to give place to the “local” nature of truth. Beliefs are held to be true
within the context of the communities that espouse them.
While ‘each to his own’ is the rallying cry of the postmodern, there is a sense of
paradox in that this pluralism is lived out in the context of community. In a paper I did
during a course on Christianity and Culture, I had an opportunity to look at the TV hit
show Friends through the lens of postmodernism. As my eldest daughter pointed out,
“They (the characters) can totally count on each other. Everyone is allowed to be
themselves and to be loved. No one, no parents, are pushing them to become something
or someone they don’t want to be.” They clearly understand and accept each other’s
foibles and see relationship as the overarching value in their lives. They have their
fights and disagreements, and they have sexual relations with each other, without
seeming to have a significant impact on the deep sense of commitment that they have
for one another.
47
Long. P. 69/
Peter M. Dickens
P. 32
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
In the workplace, we see a tremendous emphasis on the importance of
articulating, promulgating and aligning behaviours behind a common set of core values
and a common sense of purpose. These values have the effective of defining the local
belief set of a particular community. In place of the metanarrative of modernity, we
embrace what Grenz would call “local narratives”48 What has been interesting to
observe has been the importance of a communal process in defining these ‘core
commitments’ of the organization. Gone are the days when they can be articulated by a
CEO or executive group if they are to be embraced by staff. Rather, we see lengthy,
iterative processes that seek to enrol as many people as possible into a shared
commitment. These values then become the DNA of the organization and the basis on
which both formal and informal ‘acceptance’ processes are established. On the formal
front, they become the basis on which people are hired and promoted. This is in direct
contrast with a modernist mindset that hired and promoted on the basis of technical
competence alone. Informally, adherence to shared values becomes the basis on which
teams and alliances are formed. People choose to work with those who are committed
to the same things.
In a postmodern worldview, the altar of scientific discovery has been replaced
by a world of virtual reality. “Virtual reality tells us to trust only what our senses can
verify. Since our senses perceive the world differently, each individual’s view of reality
will be unique.”49 Secular writers such as Peter Senge turn the concept of virtual reality
into the exploration of ‘mental models’ but the intent is the same. Senge describes a
mental model as “the images, assumptions and stories which we carry in our minds of
ourselves, other people, institutions, and every aspect of the world. Like a pane of glass
framing and subtly distorting our vision, mental models determine what we see… all
mental models are, by definition, flawed in some way.”50 Senge not only accepts the
inevitable reality that we will always see the world in an individual way, he emphasizes
that the way that we can build community and develop relationships is by accepting
that our own mental models are by definition limited and flawed and there is much to
be gained by exploring the mental models of others. However, there is no suggestion of
48
Grenz, P. 45
Long. P. 73.
50
Peter Senge. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Currency, 1994. P. 235.
49
Peter M. Dickens
P. 33
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
there being one, singular metamodel to which we each aspire. There is only a growing
understanding and acceptance of other people’s perspectives. There is also a growing
understanding of the affect that we have on each other when we interact in community.
A mechanistic worldview reduces people to autonomous particles that come together to
form some sort of ‘machine’. These ‘particles’ then interact with each other
mechanically. As Grenz puts it, they “push each other around – but these interactions
do not affect the inner natures of the particles.”51 The emerging science of complexity
suggests something quite different that is much more closely aligned with a postmodern
perspective. “A complex, adaptive system is a network of many members acting in
harmony to move toward a commonly held end-result or goal. Each member finds
itself in an environment produced by its interactions with other members in the system.
Because members are constantly acting and reacting, nothing in the system is ever fixed
- including the goal. The system is constantly revising and rearranging its building
blocks as it gains experience.52”
One of the belief sets of modernity is the assumption that progress is not only
inevitable, but inherently good. “The discovery and application of (natural) laws
offered the promise of making humans happy, rational and free.”53 In organizations,
this led to an extremely linear planning model that assumed that there were direct,
causal links between the past, the present and the future. This led to two approaches.
One I refer to as “review and redo”: looking at the past and looking for ways to do
things more efficiently. The second I refer to as “predict and plan”: setting a fixed-point
preferred future and aligning all strategies, tasks and activities towards that outcome.
Both models defy the reality we experience. Evolution has been replaced by what
Foucault would characterize as “discontinuity, rupture, threshold, limit and
transformation.”54 It is little wonder that those who embrace a postmodern perspective
have little patience with current approaches to organizational planning.
The belief in the efficacy of the pursuit of human progress has been cast to the
ground by the increasingly apparent reality of human misery. Postmoderns do not have
51
Grenz, P. 50.
From my own discussion paper, Making Sense Out of Chaos.”
53
Grenz, P. 71.
54
Quoted in Grenz, P. 136.
52
Peter M. Dickens
P. 34
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
to look overseas or at the urban poor to experience the pain of modern life. They are the
first generations to be grounded in the anger of divorce, the breakdown of
multigenerational family structures and the physical toll paid by two working parents
trying to sustain a lifestyle that leaves little room for relationships. Workplace stress is
at an all time high and we as a society are seeing the results in stress-related diseases
such as heart attacks, strokes and cancer.
At the end of the modern period, we see ourselves in a rather saddened state.
We stand, alone disconnected from community by our own insistence on autonomy.
We are generating more and more knowledge and know less and less what to do with it.
The estimate of one leading technology company, EMC2, is that the volume of all
human knowledge is now doubling every 22 months and most of that is generated
digitally. Despite all of this new knowledge we seem to have fewer and fewer answers.
As a friend of mine, a very competent neurologist, once confessed to me, “The
technology is now so pervasive that I simply cannot keep up. The kids coming out of
medical school know more than I will ever hope to know. I have come to realize that
the only thing I can do, and perhaps at the end of the day the best thing I can do, is to
make a personal difference in the lives of my patients.” We look around us, alone and
overwhelmed with data, and see that our hopes and dreams for progress are mostly
fantasies. Little wonder that the values of postmodernity, as unclear and emergent as
they may be, are beginning to resonate across several generations.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 35
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Leadership In a Postmodern Culture
Introduction
Any time of change, such as the transformation from modernity to postmodernity, calls
for leadership because leadership is ultimately the “ability to define a goal and reach it,
through the efforts of other people, and satisfy those whose judgment one respects,
under conditions of stress.”55 The goal here seems to be to shape organizations that
willingly embrace the values of postmodernism without a wholesale rejection of
modernity – and those who are still committed to a postmodern perspective. This ‘foot
in both camps’ perspective is extraordinarily stressful. I do not believe that
postmodernity is a movement away from leadership but is, in fact, a deep cry for a
transformational approach to leadership that has deep biblical roots.
I believe that the attributes in previous sections of this paper that I have
described are not only consistent with Christ’s expectations of leadership but they are
also attributes that will resonate for people who have begun to embrace a postmodern
perspective. In his book Generating Hope, Jimmy Long identifies several strategies that
would help churches create a meaningful environment for people struggling with a
vagaries of an ill-defined postmodern culture. I believe that several of these strategies
can be integrated into how leaders in the marketplace can create the same sort of
environment. There are three transitions that the leader must make if they are to move
from a modernist to a postmodern perspective. These transitions56 include:

From Power to Service. Respect is earned on the basis of character rather than
assumed on the basis of authority. This is not a revelation that is unique to a
discussion on postmodernism. In his book From Good to Great, Jim Collins
points out that what he describes as Level 5 Leadership is characterized not by
“high profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become
celebrities (but that) the good-to-great leaders seem to come from Mars. Self-
55
A definition of leadership I have used for several years that draws on several people, including Bob
Greenleaf.
56
These were worked out in a conversation with Jimmy Long
Peter M. Dickens
P. 36
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy – these leaders are a paradoxical blend of
personal humility and professional will.”57 It has been my experience that the
use of power, even the implied or threatened use of power in a postmodern
context, has an extremely negative effect. I suspect that, consciously or
unconsciously, postmoderns view power as a personal threat. They have seen
what power has done on a global, national and even personal level and they
want no part of it. They view power with a great deal of suspicion but because
there is no desire to match power with power, they walk away. Nonconfrontational behaviour seems to be a hallmark of postmodernism. I have
seen this in my own daughters as well as young people in the workplace. They
would rather leave than have to deal with what they perceive to be the
inappropriate exercising of power. We need to replace power with legitimacy
that is founded in service and a commitment to relationship. As Max DePree
puts it, “I am convinced that the best management process for today’s
environment is participative management based on covenantal relationships.”58
In a modernist context, relationships are the cause-and-effect connections of
separate parts but there is no sense of mutuality. The leader must embrace a
very different view that recognizes their capacity for true empowerment59. As
Leighton Ford puts it, “Transforming leaders are those who are able to divest
themselves of their power and invest it in their followers in such a way that
others are empowered, while the leaders themselves end with the greatest power
of all, the power of seeing themselves reproduced in others.”60

From Individual to Community. Within the context of community, there will
be followers and leaders. People will leave an organization and do so more and
more quickly but they will not leave a community if there is clarity and
commitment to the shared beliefs of that community. As DePree puts it,
“leadership is more tribal that scientific, more a weaving of relationships than
57
Jim Collins. Good to Great. New York: HarperBusiness, 2001. P. 12.
Max DePree. Leadership is an Art. New York: Dell, 1989. P. 61.
59
An overused and misapplied word that, in the context of leadership, cannot be abandoned but must be
restored to its rightful meaning.
60
Leighton Ford. Transforming Leadership. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991. P. 15.
58
Peter M. Dickens
P. 37
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
an amassing of information.”61 It is worth noting that not all young people
aspire to leadership because they feel that there is much more to life than their
work. They are willing to let others take the lead in order to focus their energies
elsewhere. There is a deep fear that taking a leadership role might separate one
from community and that is a price that is not worth paying. When we model
an awareness of our brokenness and lowliness we show that it is possible to lead
with authenticity and in the context of community, thus providing
encouragement to others who fear that ‘stepping forward’ will actually
disconnect them from the people they most value.

From Product to Process. Modernity resonates with the importance of the end
result or the end product. The quality of what we produce is a self-defining good
and from that comes a commitment to pragmatism. Something is deemed to be
right and good simply because it works. Modernist leaders must learn to
appreciate the postmoderns commitment to process. Note DePree’s earlier
emphasis on process. Power leadership too often is predicated on an
interventional mindset: casting an overwhelming vision, rallying the troops with
a great speech, or stepping in and making a critical decision. DePree and others
who resonate in a postmodern culture understand leadership to be a process and
that the primary leader is to hold themselves and others accountable for two
things. First, they are committed to working within a process to get things done.
Process has a natural community orientation which is often seen as cumbersome
to those who simply want to get things done. Secondly, they must be willing to
challenge and change processes on the basis of new information and
opportunities. A process orientation does not mean that we abandon the notion
that we need to achieve eventual outcomes, but it puts its faith in the capacity of
process – and more importantly the people and relationships within that process
– to achieve the desired end result.
61
DePree. P. 3.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 38
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Jimmy Long would suggest that, in order for these transitions to succeed,
postmodern leaders must embrace the following strategies.

Emphasizing living the truth versus only talking about the truth. The lives of
Christians will become more important to seekers as evidence to use in deciding
whether or not to follow Christ. This speaks directly to the attributes we have
discussed. When the lives of Christian leaders demonstrate in an active way that
they are committed to living the truth, they will expand their influence across
their organization.

Building communities that support friendship. Everything that can be done to
build community and reinforce loving relationships must be a priority. This
includes helping people relate across generational and ethnic lines. This is the
sort of language that is now being heard more and more across the secular
landscape. In a recent issue of “Fast Company”, a completely postmodern
business monthly, the cover article was called “Love: The Killer App” and the
author makes the point that, “In the postmodern workplace, love is the act of
intelligently and sensibly sharing your knowledge, networks, and compassion
with your business partners. Learn as much as you can as quickly as you can
and share your knowledge aggressively; expand your network of people who
share your values and connect as many of them as possible and perhaps, most
importantly of all, be as openly human as you can be and find the courage to
express genuine emotion in the harried, pressure-filled world of work. Behave
this way not because you expect something in return but because it is the right
way to behave. The less you expect in return for acts of professional generosity,
the more you will receive.”62 If the secular marketplace is embracing this sort of
language, Christian leaders need to seize the opportunity to demonstrate the
incomparable riches of Christ’s love or they risk being even further
marginalized. What is important to note is that the language is contrary to the
very self-centered individualism that is so characteristic of late modernism. The
62
Tim Sanders. “Love: The Killer App”, Fast Company, January 2003.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 39
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
emphasis on other-centeredness is very biblical and I believe it strikes a very
deep cord within the hearts of people who feel completely outside the bounds of
meaningful connectedness.

Create a sense of hope. Biblical hope is not built on self-confidence, but it
builds confidence because it is based on the character of God, not human
potential or human capacity. People in the marketplace have an enormous sense
of despair and frustration that they have little or no role to play in the key
decisions that affect their lives. Leaders who make the shift and are able to see,
develop and support positive change in others are helping them shift from a
worldview that is dependent on others to one that is dependent on a God that
loves them perfectly and who equips them to deal with any of the challenges
they need to face because, as we are promised, he will not “let us be tempted
(tested) beyond what we can bear.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)
We cannot shy away from the harsh reality that to be a Christ-like leader in a
postmodern workplace will take incredible courage. Christ spoke right into the heart of
this when he challenged us to take up our cross and follow him. To lead with humility,
grace and other-centeredness flies in the face of what many of current leaders
personally model and value. Christ-like leaders have to take a different view. First, they
must be grounded in biblical truth and secondly we must take up the more prosaic
challenge of responding to the very different demands of that every expanding group of
people who see the world through a postmodern lens. Fortunately, there is enormous
resonance between these two perspectives.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 40
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Organizational Metaphors and Postmodernism
The preceding descriptions of the attributes of a leader in a postmodern
marketplace are intentionally generalized. However, in order for people to adapt them
to their individual situations, we need to understand that the organizations in which
they work are the product of that organization’s dominant frame of reference or
metaphor. We all tend to describe or define the world in the form of metaphors. They
allow us to create meaning by using one element of an experience to understand
another. Metaphor is a useful tool that gives us the opportunity to stretch our thinking
and deepen our understanding, thereby allowing us to see and act upon things in new
ways.63 Metaphor also creates distortion and every metaphor reaches a point when it
begins to break down. That is its weakness but it is also its strength because it forces us
to examine exactly how we see the world. When we approach metaphor in this way, we
have to accept that any theory or perspective that we carry regarding organizations,
while capable of creating valuable insights is also incomplete, biased, and potentially
misleading because it is rooted in metaphor.
As we think about organizations, we recognize that, over the years we have used several
different metaphors to shape our understanding and consequently or management and
leadership theories. The following are some of the most common metaphors as well as a few
that just are beginning to emerge.
Machines
This is the metaphor that has driven much of organization and management theory
since the industrial revolution and can be argued is the fundamental paradigm of
modernity. It is the basis of Newton’s cosmology, seeing the universe as a giant
machine and God as the clockmaker who, having finished his mechanistic
creation, stepped back and let it run through ‘natural’ laws He imposed. From a
modernist perspective, the machine metaphor has brought enormous benefits,
63
The material on organizational metaphors is drawn from Gareth Morgan. Images of Organizations.
1996 and has been adapted by Charlie Hendershott and I for Dofasco’s leadership program.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 41
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
increasing capacities for production a thousand-fold. But its weaknesses have also
been exposed as humans have rebelled against being “mechanized”, creating
rigidities that prevent organizations from adapting and flowing with change.
When we think of organizations as machines, we begin to see them as rational
enterprises designed and structured to achieve determined ends. The
organizational machine is given goals and objectives and it is designed as a
rational structure of jobs and activities. Its blueprint becomes an organizational
chart. People are hired to operate the machine and everyone is expected to behave
in a pre-determined way. When a ‘part’ breaks we try to repair or retool it but,
failing that we simply replace it.
Given the prevalence of this metaphor in the development of modern
organizations, it is no surprise that the leader has been defined as the individual
who could single-handedly get the machine ‘humming’. The manager’s role is to
optimize efficiency, maximize output and ensure labour compliance. How then
does one exercise the role of leadership that we have developed so far? First of
all, one has to recognize that the machine is, in fact, breaking down. In an
economy that is increasingly dependent on the quality of thought of its knowledge
workers versus the consistency of compliance of its labour force, there is a
growing awareness of the need to embrace a new style of leadership and the way
to that style is more than adequately articulated by people like Jim Collins, Max
DePree and Peter Koestenbaum and I would commend that anyone who wants to
transform their approach to leadership to focus their personal reading on these
people rather than the flash-in-the-pan overnight success stories that so often
inhabit the business media. Secondly, I would recommend that people focus on
what Steven Covey refers to as their “circle of influence”64 rather than their
“circle of concern”. It is too easy to be reactive and identify all of the reasons why
one cannot affect change or offer leadership within an organizational culture that
does not support the aspirations of a servant-leader. However, when we are
proactively engaged in the things and the relationships we can influence, our
64
Steven Covey. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Summit Books, 1991.P. 81.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 42
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
energy becomes much more positive and our circle of influence expands. As
Ghandi once put it, “be the change you want to see in the world.” If you want to
create a culture that reflects the values of service, community and process then
you yourself must model those values within whatever scope you can.
Political Systems
Understanding organizations in political terms allows us to accept politics as an
inevitable feature of corporate life. We learn that effective managers are skilled
political actors who recognize the continuous interplay between competing
interests and who use conflict as a possible catalyst for action. This is often an
unspoken metaphor that actually guides the behaviours of many senior managers.
Theirs is a world of winning and losing in a ‘zero sum’ game. When we view
organizations through a political metaphor, patterns of competing interests,
conflicts, and power plays dominate the scene. We appreciate that conflict is a
natural property of every organization. We observe different sources of power
and learn how they can be used to our advantage.
Jesus understood the political metaphor perfectly and he used paradox to disarm
it. In a more modern context, one could point to Ghandi as one who had the same
insight. Both recognized that the way to deal with a highly political, poweroriented culture was to give away one’s power. When one fully embraces the
values of humility and service, the power structures in place are at a loss as to
how to respond, other than with ever-increasing shows of force. This is the
ultimate hallmark of Christ-like leadership. It takes enormous courage, of course,
and requires that we fully embrace our calling as Christians and the capacity of
the Holy Spirit to empower us.
Organisms
The organic metaphor offers powerful ways of thinking about strategy and
organizational design, showing that the mechanical perspective, so popular in
management, is just one of many approaches. It encourages us to see how whole
Peter M. Dickens
P. 43
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
populations may rise and fall along with the transformation of the niches they
occupy and the flow of resource on which they depend, and to understand that, as
in nature, the evolution of the corporate world reflects a “survival of the fitting”
not just the survival of the fittest. The image of an organism seeking to change
and adapt to a constantly changing environment offers a powerful perspective for
those who want to help their organizations flow with change. The metaphor helps
us understand organizations as clusters of interconnected human, business and
technical needs. It encourages us to learn about the art of survival and it urges us
to create systems that are open to new challenges. It certainly broadens our
perspectives beyond the boundaries of classic management theory.
This is a metaphor that should have resonance for a postmodernist. It speaks
primarily to the importance of embracing change and the context of community.
To be effective in this sort of organization, the leader must be a constant source of
connectedness, drawing people and resource together around emerging
opportunities.
Brains
As we move into a knowledge-based economy where information, knowledge,
and learning are key resources, the inspiration of a living, learning brain provides
a powerful image for creating organizations ideally suited to the requirements of a
digital age. If we think about the organization as a brain, we focus on learning
abilities and the processes that can either stunt or enhance organizational
intelligence. We discover how findings of brain functioning can be translated into
design principles for creating learning organizations and we learn how
intelligence can be distributed throughout the organization. We also see how the
power of information technology can be used to develop decentralized modes of
organization that are simultaneously global and local.
In the context of this metaphor, leadership and learning become inseparable. The
leader literally leads the charge for learning, constantly demonstrating their
Peter M. Dickens
P. 44
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
willingness to change direction or change their own behaviours based on
experience or new information. Organizations that see themselves as brains
become extremely agile as they move in response to changes in the environment
around them. The challenge is that ‘learning organizations’ often have little
tolerance for those who cannot adapt quickly enough and can become quite elitist.
I believe that this is why Peter Senge, who has been an active promoter of this
metaphor, has increasingly begun speaking of ‘learning communities’ in order to
put an appropriate emphasis embracing all within the community.
Cultures
This metaphor helps us rethink almost every aspect of corporate functioning,
including strategy, structure, design, and the nature of leadership and
management. Once we understand culture’s influence on workplace behaviours,
we realize organizational change is cultural change and all aspects of corporate
transformation can be approached with this perspective in mind. When we see
organizations as cultures we see them as mini-societies with their own distinctive
values, rituals, ideologies, and beliefs. We recognize that individual organizations
have their own unique cultures and that what unfolds in any organization is a
reflection of people’s mindset. We know that while some corporate cultures may
be uniform and strong, others are fragmented by the presence of subcultures and
we realize that organizations must rest in the shared meanings that allow people to
behave in an organized way.
This metaphor speaks directly to the postmodern concept of localized narratives.
The leader in this metaphor will be the one who embraces, promotes and
intentionally models the values of the organization. From a Christian perspective,
they will also exert whatever influence they can to ensure that the values the
organization espouses are consistent with those that God commends. It has been
my experience that it is quite possible to include such language if one does so
from an inclusive rather than an exclusive perspective.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 45
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Flux and Transformation
The ideas explored in this metaphor lead us into the new sciences of chaos,
complexity and paradox with powerful implications for our understanding of
organization and environment in the broadest sense. This is perhaps the most
challenging of the metaphors because it does not bring to mind an immediate
visual image. Meg Wheatley speaks of the movement of a river or the constant
transformation of weather systems to help us with this metaphor. What happens
when we look beyond the surface appearance of organizations and see them as the
expressions of deeper processes of transformation and change? We gain insights
into the fundamental nature of change. We see that deep systematic forces are
constantly either locking organizations into the status quo or driving their
transformation. We acquire new and powerful perspectives for intervention, using
images of spirals, loops, and contradictions to help organizations shift from one
pattern of operation to another.
The leader in this metaphor must focus on reflection and readiness, the natural
‘next generation’ of planning approaches. They must engage in and encourage
authentic individual and communal reflection on such things as calling, capacity
and character. They must also identify the sorts of personal capabilities or core
competencies that they need to develop in order to seize emergent opportunities
and they must encourage and support those within their circle of influence to
engage in similar processes. In this they are not constrained by their position
within the organizational structures within which they work.
In some ways, the metaphor of flux and transformation is a coming together of the
other three metaphors that seem to be aligned with an emerging postmodern
perspective. Organizations can rightly be seen as living, learning organisms that can
and must identify their unique culture. In this way it resonates for both the postmodern
and the Christian who feels called to lead. It is a metaphor that gives little support to
expectations of power: there is no master neuron in the brain, no CEO of a river. There
is however a tremendous sense of common purpose. The role of the leader is to serve
Peter M. Dickens
P. 46
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
those within their circle of influence, helping them be better prepared for a future that
is both unpredictable and extremely volatile. I have witnessed this sort of servant
leadership in CEOs as well as the lowest level of staff in both large and small
organizations, and the effect is the same. The only difference is the span of influence
but even that changes and becomes equalized as the impact of serving is felt in the
organization.
A metaphor of flux and transformation also demands that we put primary
emphasis on relationships and community rather than the individual. In a fascinating
experiment designed to explain the phenomena of ‘flocking’, thousands of "blips" were
generated on a computer screen and allowed to move randomly around the screen, with
no attempt at order or structure65. These computer blips or boids (as they were called)
were then coded with three simple but inviolable rules:
1. Maintain minimum distance from other objects in the environment, including
other boids
2. Match velocities with boids in your neighbourhood
3. Move to the perceived centre of the mass of boids in your neighbourhood
Based on these three rules, the boids immediately developed into a coherent flock.
The ‘flock’ flowed together, much as fish and small birds can change direction rapidly
and seeming under the control of a silent and invisible conductor. For me, the
compelling element of this experiment is that there was no rule that said, "Form a
flock". When a flock forms, it is a bottom up phenomenon, based on the relationship of
one boid to another. All the rules are local - boid to boid – but they are also nonnegotiable. They are examples of what complexity theorists would call ‘chaotic strange
attractors’. These are the rules that condition or guide the behaviours of the members of
a system. The tendency to converge is just that - a tendency. When the flock
encounters an obstacle it has no difficulty splitting and flowing to either side, reforming
on the other side of the obstacle. This could never be done with situation-specific rules.
65
This experiment is more fully described in M. Mitchell Waldrip. Complexity: The Emerging Science
on the Edge of Chaos and Order. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1992. P. 231
Peter M. Dickens
P. 47
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
In the same way, the Christian in the workplace cannot look for rules to cover all
exigencies. What they can look to is Jesus own ‘strange attractors’ in Matthew 22: 37 –
41. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and all your
mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your
neighbour as yourself.” If all of the leader’s behaviours and attitudes in the workplace
are governed by these two rules, they will honour both God and the people with whom
they work.
Finally, a metaphor of flux and transformation demands that we focus on process
rather than product. When there is no fixed-point outcome to which we can move with
confidence then we can only look towards the processes of the work that we do and
question the degree to which they align with the inherent purpose to which God has
called us.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 48
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Conclusion
When we look at the full biblical narrative, we can see that there are significant
lessons for the Christian leader in the context of the emerging postmodern workplace.
Learning to move away from a desire for human power and control and to embrace
service as the core of leadership is no easy transition and yet it is the type of leadership
that will speak directly into a postmodern culture that has a deep suspicion of power.
Moving from an individualist to a community perspective will be hard for some who
fear intimacy, but the model of the Trinity leaves little doubt of the ideal that has been
established. “It is not good for people to be alone.” A focus on process over product
may rankle those who have lost sight of the long-term perspective but even the most
secular environments are beginning to understand that a single-minded focus on
immediate outcomes often has very negative consequences. In short, becoming an
incarnational leader will not be an easy journey but it is one that we are called to make
and, as Christians, we are inestimably blessed to know that we call on the power of the
Holy Spirit to provide where we lack.
However, we must also be reminded on a regular basis that one of the greatest
temptations that a Christian leader must face is the desire for their life, whether within
an organization or on its own, to have meaning and purpose: In other words, to make a
difference. One could embrace all of the attributes I have described and still be caught
in the snare of pride. It is Christ, and only Christ, who can provide real relevance and
meaning. As one who struggles with pride at every level of my being, this is something
I have a great deal of difficulty with. However, I was particularly struck by Henri
Nouwen’s comment when he said, “The Christian leader of the future is called to be
completely irrelevant and to stand in the world with nothing to offer by his or her own
vulnerable self.”66 This is how Christ stood before the cross and we can do no more –
or less.
In the appendix to this paper I have tried to put a framework around a strategy
to develop Christian leaders for a postmodern workplace. The emphasis on the
66
Nouwen, P. 123.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 49
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
workplace rather than the formal church is based on my own sense of calling and
conviction that Christian leaders must be called out of the church and into the daily
reality in which people live their lives. I have already been cautioned by Jimmy Long
and others that I will meet resistance if I should pursue this line of thinking. All too
often, when we put the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Leadership’ together we assume that we
are talking about leadership within the church. At best, we are talking about a pattern of
behaviours and attitudes that overlap between the church and the workplace. It is my
prayer that we can find a way to help existing and potential leaders live fully integrated
lives so that they feel no separation between who they are in the workplace and who
they are within the relative ‘safety’ of the church. In this way, we would begin to break
down the barriers between the sacred and secular and begin to live holistically within
the kingdom of God.
The Diakonos Leadership Development Strategy (Appendix 1) is in a very
preliminary format that reflects my own thinking. Over the course of the next several
months, it will be formalized with input from people like Jimmy Long and Geri
Rodman of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Mike Baer of the Jholdas Project and
others who are equally committed to the development of a formal ministry.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 50
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Appendix 1: Leadership Development Strategy
Diakonos:
Servants of the Word, called to impact the workplace.
The Strategic Framework
Our Purpose:
To help people identify their leadership calling and develop the attitudes, disciplines
and relationships to optimize their impact in the workplace.
Our Core Values:
Guided by the word of God and empowered by the Holy Spirit, we will seek to live
lives that reflect and serve Christ. In pursuit of our Purpose, we are committed to act
justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8)
Our Mission:
Develop leaders who will be recognized and respected by the organizations in which
they work as role models, achieving the highest standards of ethical, professional and
strategic performance.
The Development Strategy
A cohort of 16 – 24 people would commit to a 6 – 8 month process in which we
combine formal workshops, mentoring/coaching and personal application.
Participants will be expected to engage in a significant amount of self-directed study,
including assigned texts, regular journaling, and research.
Phase 1: Developing the Tool Kit
This phase would involve developing individual capacity to read scripture
effectively. I would propose two, two-day workshops:

Bible Basics: a two-day orientation to the Old and New Testament. This would
be facilitated by Bob Webb who teaches this course as part of Tyndale’s
lifelong learning program.

Basics of exegesis and hermeneutics. A two-day workshop based on Fee and
Stuart’s How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth. I would propose to use
Tyndale faculty for this purpose.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 51
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Phase 2: Orientation and Evaluation
This phase would be facilitated in a series of workshops. Participants would be
expected to complete reading assignments and reflective papers for each workshop.
1. Establish the context
 Biblical perspective on work and calling
 Leading in a Postmodern environment
2. Clarify the unique inputs into each person’s secondary calling:
 Christ as Role Model
 Spiritual Gifts
 Natural Attributes and Talents
 Hopes and Dreams
3. Taking Stock (using standardized tools)
 Self-assessment (against defined core competencies)
 Spiritual Gifts Assessment
 3600 assessment
4. Gap Analysis
 Guided assessment of key areas for development
Phase 3: Development
This phase would also be centered on a workshop. Each workshop would have a
follow up component, including personal study and targeted application processes.
1. Workshop: The Grandeur of God’s ‘Complex Adaptive System’
2. Workshop: Mastering Change
3. Workshop: Developing a Servant’s Heart
4. Workshop: Living on Purpose
5. Workshop: Personal and Spiritual Discipline
6. Workshop: Developing a Personal Theology of Work
Phase 4: Deployment
The intent in this phase would be to guide individuals in how to enhance their
impact in specific markets. This would be done through seminars on how to excel
when called into such areas as management, sales, finance, engineering, services,
programming, etc. It would also include a 6 – 9 month assignment with a personal
mentor in their specific area of service
Peter M. Dickens
P. 52
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Bibliography
Autry, James. The Servant Leader. Prima: Roseville, CA: 2001. Berrett-Koehler, San
Francisco, 1998.
Barth, Markus. Ephesians 4 – 6. New York: Doubleday, 1974.
Beck, Don and Cowan, Christopher. Spiral Dynamics. Oxford: Blackwell Press, 1996.
Bennis, Warren. Managing People is Like Herding Cats. Provo, UT: Executive
Excellence Press, 1999.
----- On Becoming a Leader. Reading, MA. Addison Wesley, 1989.
Bosch, David. Transforming Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999.
Capra, Fritjop. Belonging to the Universe. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. 1992.
Collins, James. Good to Great. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2001.
Covey, Stephen. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Summit
Books, 1991.
Depree, Max. Leadership is an Art. Dell: New York, 1989.
Goleman, Daniel, Richard Boyatzis , and Annie McKee. Primal Leadership. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
Greenleaf, Robert K. The Power of Servant Leadership. Berrett-Koehler, San
Francisco, 1998.
Grenz, Stanley. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996,
Guder, Darrell. Missional Church. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1998.
Guiness, Os. The Call. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998.
Gunn, David M. The Fate of King Saul. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of Old
Testament Supplement Series, 14, 1980.
Helgesen, Sally. The Web of Inclusion. New York: Warner Books, 1997 New York:
Currency/Doubleday, 1995.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 53
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Hybels, Bill. Courageous Leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.
Jacobs, Jane. Systems of Survival. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.
Jaworski, Joseph. Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership. Berrett-Koehler, San
Francisco, 1998.
Koestenbaum, Peter. Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
Kouzos, James and Posner, Barry. The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1995.
Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Long, Jimmy. Generating Hope: A Strategy for Reaching the Postmodern Generation.
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. 1997.
Long, V. Phillips. The Reign and Rejection of King Saul. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1989.
Mays, James L. General Editor. Harper’s Bible Commentary. San Francisco: Harper
and Row, 1988.
McLaren, Brian. A New Kind of Christian. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2001.
----. The Church on the Other Side. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1998.
Morgan, Gareth. Images of Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Nouwen, Henri. In The Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New
York: Crossroad, 2001.
Peter-Contesse, Rene and John Ellington. A Handbook on the Book of Daniel. New
York: UBS Handbook Series, 1993.
Peterson, Eugene H.. First and Second Samuel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1999.
Rinehart, Stacey. Upside Down: The Paradox of Christian Leadership. NavPress:
Colorado Springs, 1998.
Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Currency, 1994. P
Spears, Larry, Michelle Laurence, Eds: Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for
the 21st Century. Wiley: New York, 2001.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 54
Incarnational Leadership in a Postmodern Culture
Sweet, Leonard. SoulTsunami: Sink of Swim in New Millennium Culture. Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, 1999.
Waldrip, M. Mitchell. Complexity: The Emerging Science on the Edge of Chaos and
Order. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1992.
Waetjen, Herman C. A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark’s
Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1989.
Wheatley, Margaret. Leadership and the New Science. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco,
1994.
Peter M. Dickens
P. 55