Mentoring paradigms 15: Leading theocentrcally
In this chapter Edmund Chan says that well-intentioned leaders can fail to lead in a God-centred way. We can become weary and lose perspective as we lead, so it is important to set up proper framework for decision-making. He speaks about leading first 1) from a spiritual perspective (knowing God’s will and seeking His face), then from a 2) personal perspective (arising out of our own character and being), and finally from an 3) organisational perspective (following the principles, procedures and best practices available). Taken together, these aspects of leadership encompass God’s agenda, our personal agenda, and finally, the management agenda.
A practical approach to decision-making can therefore be stratified into three corresponding layers: looking to the theological first, to the personal (impact on people) next, and finally, doing best practices following organisational structure
Acts 15 is the record("minutes!") of the only major church council in Scripture. The issue was the terms by which Gentile believers would be saved - should they have to follow the Mosaic law (v.1)?
Paul and Barnabas disagreed with this, but decided to clarify this issue with the apostles at Jerusalem. There was a certain humility in their placing themselves under the authority of the apostles and elders, and a trust in the church leaders in Jerusalem that they would be able to do the right thing. I see in this passage:
1. Different viewpoints: the view of the Judaizers (v.5) and the view of Paul, Barnabas (v.12-13) and Peter (v.7-11)
2. "Much discussion" (v.7)
3. Personal testimony of an experience of God's work, applied theology and an appeal to the experience of the hearers.
4. A summary and prescribed action by the chairman of the meeting, stating Scripture (v.15-18), and balancing the sensitivities of new Gentile believers (v.19) as well as Jews (v.21).
5. A letter was written, delivered by key people endorsed by the church.
My questions are, from this passage:
1. How did the apostles know God’s agenda?
They knew from Scripture.
They knew from interpretation of personal experience.Peter's speech was powerful because he had not only experienced God's work in his life, but had integrated it with Scriptural truth so as to form a rock-solid foundation for his subsequent words and actions. We, also, need not only to know God's promises, but to experience them. When we integrate experience with Scripture we will be able to speak with godly wisdom and clear conviction.
2. What character aspects are critical for effective leadership?
I see James' confidence in allowing expression of different viewpoints.
He allowed 'much discussion'. He was not in a hurry.
He recognized the importance of having key people with relevant experience to speak up. I note here also how the speech of one man (Peter) could stop all the discussion and silence everybody, simply because he spoke with godly conviction. Decisions in the Kingdom are not meant to be done by majority vote - it is the one who hears the voice of God and feels the heart of God who deserves to carry the day.
He was balanced in his approach,
He was well-grounded in Scripture (quoting Amos)
3. What organisational culture of values are important for effective leadership?
A formal reply, with personal authentication by the Jerusalem church as well as Paul and Barnabas - leaving no doubt as to the correct viewpoint of Barnabas and Paul.
This shows clarity (the letter was simple and easy to understand), foresight (against possible opposition) and integrity (their actions matched their views perfectly).
A practical approach to decision-making can therefore be stratified into three corresponding layers: looking to the theological first, to the personal (impact on people) next, and finally, doing best practices following organisational structure
Acts 15 is the record("minutes!") of the only major church council in Scripture. The issue was the terms by which Gentile believers would be saved - should they have to follow the Mosaic law (v.1)?
Paul and Barnabas disagreed with this, but decided to clarify this issue with the apostles at Jerusalem. There was a certain humility in their placing themselves under the authority of the apostles and elders, and a trust in the church leaders in Jerusalem that they would be able to do the right thing. I see in this passage:
1. Different viewpoints: the view of the Judaizers (v.5) and the view of Paul, Barnabas (v.12-13) and Peter (v.7-11)
2. "Much discussion" (v.7)
3. Personal testimony of an experience of God's work, applied theology and an appeal to the experience of the hearers.
4. A summary and prescribed action by the chairman of the meeting, stating Scripture (v.15-18), and balancing the sensitivities of new Gentile believers (v.19) as well as Jews (v.21).
5. A letter was written, delivered by key people endorsed by the church.
My questions are, from this passage:
1. How did the apostles know God’s agenda?
They knew from Scripture.
They knew from interpretation of personal experience.Peter's speech was powerful because he had not only experienced God's work in his life, but had integrated it with Scriptural truth so as to form a rock-solid foundation for his subsequent words and actions. We, also, need not only to know God's promises, but to experience them. When we integrate experience with Scripture we will be able to speak with godly wisdom and clear conviction.
2. What character aspects are critical for effective leadership?
I see James' confidence in allowing expression of different viewpoints.
He allowed 'much discussion'. He was not in a hurry.
He recognized the importance of having key people with relevant experience to speak up. I note here also how the speech of one man (Peter) could stop all the discussion and silence everybody, simply because he spoke with godly conviction. Decisions in the Kingdom are not meant to be done by majority vote - it is the one who hears the voice of God and feels the heart of God who deserves to carry the day.
He was balanced in his approach,
He was well-grounded in Scripture (quoting Amos)
3. What organisational culture of values are important for effective leadership?
A formal reply, with personal authentication by the Jerusalem church as well as Paul and Barnabas - leaving no doubt as to the correct viewpoint of Barnabas and Paul.
This shows clarity (the letter was simple and easy to understand), foresight (against possible opposition) and integrity (their actions matched their views perfectly).
Comments
Post a Comment