James MacGregor Burns and John Gardner, have each noted a crisis of leadership at theend of the twentieth century.

This crisis has not only been found outside the church, but inside aswell. There simply are not enough good leaders to face the task confronting us in our rapidlychanging global environment. Burns (the pioneer of the Transformational Leadership model)attributes the desperate situation in our organizational life to an intellectual crisis in leadershipthought. According to Burns.

“We fail to grasp the essence of leadership that is relevant to our modern age and hence we cannot agree even on the standards by which to measure, recruit, andreject it.”

I however would suggest that the problem is more systemic than intellectual. WhileBurns’ call, for a contemporary philosophical tradition, may help us select the right people to lead,it does not necessarily get at the fundamental cause of the crisis. I would suggest, that underlyingthe intellectual crisis is a collapse of historic models of leadership, which are based on flawedontological assumptions that do not conform to the real world. As observed by Regine and Lewinin their article “Leading at the Edge,”Where once the world was viewed as linear and mechanistic, wheresimple cause and effect solutions were expected to explain thecomplex phenomena of nature, Scientists now realize that most of theworld is non-linear and organic, characterized by uncertainty andunpredictability. In retrospect, it is amazing how far we have beenable to take the linear model for understanding the world both inscience and business.

What is needed in our churches today, is a new model for leadership that will transcend thelimitations of historic models and meet the challenge of the post-modern era. To meet this task, I

Wren, 3-10

Wren, 9

Regine, 6

would propose a transformational model of leadership, which is informed by the scriptures andinsights from complexity science. In this paper I will be using McCloskey’s 4-R Model of leadership as a framework for my study.

The Failure of Classical Models

Before we turn to McCloskey’s model, let us examine why classic leadership models arefailing. According Angelique Keene, “The dominant organizational paradigm remains wedded toscientific management theories which reflect a philosophy that remains committed to a need for control and prediction.”

Control and prediction however, assume a very linear and mechanisticconcept of the world, where simple cause-and-effect solutions are expected to describe natural processes – but in actuality cannot.

Scientists are now beginning to realize that most of the world isnonlinear and organic, characterized by uncertainty and unpredictability

Informing therevolution in scientific inquiry is Complexity Theory, a new science, which studies the relational phenomena of chaos and emergence in dynamic systems. Chaos, generally speaking, describes theunpredictable nature of complex systems (like weather patterns, the stock market, etc.). Emergenceon the other hand, describes the phenomena of how complex patterns “emerge” (in a seeminglyspontaneous way) out of relatively simple systems under certain conditions.Regine and Lewin, note several

Myths

surrounding the concept of leadership which growout of the linear/mechanistic world view: The myths of Autonomy, Control, and Omniscience.Much of the failure of historic models of leadership can be attributed to instances where one actson these presuppositions, and fails to achieve the desired results, or where one expects outcomes based on these assumptions which are unrealistic.

Keene, Angelique, “Complexity Theory: The Changing Role of Leadership” Industrial and Commercial Training Vol. 32, Number 1 •2000 © iMCB University Press • p. 15

Regine, p 6

Regine, 17-19

The Myth of Autonomy

Ellis and Fisher (1994) observe - that groups tend to perform best as the complexity of atask increases, and that groups are better at judgment than individuals are

This is not to say that“groups” become necessary as complexity increases. Human relationships are mutual by nature,our identities are formed in relationship to others, and our actions are nearly always reactions to themyriad of other individuals who influence us. This insight reveals the inadequacy of classicalleadership models. As John Donne famously said, “No man is an Island.” Consequently, onewould expect to find evidence of a different model in the New Testament, in fact we do.In Trinitarian theology, the doctrine of

parichoresis

describes the interpenetration of themembers of the Trinity. Through the process of redemption, this interpenetration is extended to usas we are found in Christ. The Christian Community is to be understood then, as a series of interpenetrating relationships. This is reflected in Jesus prayer, “even as Thou, Father,

art

in Me,and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me”(John 17:21).In the New Testament, you see a growing tendency toward mutuality in community lifeand the decision making process. There are several instances where the church makes decisionscollectively. In Acts 1:15-26 for instance, the Apostles are choosing a successor to Judas, theyallow the body to put forward a suggestion. Unable to come to a resolution, rather than making thefinal decision, they decide to cast lots. The decision to choose this procedure is significant becauseit could reflect the fact that the disciples did not feel they were in a position to make the finaldecision where the body had not reached consensus. The epistles are not addressed to leaders butto the congregations as a whole. When the first deacons are selected in Acts 6, the whole churchchooses them. The whole church also settled the dispute over circumcision in Acts 15:22. The

Irving 234