Leadership and Learning: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Introduction

Christendom can be characterized as a massive learning community within which leadership is a critical element. In such a scenario, “Let this mind be in you” becomes a compelling imperative. The Instructor of record is Jesus Himself, and the co-instructor is the Holy Spirit, who coordinates the learning cooperative through a virtual learning-strategy that pre-dates any current distance-learning format. The curriculum consists of Holy Scripture, divine inspiration, supportive fellowship, and the natural expressions of the Creator. The preferred learning strategies are those that Jesus models in His ministry: experiential learning, small-group formats, higher- order thinking—essentially all of the examples of applied learning. The learning objective is simple and global: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matthew 24:14, KJV). The basic learning-objective of the Christian church may be simply stated, but it is much more difficult to achieve. To do so, a vast amount of learning is involved and an unconventional definition of leadership is required.

The words learning and leadership, and by extension leader, are among the most familiar words in the English language. Yet these words are rarely defined in depth. The typical assumption is that learning implies a process of knowing more and that leadership means the action of a person or persons occupying the “top” positions in an organization. The developing literature around these terms, however, demands more specificity in definition, purpose, and application. Learning is such an integral part of leadership that learning and leadership are little more than different sides of the same coin. In this paper, I will establish a paradigm of Christian leadership, and then I will apply principles of learning within that paradigm. (Note: All texts are from the King James Version of the Bible unless otherwise specified.)

Christian  Leadership

The premise. What is the basic leadership idea being presented here?

In the beginning, God provided a model of divine leadership that reflected His character. Humankind rejected the model. Again and again, God re-established His alternative model; again and again, humankind  rejected the model. God sent His Son to demonstrate His model in person. Humankind rejected it again. God has once more presented the model, this time through His church. How effectively has the Christian community presented this model to the world?

Only by learning the model can we demonstrate its effectiveness. A fundamental aspect of my premise is that we can learn the model only by beholding the Master Archetype and then by practicing the model in our own lives, with the Holy Spirit providing power and guidance.

The leader. Is there any doubt in Christendom about who the ultimate leader is?

Within the Christian worldview, the Original Leader was and is God, Whose description of Himself, beginning with Exodus 3:14, can be paraphrased as “I AM that I AM, and I AM your leader.” He amplifies this description in Isaiah 44:6: “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God [Leader].” That statement calls to mind the first commandment of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt have no other gods [leaders] before me” (Exodus 20:3).

The learning connection. Is there a mechanism by which God, our Leader, facilitates learning?

And “when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son . . . to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts . . .” (Gal. 4:4–6). That thought supports the  idea stated by the Son, Jesus, when He said, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26). It is my thesis that God, through the Holy Spirit, provides both leadership and learning, which are inextricably linked.

The leadership model. So, what is the nature of the leadership and learning that is modeled by our Leader?

In the words of Jesus, “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matt. 23:20–11). “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister . . .” (Matt. 20:27–28). Those two statements of Jesus portend of the context that Paul addresses in his letter to the Philippians. The following words of the apostle continue the theme: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus”(Phil. 2:5). Paul’s words not only reflect a profound truth about the nature of the leadership that God intended, but they also emphasize the depth of the learning that accompanies it.

The original leadership model is rejected. When did God cease to be the de facto leader of His people?

Consider Old Testament history as it relates to the setting-aside of God as the Leader. In these words: “Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. (I Sam. 8:4 & 5)Substituting the word leader for king seems appropriate in view of the fact that the modern concept of leader is a more relevant term for the ancient concept of king. By doing so, we can read the text as “now make us a leader to lead us. . . .”

As Everett Fox (1999) has eloquently explained in his book Give Us a King, God’s organization on Earth—His corporate stockholders, if you please—rejected His leadership. In addition, they rejected the leadership of His appointed emissaries, the judges and the prophets. They demanded a leader, in the sense that we are discussing, in order to be like all other nations.

The myth of secular leadership. How does the replacement model hold up against the original?

One of the most compelling descriptions of society’s need for leadership comes from a treatise by Gemmill and Oakley (1992). They aver that what we so glibly refer to as leadership is actually a cultural myth, developed and supported by social systems to absolve ourselves of responsibility for the larger problems that face us. The intuitive application of this idea explains why social systems are so eager to make such assertions as, “We need new leadership”—as though a change in the individuals who hold positions of power will “make it all better.” According to Gemmill and Oakley, we become dependent upon a succession of changing systems of perceived authority called leadership, when in fact the solution to our problems lies within ourselves. By attributing authority to “the leadership,” we avoid responsibility by blaming the leaders for the social ills that exist. Contrast that scenario with the ancient form of leadership designed by God, in which there was one God and a decentralized form of social government overseen by patriarchs and informed by prophets, with judges to arbitrate social disputes. That original social system sustained a vast network of responsible relationships within which order was maintained, battles were fought, commodities were traded, and families prospered.

If “leadership” is a myth, then so is “followership.” Being a follower is just as irresponsible as being a leader. In this case, the polarity between leading and following is a false dichotomy. One cannot truly lead without also following. We often use Jesus as our example of what has come to be called servant-leadership. To do so is sometimes difficult, because He is 

God and He is our Lord and Savior. But He also said that if we want to be great, including being a great leader, we should be servants. I will develop this concept further later in the article. As I will show, being the servant means taking the low position and indenturing ourselves to those whom we serve.

The church and leadership. What is the relationship between God’s model of leadership and the church?

The management system that we call church is no more than a typical human organization in God’s world. It is blessed, to be sure. But so was the nation of Israel. And by my count, every time a good man became

king, he “did evil in the sight of the Lord” (e.g., I Kings 14:22). That seems to be the theme throughout the history of Israel after it became a kingdom. Although not the theme of this article, it would be interesting to discuss the degree to which the organized church is structured as a kingdom rather than as a “servantdom.” Kings can occur at any level. Lord Acton, pre-eminent 19th-century historian, said that “power corrupts [and] absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Acton, 1887). This is true at all levels. Even a little bit of power has the potential to corrupt.

Servant-leadership Is the Leadership Concept of Choice

The Christian Leadership Center has produced a unique but biblical model of leadership. This model is presented here:

We believe that Christian Leadership is ultimately expressed through the life and words of Jesus as expressed in the Bible. We take the radical view presented in Philippians 2 that Jesus came to this world to demonstrate the character of God. In doing so, He demonstrated the highest form of leadership, the leadership provided by a servant—more to the point, a bondservant, one who presents himself to another in servitude.

Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort provided by love, any fellowship in the spirit, any affection or mercy, complete my joy and be of the same mind, by having the same love, being united in spirit, and having one purpose. Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity each of you should in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well. You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death-even the death of the cross!” (Philippians 2:1–7, The NET Bible)

Recent exegetes cite the conditional participle in verse 6, suggesting that a better translation is “precisely because he was God, he became a servant.” Thus, it is the essential nature of God to be a servant, not an exception to His nature.

We believe that one of the fundamental characteristics of God is to become such a servant. We believe that God, in Christ, demonstrates this aspect of His character in sending Jesus to be our Guide and Model, as well as our Savior.

This concept is expanded by the words of Jesus Himself in Matthew 20:26-28 and Matthew 23:11-12: “It must not be this way among you! Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20: 26–28. The NET Bible). “The greatest among you will be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew 23:11–12. The NET Bible)

Again, the word translated “slave” is more accurately interpreted as a “bondservant,” one who, because of personal debt, pledges himself or herself in servitude to another.

Christian leadership is not based in any inherent or acquired authority. Rather, Christian leaders are mere instruments of Christ; what we do we do in His name. (Matthew 28:18–20; John 20:21–23; Matthew 16:18–19; 18:18–20.) What does it mean to act in the name of Christ? Only when we act according to the mind of Christ do we act with His authority; this attitude precludes doing anything merely to enhance our own position or prestige. Christ’s Spirit will always be reminding us, “You are a servant of servants; you can do enormous good if you don’t care about getting credit for it.’ Servant Leadership, as thus described, is not about power or position, although it can be present in one who has power as well as position. Rather, it is about a life modeled after the life of Jesus Christ, Who lived for the express purpose of serving others.

Servant leaders are one with their community. They listen, honor, trust, help and encourage others—treating them with dignity and respect.

This model of leadership is a radical one because it represents a dramatic return to what we believe is the original  Heaven-defined concept of leadership and a departure from the egocentric concept that seems to pervade current secular thinking. In a world where power and position rule, the idea of Christian leadership, as defined herein, is difficult to understand and even more difficult to convey. By the Grace of God, and to His glory, it is the purpose of the Christian Leadership Center to promote and assist in the development of Christian leadership throughout the world. (Christian Leadership Center, 2003)

It is within this context and the implied definition of leadership that I present thoughts of the role of learning as a critical function of leadership. Obviously, with such a radical concept of leadership as is assumed by this definition, an equally radical idea of learning may also be assumed.

The Role of Learning in Christian Leadership

Classically, learning is defined as a change in behavior. Schunk (1996), for example, defines learning “as a change in the rate, frequency of occurrence, or form of behavior (responding), primarily as a function of environmental factors” (p. 12). Borger and Seaborne (1996) define learning as “any more or less permanent change in behaviour which is the result of experience” (p. 16). And Schuell (1986) defines learning as “an enduring change in behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or other forms of experience” (as cited in Schunk, 1996, p. 2).

For the purpose of this discussion, however, learning is defined in a different way—not necessarily in a “new” way, but in a way consistent with the form of leadership being considered. From a Christian perspective, learning can be described in terms of the progression of personal growth suggested by what is often called conversion. The expected results of conversion are permanent changes in the behaviors of the convert. Such a life-changing experience is a response to what have been called the plan of salvation and the story of redemption. The words plan and story suggest a developmental approach to learning that is entirely consistent with what we often refer to as Christian growth. The model for such growth (learning) is, of course, Jesus, whose own story developed by divine plan in that He “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52, KJV). In this learning plan, four elements are specified: the social, the cognitive, the physical, and the spiritual. These four aspects of learning are not discrete. Rather, they are completely intertwined. Let’s build the case for this  description of learning—a description that I believe is critical to understanding  Christian leadership.

The Spiritual Aspect

The Creator who formed us from the dust of the ground also provided ways in which we should learn. The first indication of the reality of such a statement is in Genesis 1:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (v. 26–27 KJV)

From a learning perspective, this setup strongly suggests that God gave a community of individuals certain responsibilities and that He also instructed them as to how to fulfill that charge: “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15). Subsequently, when humankind lost the original learning capacity that was present in Eden, God provided a method, the plan of salvation, as a form of continuing education. That plan, which represents the learning ideal, included the social, cognitive, physical, and spiritual elements of learning that Jesus modeled (Luke 2:52). Indeed, the ultimate learning objective is stated as “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5, KJV). The learning injunction that directs us to this objective—and the process by which we attain it—is further delineated by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom. 12:2, KJV).

This entire article is cast within the spiritual dimension of learning. There is little reason, then, to expand the discussion of the spiritual aspects of learning other than to note that whereas we can attempt to discuss these four aspects of learning as discrete entities, to do so would be arbitrary and artificial. They are so intertwined that it is functionally impossible to separate them. Therefore, in this discussion we will further examine learning from the remaining three of these four aspects as though peering through three facets of a gem—a spiritual gem, which represents each individual in God’s learning community. “And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels. . . .” (Mal. 3:17, KJV).

The Social Aspect: Community Is Fundamental

From the beginning, the learning context was social—a community. The Godhead was a community, consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Bilezikian, 1997). They act as one to create humankind in their own image, and they use humankind to extend their community throughout the world. The learning first takes place in Eden, where the players are Adam, Eve, angels, and the Creating Community of God. From a modern  theoretical perspective, this context is referred to as social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; 1986), but it also is supported by Lewin’s (1951) earlier theoretical perspective called field theory. In this case, learning is dependent upon the relationships that exist between the members of the “field,” or the community. The Creator Community provided for the ideal learning conditions to maximize the leadership-development of the members of the community

What are those conditions? Graham (2001) presents four major categories of moral well-being: they are community, autonomy, identity, and privacy. These categories, which Graham calls the conditions of human dignity and worth, make us feel valued as human beings. All people, regardless of time, place, gender, or culture share them. In this discussion, these basic conditions of moral well-being also represent conditions for optimal learning, in that each of them represents a perception of well-being.

In fact, the absence of any of them creates a threatening condition. And “when the brain perceives threat, whether covert or overt, the brain ‘downshifts’”(Hart, 1983). Not only are these four conditions deduced from the study of anthropology and analytical philosophy, but they also can be deduced from the earliest literature of Christendom—even from the initial chapters of Genesis.

God is community—a trinity (Belzekian, 1997). God created humankind to extend His community (Gen, 1:26). From the beginning we have been invited into this community. Problems occur only when we establish our own pseudo-communities (I Sam. 8:5-9; Fox, 1999).

From the beginning, there has been autonomy. We have been free to choose. There are, of course, natural laws, which, in turn, implies that there are consequences. God gave instructions to our first parents, but the choice to follow those instructions was theirs. God said, “in the day that thou eatest, thou shalt die”(Gen. 2:17), but the choice to eat or not to eat was theirs—and it is ours.

As a child of God, created in His image, I have identity: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). In other word, in Adam I sinned and am lost. But “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). In other words, in Jesus I am saved (Rom. 5:18). I am a unique individual, a creation of the Great I AM—no more and no less. And I am free use my autonomy to decide whether or not to be a member of the community of people who make up the Body of Jesus (1 Cor. 12:27), and I may extend that identity to belong to any number of cultures,  groups,  and organizations.

The right to privacy is not just mentioned, it is featured in the story of how, after sinning, our first parents needed to affirm this right. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves” (Gen. 3:7, NET).

Leadership then can be characterized as encouraging the kind of a community where each member supports the moral well-being of each of his or her fellow members. Leaders work toward the creation of a community of learners who share in the construction of and respect for the social, cognitive, physical, and spiritual well being of all members.

The Cognitive Aspect: Knowledge Is Socially Constructed

A typical discussion of learning focuses on cognitive structures. Such structures as memory, understanding, thinking, and mental processes are important, but remembering that none of them operate in a social vacuum is equally important. The purpose of cognitive learning is to apply knowledge to real situations, to solve problems, and, within the Christian context, “to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (II Pet. 3:18).

We educational psychologists enjoy studying cognitive structures of learning, but we are often guilty of isolating such learning aspects in ways that make them impractical. However, cognitive structures function best in a social context. Indeed, a person who is isolated socially during critical developmental stages of life experiences several negatives: language is impaired, judgment is impaired, even simple perception may be impaired (Candland, 1995; Thompson & Hickey,  2004).

Learning, then, may consist of information and the understanding of said information, which makes that learning a cognitive experience. But the value of such learning cannot be understood fully outside of a social context, especially when learning is applied to leadership development.

One way to demonstrate this value, especially as it involves learning in leadership development, is to provide a perspective that grew out of a serious dinner conversation that I enjoyed with David Penner. Dr. Penner is a co-founder of the graduate program in Leadership at Andrews University.

After our dinner conversation, he sent me the following message from his notes:

The formation of the Leadership program was purposeful and not merely an “accident of personalities.” Certainly, meeting as a group brought synergy and new ideas. But the ideas also were based on good research and what other schools were experimenting with at the time. The members of the team . . .

• Were willing and ready to challenge ideas (not people).
• Preferred to work in a collaborative environment, [that is], as a team.
• Actively searched out and accepted new ideas (always learning).
• Possessed a strong knowledge-base that added to the program (psychology, teaching and training, social systems, “futuring,” and so forth).

In addition, current findings in the application of learning, especially in the area of adult-learning theory (Knowles, 2005; Brookfield, 1987), must challenge  the  following paradigms:

• Meaningful learning takes place only in isolated settings such as college campuses and away from work.
• Students are not and can never be greater than their masters.
• All students have the same learning and informational needs.
• What a student needs to learn is best known by the teacher.
• Knowledge is gained only through the teacher or professor.

The particular learning-environment to which Penner is referring was built on social-learning theory (Bandura, 1986; Bandura and Walters, 1963), including such applications of the theory as cooperative learning (Joyce and Weil, 1999; Johnson et al., 1991) and total-quality management, (Deming, 1998). One of the best terms to describe an effective social-learning environment is community (Wheatley, 2002, Lessig, 2001; Capra, 1996). The learning associated with such community can be understood from within the well-developed theories of Thomas Dewey, Paulo Freire, and Lev Vygotsky. Although these theorists did not write from a Christian worldview, we can readily see the model of Christian community and social learning represented within their theories. The explicit goal is to provide for the fertile development of a learning community composed of servant-leaders. In order to enhance the development of such a community, the learning-community must be designed to provide cooperative-learning experiences on a number of levels.

A point that is often overlooked is that learning does not proceed from a position of authority, relationships such as:

• Parent/Child
• Teacher/student.
• Governor/voter.
• Pope/laity.
• President/citizen.

Position often carries with it the implication that people in lower positions learn from people in higher positions. But learning, like leadership, is not hierarchical. Learning develops naturally within the individual’s response to the unfolding elements of life. And the connection between leadership and learning is intuitive but not often discussed.

Somewhere in history, education became synonymous with learning. As a result, the process of education became the pawn of political control rather than the facilitation of learning. The concept that learning is a life-long process has evolved as a fundamental tenet of the adult-learning movement (Knowles, 2005; Freire, 1998). The Christian church is a community of highly experienced and motivated learners, learners who have asked for God’s guidance in learning what they need to know. In this community, we are all equal. There is one teacher, “sent from God” (Jn. 3:2). Each of us has one or more roles to play (Gal. 3), but the importance of the roles, especially with regard to learning, is not hierarchical. Classically, the teacher is viewed as being in some way superior to the student. It is inconceivable that the individuals in a learning community would in any way fit the typical description of what have classically been called students. Depending on the context of the moment, we are all students and we are all teachers. The purpose within this value is to foster a community of learners in which each member freely shares knowledge and skills (Wheatley, 1994).

Of all the recent innovations on the instructional front, the one that has received the most research support is cooperative learning (Ellis, 2005). Cooperative learning is a shared experience—a social experience. Learners interact at least in pairs to experience the learning. Jesus used cooperative learning throughout His life. He used the strategy when “He called the twelve to Him, and began to send them out two by two . . .” (Mk. 6:7 NKJ). In addition, He established an effective learning-group with Peter, James, and John.

Effective learning also incorporates modeling. When Jesus officiated at the Last Supper, He said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19), then carried out several rituals that continue to this day. And consider the instance when John the Baptist’s disciples came to inquire of Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” (Matt. 11:3 NET) Rather than answer John directly, Jesus instructed His disciples to “go tell John what you hear and see . . .” (Matt. 11:4 NET). In other words, “Watch me. Then relate what you saw and heard.”

It is clear that the cognitive aspect of Christian learning is a direct outgrowth of the social context. If we need any additional support for the power of this approach, we can call on the elements of adult-learning theory, which were addressed by Penner above. In addition, we can turn to Brookfield (1986) who describes a survey performed by Manley (1984). Manley surveyed 18 members of the American Commission of Professors of Adult Education and discovered that the professors agree that adult learning is best facilitated when . . .

• Learners are engaged as participants in the design of learning.
• Learners are encouraged to be self-directed.
• The educator functions as a facilitator rather than didactic instructor.
• Individual learners’ needs and learning styles are taken into account.
• A climate conducive to learning is established.
• Learners’ past experiences are utilized in the classroom.
• Learning activities are deemed to have some direct relevance or utility to the learners’  circumstances.

Combining cooperative learning, modeling, and adult learning with church planting yields an interesting element of early Christian history. According to Rutz (1992), archeological evidence suggests that virtually all companies of believers in the first several centuries of Christendom were small home- groups that modeled their understanding of Christian life. From a pure learning perspective, the existence of such learning groups would certainly help to explain the very rapid expansion of the good news of the Gospel.

The Physical Aspect

We typically consider the physical elements of learning in terms of building physical prowess and skill. Both elements are, indeed, important. But both require dedicated training and practice. Colleagues in exercise science tell me that physical development is more than working out in the gym or playing on the playground. They discuss the appreciation of physical fitness as it relates to the quality of life.

In this discussion, I will address the aspect of the physical in terms of its relationship to life. I will look specifically at a more casual, more spontaneous, and more natural element of the physical aspect of learning and leadership through the application of an active metaphor—walking!

While the psychological and physiological benefits of walking have been thoroughly documented (Anshel, 1996; Kramer et al., 1999; Ulrich, in Marcus and Barnes, 1999), the spiritual or phenomenological benefits of walking are coming under investigation as well. Witness the worldwide labyrinth movement (Verditas, UREL here) and research into the neurological mechanisms of meditative exercise (Kamei, et al., 2000). Certainly the consensus across a wide spectrum of disciplines is that it is vital to create and support a safe and pleasant walking environment that is easily accessible and useful in the daily life of people. (Naderi, 2002, p. 2)

In the often-quoted words of the Spanish poet Antonio Machado, ”Traveler, there is no path. The path is made by walking.” It is significant that walking figures so prominently in the Bible presentation. We could claim that walking was simply the primary means of travel in those days, but to do so would dismiss a number of significant examples in which the walking itself was part of the story, a critical part of the event. Consider, for example, the story of Jesus on the road to Emmaeus. The story inter- weaves the walking, the talking, and eventually the meal with the message, each aspect being an intermingling of the social, spiritual, physical, and cognitive elements of learning.

An inspiring exercise in Bible study relative to the metaphor of walking is to pick up the concordance and look up walk and walking. Having done that, reflect on how these two words are used to illustrate the imperceptible connection that exists among the four elements that we are discussing, both in verbal behavior (language) and in physical behavior (exercise). “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (II Cor. 5:7). Other versions of this text translate the word walk as live, as in “For we live by faith, not by sight” (NET) demonstrating the close connection between the metaphor of physically walking and the reality of living. Substituting live for walk in the following text reinforces that idea: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another . . .” (I Jn. 1:7).

In Eden, the social learning that included the Creator, the angels, and the first family consisted of the physical dressing and keeping of the Garden. When the first family had to leave Eden, they were given additional physical labor to serve as a supplementary learning strategy and as a safeguard for their souls: “By the sweat of your brow you will eat food” (Gen. 3:19, NET). “Whatsoever they hand findeth to do, to it with thy might” (Eccl. 9:10, KJV).

The body is the physical representation of the self. As such, it is just as important as is our mind (cognitive) and soul (spiritual) in the Christian learning community (social). The apostle Paul makes this point directly by saying, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1). Then the apostle brings us back directly to the learning in verse 2: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Clearly, the biblical writers understood the integrated nature of body, mind, and soul in the learning community within which we live.

The Learning-Organization

Beginning with the publication of Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1994), the learning-organization has been a popular topic in both the literature and in corporate training. The past decade has seen the development of corporate administrators who are assigned the responsibility to oversee the learning in their organizations. Corporations have even begun to assign the title chief learning officer, or CLO, to individuals responsible for the learning in their organizations. The professional journal Chief Learning Officer supports their roles by providing technical and motivational material.

According to Senge (1994), a learning-organization is “an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future” (p. 14). This is not to say that the organization itself learns, but that the organization is a dynamic culture that encourages and supports learning. The “learning” part is not an adjective that describes the organization. The “learning” part is a noun—a gerund, to be specific—that forms a compound noun with “organization.” In the learning-organization, everyone is included. The learning-organization may consist of a small group of individuals, a corporation, or even an entire country. The learning-organization is dynamic, a living organism in which the learning is ongoing and results in the application of what is learned. As a dynamic function of leadership, the members of the learning-organization spend time on visioning, on brainstorming possibilities, on creating new products, and on evaluating current practices in order to improve the organization.

Is the Christian church a learning-organization? The events recorded the Old Testament illustrate how God’s chosen people developed into a learning-organization. These events demonstrate how that organization shaped the nature and culture of a group of individuals into a corporate whole that literally became a nation.

The New Testament seems to present a different concept with regard to God’s learning-organization. In the New Testament, the series of various entities that represent God on Earth are replaced by a single entity that returns the system of leadership to what had been planned originally. God’s chosen people, the children of Israel, ultimately reject their role as God’s appointed learning-model. That was their choice, not God’s. A virtual community replaces the literal community. The hierarchical government that had become Palestine is replaced by a loosely organized but highly motivated group of zealots who take the good news to the ends of the world in little more than a generation. This new entity is called the Body of Christ, as described here:

The Body of Christ, like all bodies, is comprised of many parts. There are limbs, organs, and various members that, when left alone, are useless, but when assembled make up the entire body. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 describe it like this: “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.” This means each Christian is an equal part of the body of Christ!

There is organization to the body of Christ, as described in Ephesians 1:22-23, “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”

1 Corinthians 12:27-28 also says, “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.” Every Christian possesses a gift and is called to use it in service within the body to build up the body of Christ, to strengthen the body and to carry out its purpose within the world. Each member of the body of Christ is also called to serve the church through his or her natural gifts and abilities. This service is offered out of devotion to Christ for the sacrifice He made on the cross, providing them with eternal life in heaven. The diversity of gifts, each supporting the other, makes the body strong. (All About God, 2002)

There is an obvious difference between the corpus and the corporate— between the body of Christ, or His church, and the various human organizations intended to assist the members of the body in learning to reflect the character of Jesus. But learning applies from the corpus to the corporate, from the individual organism to the organization.

Human beings originally formed organizations in spite of the fact that God advised against doing so. Ultimately, God’s response to that action is this clear admonition:

Behold, I make all things new. . . . I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things: and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (Rev. 21:5–7)

Again God proposes one leader and a learning-community. The question can be asked of us in 21st-century A.D., Have we learned to live in accordance with the leadership role that God has been trying to show us from the beginning of time?

Research in Applied Christian Leadership and Learning

The Apostle Paul gives us a list of imperatives, but one is especially suitable for this discussion: “Quench not the Spirit, Despise not prophesyings, Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thess. 5:19–21, KJV). It is clear that we learn from the “Comforter,” Who teaches us all things. It is clear that we learn from the prophets. But it is also clear that we have an active role to play in the study of how all of these truths apply. In the formal, academic world, this practice is called research. I believe that it would be useful to pose researchable questions that could inform us about how well we Christians practice the Christian model of leadership and learning. Here are only a few questions that could be addressed through serious, formal research related to the form of leadership that is most effective in the Christian learning-community:

• What are the models of leadership that Christianity presents by example?
• How do Christian communities model Christian leadership?
• What form of community is most conducive to servant-leadership development?
• How do Christian organizations become learning-communities?
• What is the relationship between culture and leadership-development in a Christian community?

According to Brooks & Brooks (1993) “learning is a journey, not a destination” (p. 67). Although there does need to be appropriate structure in any organization for effective and efficient management, there is for such a structure to convey a hierarchy of learning—or even a hierarchy of knowledge, wisdom, or experience. Everyone contributes from the well of his or her own experience along the way. And if learning is a journey, then so too is leadership.

References

All About God. Body of Christ—The church. Retrieved February 15, 2006, from PRIVATE      HREF=”http://www.allaboutgod.com/body-of-christ.htm”

MACROBUTTON  HtmlResAnchor http://www.allaboutgod.com/body-of-christ.htm

Anderson, J. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and its implication (6th edition. New York: Worth  Publishers.

Anshel, M. (1996). Effect of chronic aerobic exercise and progressive relaxation on motor performance and affect. Behavioral Medicine, Winter 96, 21(4), 86-197.

Badaracco, J. L. (2001). We don’t need another hero. Harvard Business Review, September, 2001

Baddeley A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. (Rev. ed.). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura A, & Walters R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Belzikian, G. B. (1997). Community 101: Reclaiming the local church as community of oneness. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Bloom, B. S. (1986). Automaticity: The hands and feet of genius. Educational Leadership,  43(5), 70-77.

Borger, R., & Seaborne, E. M. (1985). Psychology of learning. New York: Penguin Putnam.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Candland, D. K. (1995). Feral children and clever animals: Reflections on human nature.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Doubleday.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1968). Quality and equality: New levels of federal responsibility for higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Christian Leadership Center. A biblical model of servant leadership. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from PRIVATE HREF=”http://www.andrews.edu/clc/servantleadership. html” MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor http://www.andrews.edu/clc/servantleadership. html

Daniel, J. S. (1996). Mega-universities and knowledge media: Technology strategies for higher education. London: Routledge.

Deming, W. E. (1998). The new economics for industry, government, education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ellis, A. (2005). Research on educational innovations (4th ed.). Princeton, NJ: Eye on

Education  Incorporated.

Fox, E. (1999). Give us a king. New York: Schocken.

Freire, P. (D. MacEdo, D. Koike, & A. Oliveira, Trans.). (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder: Westview Press.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). Leadership: An alienating social myth? Human Relations,  45(2), 113-129.

Graham, K. (2001, July). Leadership and truth. Paper presented at the 2001 Orientation Seminar of the Leadership Program, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

Hart, L. A. (1983). Human brain and human learning. New York: Longman. Hatch, T. (2002). When Improvement Programs Collide. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 626–639.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Joyce, B., & Weil. M. (1999). Models of teaching (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kamei, T., Toriumi, Y., Kimura H., Ohno, S., Kumano, H., & Kimura, K. (2000).Decrease in serum cortisol during yoga exercise is correlated with alpha wave activation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90,  1027–1032.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., Cohen, N. J., Banich, M. T., McAuley, E., Harrison, C. R., et al. (1999). Ageing, fitness, and neurocognitive function. Nature, 400(6743), 418–419.

Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York: Random House.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Lord Acton. (1887). Quoting Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz (G. E. Fasnacht, Acton’s Political Philosophy, p. 134), quoted by Richard Robinson in An Atheist’s Values (p. 238-9). Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishers.

Naisbitt, J., Naisbitt, N., & Philips, D. (1999). High tech, High touch: Technology and our search for meaning. New York: Broadway  Books.

Naderi, J. R. (2002). On the nature of walking and learning pedestrian environ- ments. Paper presented at the Architectural Research Centers Consortium joint conference with the European Architectural Research Centers, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from PRIVATE HREF=”http://swutc.tamu.edu/Reports/167425TP1.pdf” MACROBUTTON  HtmlResAnchor  http://swutc.tamu.edu/Reports/167425TP1.pdf

Ormerod, P. (1998). Butterfly economics: A new general theory of social and economic behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.

Penner, D. S. (Personal communication, August 25, 2000).

Rutz, J. H. (1992). The open church: How to bring back the exciting life of the first cen- tury church. Beaumont, TX:  Seedsowers.

Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13, 107–121.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday books.

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-436.

Thompson, W. E,. & Hickey, J. V. (2004). Society in focus: An introduction to sociology (5th ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ulrich, R. S. (1999). Effects of gardens on health outcomes: theory and research. In Marcus, C. C. & Barnes, M. (eds.). Healing Gardens. New York: Wiley, 27–86.

Vaill, P. B. (1998). Spirited leading and learning: Process wisdom for a new age. San Francisco:  Jossey–Bass.

Wheatley, M. (1994). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Wheatley, M. (2002). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope to the future. San Francisco:  Berrett–Koehler.

Dr. James A. Tucker holds the McKee Chair of Excellence in Dyslexia and Related Learning Exceptionalities and Professor of Educational Psychology in the Graduate Studies Division of the College of Health, Education, and Professional Studies at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga.