CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE + STEPHEN M. KING + Assistant Professor of Government Oral Roberts University Leadership-a term that is used extensively today, especially when describing the lack or misuse of it. When the focus is on the public sector, especially, the cry from the people of "Who is in charge?" reverberates throughout the halls of Congress and in the Oval Office. The public is sounding the call for an awakening, a revival if you will, for the need of responsible, capable and dependable public leadership. Where will this leadership come from: the Democratic or Republican parties . . . a newly assembled Congress beginning in January 1993 . . . a revitalized federal bureaucracy? True leadership cannot and will not originate from any of these man-made institutions, although they must be used as vessels for the implementation and direction of leadership. True public leadership must be grounded in and based upon Christian principles and doctrines which are found in the Bible. In a fascinating article from an earlier issue of Faculty Dialogue,1 Carl T. Mulder, Professor of Education at Calvin College, argues that there are three approaches to biblical leadership in Christian organizations: the secular approach, the purist or separatist approach, and the integrationist approach. Mulder promotes the integrationist 1 approach, one in which scholars ". . . seek to develop a theory which integrates or applies those understandings from secular leadership that are in agreement with or help implement their biblical principles."2 Further, Mulder presents three "presuppositions" supporting his argument: 1) ". . . that the Bible is normative for one's behavior in all situations of life . . ." 2) ". . . that there are biblical principles that are to govern behaviors of individuals in groups and organizations . . ." and 3) ". . . that these biblical principles are to underlie and direct the actions of administrators and other Christian leaders in their role and function in organizations."3 It is the intention of this author to incorporate the "integrationist approach," focus on Mulder's third "presupposition," and establish a normative understanding of biblical leadership for the public service. This article will examine three primary factors-two are derived from Mulder's examination of biblical leadership (but this author will apply them specifically to the public sector environment) and the third is derived from the secular literature, but its roots are biblical.4 The primary intention of this article is to analyze these three factors in relation to and in conjunction with their biblical roots in order to affirm two contentions: 1) that secular leadership principles are founded upon the principles in God's Holy Word and 2) that to correct the ills which plague government and society today it is imperative to return to 2 and fervently apply these principles in everyday public decision making. Principles of Leadership Found in the Bible The Bible is the authoritative evidence of God's transcendent presence in the world today. Exegetical support and confirmation of this statement can be found elsewhere-for the purposes of this article it is an accepted fact on its own merit. One of the key areas of human existence which is covered in some detail in the Bible is the relationship between those with power and authority-i.e., leaders; and those without power and authority-i.e., followers. From the beginning God established a hierarchical organizational structure with man being granted the authority to ". . . subdue it [the world], and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28). God's plan for man was established " . . . before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4) that we should live in harmony with our fellow man, nature, the environment, and the earth itself. However, when sin entered the world it perverted this divine relationship and allowed fear to stain this relationship (Genesis 3:10). Fear is the root cause of distrust, greed and selfishness, all of which destroy the foundation for a true relationship between God and man, employer and employee, and government official and the people. There are three elements or factors, I believe, that God has instituted and set forth in 3 his Word that enable man to reestablish this divine hierarchical relationship and thus reaffirm true leadership principles: servanthood, accountability and citizenship. Servanthood One of the primary factors in our understanding model of biblical leadership is servanthood. It is a Christian's responsibility to serve. It is not an option but a requirement-a requirement that unfortunately most of the body of Christ has rejected, or at the very least has misappropriated. Professor Mulder points out that service was a principle factor in the life and teaching of Jesus.5 Jesus exemplified the quality of serving others throughout the New Testament (Matthew 20:28, Luke 22:27, John 13:4-5, Philippines 2:7). When confronted by the impetuous Peter's insistence that Jesus should not wash his feet, Jesus quickly responded by saying, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me" (John 13:8). Being a servant suggests an attitude of submission and a motive of humility. Jesus implied that one cannot lead, be successful in life, or follow commandments if one is not willing to serve. The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, recounted his desire to serve and be humble before them when he wrote, "For though I be free from all . . . yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more" (1 Corinthians 9:19). Service was not an option for Paul and must not be for the laity either. Paul took his calling from God seriously, and he expected the people to do likewise (1 4 Corinthians 7:20-22). Servanthood was also essential to the development of obedience (Ephesians 6:5) and faithfulness (Colossians 3:22). Why should public officials be concerned with the principle of servanthood? What does servanthood have to do with being a leader in the public service or in exhibiting leadership qualities for public service? Servanthood implies submission to a higher authority, such as wife to husband or church to Christ (Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18). It is not a man-made principle, but it was established by God. Submission of one's will before the will of another who is in a higher position of authority (Ephesians 6:5) ". . . will render the same of the Lord." (Ephesians 6:8-9) In other words, when a servant is submissive to the will of one who is in a position of higher authority he will reap a benefit in the end. Public officials must recognize their need to submit to a higher authority (e.g., to the people through the Constitution and legal statutes). Some strands of early eighteenth-century political theory, such as John Locke's6 explanation and argument for the social contract theory of government, emphasized the need for public officials to serve their constituents. The very concepts of federalism, republicanism, and representation strongly suggest the need for submission to a higher authority in order to reap benefits such as liberty and the exercise of constitutional and political rights. By their failure or unwillingness to submit to this higher 5 authority, it not only jeopardizes their legal and legitimate foundation of power, but it also hinders the moral and social development of the populace. The public official's authority, which is defined as the legitimate use of political and constitutional power, is rendered impotent for the sake of the people if they do not view and act upon their responsibility to serve rather than to rule. God intended for man to recognize and adhere to the authority, power and influence relationships of his kingdom which we discussed earlier. When a public servant betrays the trust granted to him by the people (whether it is through Machiavellian means or not) who he is contractually obligated to serve as set forth in the covenantal relationship we call the Constitution, he has then reneged and aborted his responsibility to those governed and effected by his decisions. Restoration of that responsibility is essential before a new bond of trust is established between the governor and governed. If this responsibility is not restored then the mistrust and lack of confidence in government officials will continue to grow. United States Senator John C. Danforth (R. MO), in a vitriolic statement made to his colleagues on March 26, 1992, on the floor of the Senate, concluded this remarks with an admonition toward fulfilling the principle of servanthood: The problem is that we have hurt America-quite intentionally we have hurt America, for the purpose of getting ourselves elected. . . . It is 6 a fraud. It is a fraud. We have defrauded the country to get ourselves elected. . . . I hope there will be a few of us who will be willing to tell the truth and to make some hard votes, even if we lose. If we cannot get re-elected on such a basis, what is the point of serving.7 Accountability for Actions Professor Mulder also points out that accountability is an essential feature of leadership, especially in Christian organizations. He notes that based upon Scripture, "It appears that Christians working together are accountable to and for each other."8 Further he shows that submission to authority should result in proper use of authority-thus the factor of accountability. He writes that "leaders of the church are directed to be overseers of the flock, eager to serve, not lording it over others entrusted to their care but as an example."9 Should this be true, likewise, in government service? The answer is most assuredly "yes." Is this true in government service today? The answer is debatable. Accountability is a biblically based concept that is to be applied in the public sector. Public officials are to be accountable or responsible for their actions to the people they govern. Accountability of actions or inactions means that the public official accepts the responsibility for the impact and consequences that his decisions have upon the people. In this manner accountability is directly linked to servanthood: submitting to a higher authority requires that the public official recognize and be responsible for the impact of his actions and decisions. 7 Generally accepted characteristics of accountability in the public administration literature are: 1) to be constitutionally and legally bound to a higher authority, 2) to adhere to the broader will of the governed,10 3) to recognize and respond to the needs of representative groups in society, such as ethnic, national and gender,11 and 4) to be responsive, or accountable, ". . . to someone else, outside of self, for something or some kind of performance."12 The cry today is that government leaders, and not their respective institutions per se, are not accountable to the people. The evidence of corruption, unethical practices and illegal activity in recent examples such as the House of Representatives House Bank and House Post Office scandals reflect the blatant disregard by public officials for following rules, for acting in a responsible manner and for properly and dutifully discharging the duties of their office. It is quite clear, however, that the Bible calls for accountability in public actions and leadership (Matthew 12:36, 18:23; Luke 12:20, 12:48, 19:15; Romans 14:12; 1 Peter 4:4-5). Accountability is the hallmark for Christian living. Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 about the responsibility that man has after he becomes a Christian. In verse 18, Paul sets the stage for man's responsibility by indicating what God did to make man accountable: ". . . all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of 8 reconciliation." Verses 19 and 20 sum up a Christian's responsibility: To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. This is further supported by the charge that Jesus gave to his disciples then and now when he said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). Although the content or substance of the charge is different the motive and attitude are the same for public officials when they discharge their public duties. Notice in verse 20, for example, that Paul referred to Christians as "ambassadors," implying that their official duty is to communicate and represent-two of the actions which public officials must perform. The need for accountability in public sector leadership can no longer be ignored: it must be faced and ultimately fulfilled. Citizenship A third factor of Christian leadership in public service is citizenship. Here I want to focus specifically upon the public administrator, the nonelected public official. Citizenship is an essential factor for establishing godly leadership in public service. It provides for the legitimacy of the public servant. Christian leadership in the public sector is established when the administrator is 9 linked to the constituents or clientele via his citizenship status. Several questions, however, need to be answered. First, how do we define citizenship? Second, how is Christian leadership in the public sector linked with the concept of citizenship? Third, what is the impact of this linkage in terms of public service? Terry L. Cooper's book, An Ethic of Citizenship for Public Administration (1991)13 is a "missing link" in our normative understanding of the public administrative role in the United States. Professor Cooper's thesis is that ". . . citizenship [is] a source of ethical norms for public administration."14 Cooper maintains that ". . . the most fundamental role of the public administrator is that of citizen."15 He also notes that: Public administrators are best understood as citizen administrators. . . . The ethical identity of the public administrator then, should be that of the citizen who is employed as one of us to work for us; a kind of professional citizen ordained to do that work which we in a complex large-scale political community are unable to undertake ourselves. Administrators are to be those "especially responsible citizens" who are fiduciaries for the citizenry as a whole.16 Further he contends that the public administrator, or "citizen administrator" must be virtuous. He defines virtue as ". . . a fusion of personal and public virtue-a modern republican virtue-that represented an amalgam of some elements of traditional civic virtue and of personal virtue, which was impregnated with biblical moral theology."17 According to Cooper, because modern man, unlike ancient man, 10 lives in a heterogeneous society, complete with various social, political, and economic roles to fulfill, the virtuous citizen is one who is comfortable exhibiting the characteristics typically associated with liberalism while still faintly pursuing the "common good." What, though, is Cooper's definition of virtuous? Professor Cooper uses the term "self-interest rightly understood" from Alex de Tocqueville, who defined it to mean ". . . understanding the origins of one's self in community and accepting one's resultant obligations to it,"18 and substitutes this liberal interpretation for the classic definition of civic virtue, which is commonly understood to mean to "forego self-interests in pursuit of the common good." Cooper insists this "substitution" of definitions is necessary because he indicates ". . . in modern society there is nothing approximating that degree of coherence and integration of life. Modern people live out their lives through an aggregation of social roles, each imposing a set of obligations to be met, and each invested with a set of interests to be fulfilled."19 In other words, Cooper waters down what is virtue in a deluge of liberalism, primarily because of the perceived lack of a set of standard values in our relativistic and situational society. In other words, virtue is no longer based upon agreed standards, but it is what an individual deems is virtuous. To salvage the good points of Cooper's thesis and correct the errors, we must turn to the Bible-the only existing 11 document which establishes a set of standard values-for a discussion of citizenship and virtue and their application to leadership based upon biblical principles. God has always recognized citizenship as important to the true development of man and his hierarchical relationship with God the Father. According to the Bible, Christians are citizens of the Kingdom of God (Colossians 1:12-13) while sinners are citizens of Satan's kingdom and hold allegiance to the "god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4). The apostle Paul was quite clear to the saints at Ephesus: ". . . at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:12). At one point everyone who was without Christ was without hope; we were not part of his kingdom and thus had no contractual agreement with God through Jesus Christ to be "an heir of God through Christ" (Galatians 4:7) and to receive the promises of God (Hebrews 1:14, 6:17). Jesus Christ, however, declared that his origin was not of this world (John 8:23) and that those who are in Christ Jesus are also not of this world. When we are in Christ Jesus through the eternal blood covenant or contract our citizenship changes from this earthly world to the heavenly kingdom. Our allegiance then is solely directed toward the head of the Church, Jesus Christ, and our heavenly rights and responsibilities are secure within this relationship, because this relationship is based 12 entirely upon the principle of faith in God and the supernatural work he accomplished. Therefore, because of the establishment of our heavenly citizenship, which implies a vertical relationship with God the Father, we are assured that a leader-follower relationship is legitimate. Likewise in the formation of our liberal republican form of democracy, as delineated by John Locke,20 people move from a hypothetical "state of nature," where government as we know and understand it did not exist and where men existed in ". . . a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man,21 to a society complete with the machinations and apparatus of government and the restrictions on man's freedom. The direct link between these two diametrically opposed states is Locke's conception of the social contract theory. Upon entering into a contract with each other, the citizens, or the governed, forfeit certain rights, such as the right to rule directly, in exchange for other rights, such as the right to vote, and freedoms such as are found in the Bill of Rights. Equally so, however, the governor, or government, who is also a citizen, forfeits his freedom to oppress and tyrannize in exchange for the authority (i.e., legitimate power) to lead. Therefore, the concept of citizenship, which was first established by God and instituted through the plan of redemption to, among other things, legitimize 13 true leader-follower relationships, also operates in the natural governing process of the state. When the leader-follower relationship is not rooted in the biblically based foundation of citizenship the relationship between leader and follower will eventually deteriorate and state oppression and suppression of rights and liberties follows.22 Virtuous Public Official Now to the second and last part of Professor Cooper's thesis of "an ethic of citizenship" and that is the concept of "virtuous citizen administrator." One fundamental source for Professor Cooper's virtuous citizen administrator is the community. According to Cooper, the embodiment of the virtuous citizen administrator is rooted in Tocqueville's concept of "enlightened self-interest" for pursuing what is good for the community. Cooper notes, for example, that "citizens are motivated significantly by the wish to select good policy that reflects concern for others rather than just oneself."23 He goes even further and writes that: Enlightened self-interest then, appears to be plausible as a form of civic virtue, but only when its latent "other regarding" aspects are firmly and explicitly cultivated through community experience and supported by a theory of community. Such a theory must recognize the reality of individuals and the legitimacy of their rights claims, as well as the ultimate dependence of individuals upon a network of associations and the obligations incurred thereby.24 He argues, and rightly so, that the foundation for community theory was discovered in Puritan-i.e., Judeo-Christian-theology, particularly in the idea of 14 covenant. Professor Cooper then cites liberally from the communitarian literature25 which, in his mind, exemplifies the basis of true virtuous conduct by leaders and the overall enhancement of the duties of citizenship. True democracy cannot exist without establishing a link between the common good-i.e., the people or the "life of the community"; and the representatives of a democratic government-i.e., the citizen administrator. Cooper bluntly testifies that . . . the penultimate obligation of the citizen administrator [is to provide and produce these common goods]. His or her ultimate obligation is to deliver these goods in ways that enhance the common good of community life through which character and civic virtue are formed. That is, the administrator's most fundamental responsibility is to encourage and support existing communities, and to give priority to policies, programs, rules, procedures and methods that will be conducive to the emergence of new communities.26 Several points must be made concerning Professor Cooper's argument. First, only the Bible is the true source for defining virtue. The word "virtue" is translated at least two ways from the Greek in the New Testament. One use of the word is found in the story of the woman with the issue of blood in Mark 5:30, where Jesus, after being touched by the woman, perceived that "virtue" has left him. Virtue in this context is translated dunamis, which means "miraculous power." Webster even defines "virtue" as "effective power or force; efficacy; potency; or the ability to heal or strengthen." However, this is not the translation which best suits our needs. 15 It is also translated a second way from the Greek and that is arete, which means "manliness, valor, or having qualities of moral excellence; right action and thinking; and goodness or morality." The intention of the communitarian theorists which Cooper cites, and others whom he does not cite, would, I believe, generally agree with the thrust of this second definition of virtue. Actually, they may only agree in part, because it would be their contention, like Professor Cooper's, that "moral excellence, right action and thinking, and goodness" are only reached (if at all) by leaders, or administrators, who exercise their responsibility to pursue the common good at the behest of the citizenry itself. In other words, the virtuous administrator is only virtuous if he is empowered by the citizenry. As a Christian I must vociferously disagree. The virtuous administrator is only virtuous if he is empowered by God, not by man. When man's heart is turned toward God, then government administrators and political leaders in general will exhibit and act upon God's concept of virtue and not man's. The virtuous administrator should remember the words of the apostle Paul in writing to the church at Philippi: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there is any virtue and if there is any praise, think on these things" 16 (Philippians 4:8). Conclusion In this article I have argued for the integrationist approach of Christian leadership which Professor Mulder discussed in his earlier piece: that is, for sound secular public leadership to emerge it must be based upon and "integrated" in biblical principles such as servanthood, accountability, and citizenship. Leadership is the linchpin of true democracy in the United States and the world. If those individuals who reside in public seats of authority do not exercise their base of power legitimately, then the United States will ultimately suffer cataclysmic disunification, loss of sovereignty and a withering away of nationalism. What is our divine responsibility as Christians to ensure this does not happen? I adjure you to adhere to the words of Paul: I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:1-4) For it is truth that liberates man and sets him on a course for achieving his destiny. Notes 1Carl T. Mulder, "Biblical Leadership in Christian Organizations," Faculty Dialogue 13 (Winter 1990): 79-103. 2Ibid., p. 80. 3Ibid., p. 81. 17 4The primary source for the third component part is taken from Terry L. Cooper's An Ethic of Citizenship for Public Administration (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991). 5Mulder, p. 83. 6John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government (Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1952). 7Senator John C. Danforth, "What Is the Point of Serving?" Tulsa World, 15 April, 1992. 8Mulder, p. 88. 9Ibid., p. 88. 10George J. Gordan, Public Administration in America, 4th ed. (New York: St. Martins' Press, 1992), p. 66. 11Charles H. Levine, B. Guy Peters, and Frank J. Thompson, Public Administration: Challenges, Choices, Consequences (Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 1990), p. 195; and Kenneth Meier, Politics and Bureaucracy, 2nd ed. (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1987), p. 112. 12Frederick K. Mosher, Democracy and the Public Service, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 9. 13Cooper, An Ethic of Citizenship for Public Administration. 14Ibid., p. 1. 15Ibid., p. 139. 16Ibid., p. 139. 17Ibid., p. 151. 18Ibid., p. 153. 19Ibid., p. 150. 20Locke, Second Treatise of Government. 21Ibid., p. 4. 22Primary examples are communistic, totalitarian, nationalistic and militaristic styles of governmental rule. As we have seen over the past decade, these types of repressive regimes are disintegrating primarily because they do not operate according to godly principles of leader-follower. 23Cooper, p. 157. 24Ibid., p. 157. 25For example, Cooper explores the roots of community theory by looking at several works such as Clark E. Cochran's Character, Community and Politics (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1982), and Yves R. Simon's Philosophy of Democratic Government (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1951). 26Cooper., p. 161. 18