Ecclesial leadership as friendship

182 Practising hope persons. Despite some scholarship to the contrary, I argued that particularity and preference, this person attending to that one and liking – or learning to like – them, do not render friendship other than the neighbour-love foundational to incarnational ecclesial leadership. 10 Indeed, the personal nature of friendship-love articulates well the leadership relationship I describe: one loves the other as end in themselves. Particularity and preference also do not make friendship exclusive: attending to what is particular in one does not preclude similar attention to others. This renders friendship open to outsiders and thus not inconsistent with the ek-static dynamic in incarnational ecclesial leadership or its specific pull towards solidarity with the world. It also means communities of friendships can be expected, a matrix of interconnected friendships consistent with the communities of leadership relationships already described. As for mutuality, a core aspect of friendship praxis, incarnational ecclesial leadership also seeks (eventually) a response of mutual love. Like incarnational ecclesial leadership, Christian friendship grows in the context of progressive mutual vulnerability in self-revelation. In both cases, this progressive vulnerability depends on trustworthiness. In initiating relationship with another, one risks sharing oneself as a way of receiving the other even in their brokenness. 11 Yet that risk cannot be borne indefinitely, being by nature a cruciform or kenotic act. Where this offer is repeatedly rejected over the long term and especially where the other demonstrates no trustworthiness with respect to self-revelation, Aelred indicates that friendship tends to fail though often it, too, perseveres for ‘lengths of love’. Similarly, it is unreasonable in such circumstances to think that those exercising leadership will continue to offer any great degree of personal vulnerability or indeed that there can be any movement towards the relational unity which characterises the community of lived transcendence. Betrayal or rejection truly may wound beyond current ability to sustain the ek-static reach necessary for relationship. Accordingly, both incarnational ecclesial leadership and friendship allow for withdrawal, albeit only in limited contexts. Aelred, especially, accepts that certain friendships may pass beyond repair, even if broken friendships are generally worth pursuing. Incarnational ecclesial leadership also may admit the withdrawal of the offer of relationship where this is persistently rejected, though such withdrawal is enacted only cautiously in recognition of the need of many to be received for ‘lengths of love’ before they can respond to the reality of God and join in the Son’s ek-static movement of love. In such leadership the cruciform cost of laying oneself down stands in tension with the need to honour the integrity of self, respecting its boundaries, since it is that self which must operate in this same leadership relationship as the other’s concrete limit. 12 It is this, as much as personal cost, which justifies necessary withdrawals: unity-in-difference is fundamental to incarnational ecclesial leadership. 13 Friendship also recognises this unity-in-difference: unmitigated openness of being is not desirable and respect of appropriate boundaries is presupposed.

Leadership and the prophetic imagination 183 ‘Differentiated openness’ is preferred, that each would be the other’s concrete limit enabling them to experience both themselves and the other; collapsing the distance comprised in differentiation destabilises and eventually nullifies friendship. Mutuality in friendship relates not only to self-revelation but includes mutual submission and mutual correction in the context of plain-speaking. The standard by which the appropriateness of correction or submission is judged is that of friendship’s good, the pursuit of God. There are parallels in incarnational ecclesial leadership. As we saw, the leadership act invites a response of deeper faith/commitment to Christ whose reality in the church is experienced in the context of Anderson’s two poles of transcendence. Implicitly, then, leadership relationships must involve, as noted above, preservation of those poles which constitute leadership’s hermeneutical frame, namely the reality of God in the testimony of the Word and the Spirit-filled community (with its practices which reaffirm the church’s true order as determined by Christ’s life). 14 This may occur through plain-speaking in the context of mutual education (whether didactic or reflective action-based learning) 15 and even mutual correction consistent with this frame. Furthermore, since to submit to the Word and practices of community is to submit to Christ as he is found in the community of lived transcendence, there may also be occasions for mutual submission, where another asks of us what is consistent with these poles that we and they might thereby know more fully the reality of God in our midst. The final section of this chapter will begin to develop this reflection in the context of decision-making. Friendship-leadership: imagining a concrete praxis With conceptual coherence between incarnational ecclesial leadership and Christian friendship now demonstrated, some regard to practical theology’s pragmatic task is necessary. I am cognisant of risks attendant upon so-called blueprint ecclesiologies, ecclesial reflection critiqued for being idealised and abstracted from concrete reality. 16 Although my work arises from experience of the Western church as concrete reality, engaging with a specific and concrete problem concerning its leadership narratives, 17 this act of imagination might still potentially attract critique on the basis of its primary focus on ecclesiology as normative endeavour. Related objections, some of which are considered in the next chapter, may also be raised based on the fact that the historical, concrete church does not yet cohere with its coming eschatological reality. Yet this tension does not justify abandoning these efforts. Instead, as argued earlier, it is in articulating the telos to which incarnational ecclesial leadership strains that there is potential for shaping praxis by which the concrete church and its leadership might correspond to the inbreaking eschatological hope. This does not deny concrete ecclesial realities: in fact, I have noted the inchoate nature of the praxis described, a need to live into what Anderson calls the adventus reality that it might become present

184 Practising hope reality. I accept that there may be no unique blueprint of concrete ecclesial reality as we know it presently; 18 rather, my hope in my approach here has been release of the imagination which births ‘new forms of spiritual strength or . . . motivation’, 19 shaping efforts to express concretely in the present the mystery which is the eschatological telos to which incarnational ecclesial leadership directs the church. In inviting the church to participate in an act of prophetic imagination, I contend strongly that nurturing the imagination is one of practical theology’s ‘main functions’ 20 and need not be construed as an abstraction from concrete reality, a denial of the status quo, even if it arises from a degree of pain in the face of that status quo. Prophetic imagination also is not abstracted from concrete reality in its final movement. Whilst Brueggemann contends that ‘[t]he imagination must come before the implementation ’, with ‘questions of implementation . . . of no consequence until the vision can be imagined’, 21 this does not indicate no space at all for practical theology’s pragmatic task. Instead, the prophetic imagination expressly recognises that hope must be made concrete in active practices; here, specifically, it must consider how friendship-leadership praxis might be performed concretely. The first pragmatic question that I will engage relates to the nature of the process of influence in friendship-leadership praxis. First described in terms of a non-coercive invitation into the ‘place’ where the telos of incarnational ecclesial leadership becomes capable of being pursued, the exercise of such leadership influence can now be developed further. Specifically, I will focus on the contours of influence in the context of power. 22 Power-exercise and friendship-power Because the church cannot be abstracted from its concrete reality, ecclesial communities are inevitably institutions, structures of habitualised interaction whereby persons begin to develop expectations of one another based on the pattern of the other’s actions which guide their own actions (reciprocal typification). 23 The church’s sociological reality as institutional may be secondary to its theological reality: 24 certainly I support Anderson’s characterisation of ecclesial structures as ‘disposable containers’ for, theologically, the church’s form must not begin to eclipse its way of being, namely life in the Spirit. 25 Nevertheless, sociologically, the church always has a form and interaction in communities necessarily involves routinisation. 26 Institutional forms, which may appear as ‘objective realities abstracted from the people who belong to them’, 27 are affected by patterns of power distribution. 28 Consequently, the pragmatic task must ask how friendship-leadership praxis shapes power dynamics and, thus, the ecclesial institutions in which leadership is so practised. Unsurprisingly, power is hotly debated amongst sociologists, with disagreement concerning its bases, forms and uses. 29 Whilst I cannot do justice here to the breadth of that discussion, two theological writers assist in beginning to ground how power and friendship may interact

Leadership and the prophetic imagination 185 in ecclesial contexts: Roy Kearsley helpfully employs Michel Foucault’s analysis for his work on ecclesial power, and Anita Koeshall outlines ‘redeemed power’. 30 Kearsley frames power in the local church primarily in terms of micropower. 31 In micro-groups, power is everywhere, ‘a complex, continuously fluid interplay of varied influences’, with power relations (differentials in members’ status) unavoidable. 32 More power, for example, accords to those who have access to communication systems and decision-making centres or facility with the micro-group’s practices and languages. 33 Power relations produce episodic power behaviours, attempts to influence outcomes to favour oneself or the group, including overt bids for personal power or resistance strategies of avoidance or silence. 34 Such power behaviours can come from anywhere within the group, not just the loci of recognised structural authority. In fact, whilst Kearsley recognises the category of ecclesial authority (structurally authorised, or legitimated, power), he treats the precise location of authority as secondary. 35 For, within the ecclesial context, primary in determining whether power-exercise is authorised is not its structural source but, instead, how that power is exercised. For Kearsley, authorised power behaviours intend ‘positive, transforming “power to”, rather than . . . “power over”’. 36 Such power-exercise is characterised by transparency and openness, caring, respect and listening. 37 He does not demand renunciation of power, itself impossible when to live in society is to exist in power matrices, but rather calls for a power which ‘mak[es] . . . its entrance only through weakness . . . give[s] up the privileges of “power over” . . . to bring . . . someone else the benefits of “power to”’. 38 Deliberately adopting such power behaviours begins to shape the behaviours of other believers, counterbalancing unhealthy patterns and drawing the community deeper into the mutuality of the koinōnia . 39 Koeshall argues similarly that whilst structures of ecclesial authority will vary depending on sociological context, what matters more than the source of power in determining its authority is, again, how power is exercised. Her concept is of ‘redeemed agents’ exercising ‘redeemed power’. 40 Thereby she intends power-exercise that involves ‘cruciform . . . self-emptying for the sake of others’, arguing this as possible whatever the organisational structure 41 and, implicitly, wherever structural authority is deemed to lie. In view for both Kearsley and Koeshall, then, are not so much the (explicit or implicit) structures of power but the kind of power and manner of its exercise. The location of structural authority, evidenced in governance structures and decision-making processes, may vary. Yet what matters in the context of leadership as activity is recognising that its interest in ‘influence’ encompasses a much broader sense of power than only structurally authorised power. It is this dynamic to which a friendship-leadership praxis speaks. Certainly, reading power in terms of friendship may present greater challenges for some ecclesial authority structures more than others, and the final section of this chapter explores this. Yet if, as I contend, patterns of power distribution

186 Practising hope and exercise should properly affect institutional form – that is, leadership activity preceding and informing structure – the determining factor must be how friendship shapes power-exercise. That is, an understanding of what friendship-leadership praxis means for proper power-exercise and distribution is the necessary precursor to considering questions of leadership structure. Particularly, it is not that friendship prefers ‘a pastoral rather than a power oriented approach to leadership’, contra Dreyer. 42 This would be to deny the existence of power relations. Rather friendship-power becomes ‘power with’ rather than ‘power over’. 43 In a business context, Mary Parker Follett called this co-active, rather than coercive, power. 44 Friendship-power is shaped by its context: its exercise is directed by the friends’ mutual desire to promote the other’s good and their genuine liking for one another. In the ecclesial sphere, this good is already established as the pursuit of God, a deeper participation in Christ’s life by the Spirit. The praxis which is friendship-power, then, is cruciform or kenotic. Christian friendship presupposes personal vulnerability, openness to the other and willingness in humility to initiate and respond to plain-speaking. Those exercising it may wrestle with the tension which coalesces around one’s own self, a dialectic of the self-sacrifice for which John 15:13 calls and an honouring of the boundaries appropriate to a differentiated self without which friendship is impossible. For this power is not self-seeking but self-giving for the sake of the other and indeed others in the wider power context. Because it is self-giving, friendship-power cannot hoard knowledge as a passport to maximised personal power; rather, knowledge is shared in an intimacy limited only by the degree of ‘loving censorship’ 45 necessary to honour self and others. It is incompatible with power behaviours which seek first personal advancement and accomplishment of one’s own will. Rather, power is used for the other. Yet because this use of power for the other may also entail humility in receiving from them no matter the status differential, friendship-power cannot be used to patronise. It flows within personal relation and assumes a dynamic of reciprocity, a mutuality of giving and receiving love. Those who wield it are discouraged from becoming isolated from their wider power context and the people located there; any sense of self-sufficiency is displaced. Indeed, if the dynamic of humble receiving is minimised in importance by power-holders, power-exercise moves away from ‘power with’, or friendship-power. For, like Koeshall’s ‘redeemed power’, power ‘orientation’ in friendship is ‘counter-rational’. 46 Whereas normally those with more power seek to increase the power differential between them and those with less power (whilst those with less power contemporaneously try to close the gap), 47 friendship-power works inversely. Though power differentials may be sociologically unavoidable, friendship-power longs to reduce the gap. 48 Isolation and a refusal of mutuality are inconsistent with this reduction of the gap associated with friendship-leadership’s dynamic of power-giving 49 in which each desires, in a kenotic/ek-static movement, to help the other in the pursuit of the good which is growth in participation in the divine love. 50

Leadership and the prophetic imagination 187 Though real life may not afford as smooth and unmixed an experience of such power as might be wished, it is both this orientation towards the kenotic/ek-static – that is, other-directed love as the motivating dynamic – and the mutual trust which is friendship’s bedrock which give an ecclesial community of friends the hope to persevere in their power context. Admittedly, a community of mutual love may also require for its stabilisation the articulation of some cognitively defined relational expectations regarding conduct and power-use. Talcott Parsons describes such articulations as ‘rules’. 51 Formalising such externally specified ‘rules’, however, leans slightly further towards accommodating the church’s pre-eschatological status than I would support. 52 Whilst our pre-eschatological location in a creation that groans cannot be denied, I prefer that it is the eschatological vision of friendship which is the primary reality shaping ecclesial power relations rather than rules, which may become reified, set once and for all in concrete. Living as this kind of community requires commitment to ongoing mutual processes of discerning the shape of communal relational expectations. This means negotiating what we expect of one another regarding conduct and power-exercise. This may be a challenging task in what is a tensive context, that tension being between the eschatological vision of friendship, with its idealised relational expectations, and the concrete particular historical reality of that community. Contextual and provisional as these concrete relational expectations will therefore be, not formulating them as ‘rules’ has the advantage of enabling ongoing discernment of their continuing relevance and/or need of adaptation in light of changing concrete realities in the context of an eschatological movement towards love. Such discernment processes regarding communal relational expectations will be best shaped by ecclesial practices, particularly listening to the Word and making sense of it together through dialogue 53 alongside sharing in Eucharistic hospitality, 54 because these mark again Anderson’s poles of transcendence between which this community has its life, the place where this friendship, woven also with friendship with God, is located. Power relations and friendship-power Before expanding on this matter of discernment and decision-making, another question is perhaps uppermost regarding friendship-power: the question of equality. Friendship is associated with equality yet inequality is a sociological given such that power dynamics presuppose power relations. Power in groups is unequally distributed. 55 How, then, can a relational dynamic which celebrates equality operate in the context of asymmetric power relations? Particularly, are power differentials born of variation in faith maturity and gifting problematic for a friendship-leadership praxis? It is obvious that power differentials may flow from variation in maturity or gifting/function. For example, those with greater experience concerning what it means to live as the community between the poles of transcendence

188 Practising hope hold more power. They, in Kearsley’s words, have better ‘access to the [community’s] means of communication .  .  . [and] native ease with .  .  . [its] language and practices’, itself power, 56 for these believers are familiar with the markers of ecclesial reality: the testimony of the Word and the practices which give form and expression to the Spirit’s life in believers. These believers are capable of making sense of the community’s life and purpose in light of these poles of transcendence. 57 Mature believers have become confident in their identity and gifting and thus freer to express neighbour-love towards others in the church, creating opportunities for other believers and unbelievers to be brought up against Christ’s presence in them and in the Scriptures. There is an asymmetry of power here which should not be denied. In fact, to deny it tends to be the privilege of the powerful, for only to them are such inequalities invisible. 58 Friendship, however, is not threatened by inequality. Rather, as we saw, it creates equality by recognising the friend’s personal worth and desiring to promote their good. In friendship, opines Aelred, ‘the lofty steps down and the lowly steps up . . . they communicate to one another their own state, with a resulting equality’. 59 Thus, inequalities of maturity or gifting/ function are not necessarily injurious to friendship-leadership praxis. Such inequalities are the corollary of any personal relations 60 and yet, despite this, friendships flourish everywhere. Indeed, friendship celebrates unityin-difference. This is because ‘asymmetry and material inequality’ are not themselves distortive: what is fatal to personal relations is ‘the sedimentation of particular forms of asymmetry and inequality into hard structures of relation or personal identity which resist the free exchange of dialogue roles’. 61 Sedimentation like this can be seen in churches where power relations have been static for some time or where it is the expectation, sometimes cultural, of some members that asymmetry and high power-distance must prevail. In such contexts, those with more power may struggle to surrender their power whilst those with less power may have become conditioned to prefer the comfort of the reduced responsibility concomitant with reduced power and to perpetuate the relational distance between them and those perceived to have power (perhaps even idealising power-holders and being unable to handle experiencing their vulnerability). 62 Where such structures of relation have hardened such that one or both do not desire mutuality and reduction of the power-distance, challenges may ensue regarding introducing a praxis of friendship. Unequal power relations, then, are not abusive per se. Carter Heyward only objects where they ‘do . . . not contain seeds both of transformation into a fully mutual relationship and of mutual openness to equality’. 63 These three criteria – (i) inequality as temporary in a relationship which desires both (ii) mutuality and (iii) reduction of the power-distance to zero 64 – do not cut across the spirit of friendship. Rather, they cohere with friendship’s drive to create equality between the friends in the context of a progressively growing mutuality. 65 Others agree regarding the need for asymmetry to be

Leadership and the prophetic imagination 189 dynamic or temporary. Letty Russell proposes that whilst nobody ‘is ever mathematically equal with others’, it is nevertheless possible to ‘treat . . . each person as a subject by encouraging the formation of dynamic power relationships, rather than static hierarchies that turn persons into objects of manipulation’. 66 Koeshall concurs: it is the sedimentation of power asymmetries into static structures which is problematic. A theory of dynamic asymmetry is preferable, allowing for ever-changing power relations as members of the community grow in maturity and gifting, such that ‘there are no permanently assigned stations: no one is trapped in their incapacity and immaturity, neither does any one person permanently hold a particular seat of influence’. 67 Such a structure even allows for one being simultaneously engaged in leadership and followership in areas of one’s strength and ongoing learning respectively. 68 Accordingly, inequalities of power in an ecclesial context are not necessarily injurious to friendship, provided that such inequalities are transient. Imagining the next steps In structural and process terms, what might friendship-leadership praxis mean with its acknowledgement that inequalities may exist but must be transient? Such a question is the logical avenue for continuing this work of prophetic imagination beyond its concerns with the activity of leadership. Questions of governance structure and processes stray into the domain of management, how ecclesial activity is to be co-ordinated and organised; they relate also to processes for making decisions regarding what I have called subsidiary objectives. Such secondary questions may not directly touch the activity of leadership but their answers must be consequent upon answers given to the primary question concerning leadership as activity if organisational structure and processes are not to undermine what is leadership’s essence. I have consistently ruled these questions as secondary in recognition of the need, in light of the vastness of the field of leadership studies, to delimit my focus to leadership as activity. They are thus the province of another, subsequent, flight of the prophetic imagination. Notwithstanding, this book’s imaginative act does constitute a jumping-off point for that subsequent flight and thus work so far positions me well to suggest directions for further thought. Furthermore, in focusing on leadership as activity and marking all else as of secondary concern, I would not want to be judged – in terms attributed to Tim Harle – as throwing out ‘the management baby . . . with the managerialism bathwater’! 69 Accordingly, recognising that at some levels the line between leadership and management is fluid, I offer initial comments regarding structures and processes in the context of dynamic asymmetry. Polycentric leadership structures recognise the concept of dynamic asymmetry described in the previous section. They comprise ‘many centers of leadership that interrelate’, being guided by the community’s vision. 70

190 Practising hope J.R. Woodward moots polycentric leadership ‘within a community of revolving leaders . . . engag[ing] . . . in the practice of both following and leading’ in recognition that it is Christ who is the church’s ultimate Head and his Spirit who leads them. Leadership thus becomes episodic: it is exercised by those whose maturity and gifting is appropriate for matters at hand and thus ‘can come from [even] the youngest Spirit-filled person in the congregation’. 71 Mutual submission is core to such polycentricity. 72 Where friendship shapes power patterns, mutual submission is voluntary and born of humility and love, perhaps less ‘submission to . . . [others’] commands but openness to their influence’, 73 for it is an exercise of power where each seeks the other’s good. Polycentricity thus honours the possibility that every believer may engage in leadership acts but also recognises that some will more often carry significant leadership responsibility, and implicitly power, by virtue of maturity and gifting. 74 Notwithstanding this recognition, its structural fluidity also protects against the sedimentation which embeds unhealthy power relations and which is fatal to friendship. This is because polycentric structures seek progressive reduction of power-distances to zero in the context of community members growing in maturity and gifting. They encourage wider distribution of leadership responsibility, enabling the church to expand its capacity for receiving others (who have not yet received the Spirit) and inviting their response of faith/commitment. Such structures accordingly show promise for further exploration in light of work so far concerning leadership activity. Within such a framework of mutual submission, what processes should determine decision-making and who has authority to decide? Since some believers may have greater power to influence than others, 75 they may use this helpfully in assisting the church in meaning-making processes. Perhaps, even, decision-making authority will be reserved for an approved few. This is increasingly acknowledged in the emerging-missional church, although congregations often remain involved to a high degree, and may be especially necessary in certain sociological contexts. 76 Decision-making may, alternatively, be delegated to different individuals depending on the nature and magnitude of the decision and/or matters of external accountability. For example, UK charities law holds designated trustees accountable for certain financial decisions by churches who have opted for charity status. 77 Similarly, trustees carry regulatory responsibility for failure to prevent child abuse in the church. 78 Certain related decisions may thus be assigned to them because of the weightiness of their external liability. Conversely, smaller decisions may be delegated to those whom the believers have entrusted with such areas of church life on the basis that communal decision-making is unnecessary in these more minor, perhaps administrative, matters. Consensus decision-making is a third option. Quaker leadership approaches demonstrate that consensus-building across an entire ‘Meeting’ of believers is not impossible: Richard J. Wood contends that such consensus-building, different from voting, need not take longer from idea to action than voting

Leadership and the prophetic imagination 191 for, though voting may enable faster ‘decisions’, these can take a long time to be actioned because of the need still to build consensus with those who voted against. 79 Thus, there is a range of approaches depending on where authority to make decisions is deemed to lie. Whoever the decision-makers, however, power-exercise shaped by friendship demands mutuality and shared process. Evelyn and James Whitehead’s fourfold process of discernment and decision-making might be a starting point for exploring the shape of this mutuality of process. First, they remind us of the need for our ignorance (concerning which decision is preferable) to humble us sufficiently to hear others’ voices. Second, they highlight that ecclesial decision-making processes should be public, inviting participation of members. Though total consensus may not be possible, or indeed necessary, those engaged in making decisions must be committed to visibility and openness, submitted to the agreed process as expression of mutual submission to other believers. Third, negotiation is core: those holding more power must ensure freedom for expression of honest differences and robust disagreement, though all are cautioned to seek to maintain relational integrity and community cohesion. Finally, reconciliation is essential. There must be ‘time and prayer to heal the bruises our wrestling has caused’, with space afforded to those needing to grieve the congregation’s decision. 80 The Whiteheads’ paradigm is not the only communal decision-making process. 81 Certainly in its openness to each person’s voice and celebration of difference of perspective, however, their process appears consonant with friendship-leadership praxis. Friendship thrives on the unity comprised of difference: its core of mutual love is robust enough to support unvarnished honesty and expressions of vulnerability because the essence of friendship is to desire the good of others as one’s own. It is this same dynamic of making the other’s good one’s own, of course, which can enable those disappointed by a decision to celebrate its outcome where it is to the good of the church, the community who are their friends, and to forgive those who hurt them in the mutual wrestling, whilst still grieving their own sense of loss. This dynamic is operative wherever authority and/or external accountability for decision-making lies and whatever the process. Sometimes decisions to the good of the church will pain individuals. Though this may be unavoidable, it need not undermine friendship-leadership praxis provided that each party uses their power during and after decision-making in a manner consistent with friendship. That is, power-exercise is kenotic: personally vulnerable, it seeks others’ good and makes space for plain-speaking by others. Though dynamics of authority/accountability to act on behalf of the gathered church may have ramifications for friendships between one with such responsibility/power and others, what will preserve friendship is trust that each party will use their respective power in the wider church 82 in a way consistent with friendship. Though each instantiation of such friendship may look different, the basic principle is that mutual trust remains

192 Practising hope grounded in continuing time together in the context of power-exercise which is kenotic. 83 I have begun to sketch a dynamic polycentricity as one leadership structure which might prove consistent with friendship-leadership praxis. Yet Brother John of Taizé is adamant that defining the church as a network of friends need not presuppose only one type of ecclesial structure. 84 Could hierarchy present an alternative? Earlier remarks about sedimentation perhaps already imply that static hierarchies, where leadership influence is shaped primarily by (and limited to) the contours of a role, are likely to inhibit the flourishing of friendship between those at different levels of the hierarchy since no movement towards equality is possible. 85 Admittedly, it is naïve to think that role is not an operative dynamic in all leadership interactions even where personal relation is championed over hierarchical role relations. For role is an inevitable aspect of institutionalisation. As patterns of interaction between agents become habitualised, typification also occurs: it becomes assumed that this type of agent in this context behaves in this way and according to these standards. 86 I thus cannot polarise the position, drawing hard divisions between leadership as friendship and leadership expressed as role. This is simply another facet of the tensive relationship between theological proposals regarding the church and concrete sociological realities. Yet my fear is that, in hierarchical structures, there will be increased role reification. Because role is ‘socially objectivated typification of conduct’, a part of the agent’s self is objectified as ‘performer’ of the particular action and subjectively perceived by the self as distinct from it such that a distance can be established between the agent-as-whole-self and the agent-actingin-role. 87 Whilst this means that the agent may more easily participate in their social world – for in any moment the role determines the repertoire of actions without need for constant decisions regarding appropriate behaviour for every interaction – the risk of this distance is depersonalisation in interactions with other agents. 88 What the other experiences is not the agentas-whole-self but, using Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s words, ‘the part of the self . . . objectified as the performer of the action’. 89 Furthermore, because formalisation of role behaviours increases with time, 90 progressive reification may ensue. The particular concern is that reification in static hierarchies can mean that the ‘sector of self-consciousness . . . objectified in the role is then . . . apprehended as an inevitable fate, for which the individual may disclaim responsibility’. 91 This adds to the element of distance between agent-aswhole-self and agent-acting-in-leadership-role. There may also be far greater temptation, where reification renders role permanent and inherent to a leader’s self-perception, that leadership will constitute exercise of this role only, rather than sharing of one’s very self in a person-to-person relationship characterised by kenotic/ek-static love which calls the other to a mutual response of love. 92 Absence of this personal act of cruciform vulnerability towards another renders leadership other than that which I have advanced. I

Leadership and the prophetic imagination 193 am thus doubtful regarding the compatibility of hierarchical structures with friendship-leadership praxis where such hierarchies are static, permitting role reification. 93 How many truly hierarchical structures could accommodate the dynamism of a church community where believers are growing in faith/commitment and in assumption of the responsibility which is incarnational ecclesial leadership praxis is perhaps moot. Koeshall, however, in her consideration of ‘redeemed power’, maintains more hope that hierarchy can sustain its exercise. Where hierarchies are dynamic, allowing the exercise of such power in a way that promotes the sharing of information and responsibility to discern truth and direction amongst the whole community, 94 perhaps she is right. In as much as leaders are not insulated in their position by their social context, using power to retain power, and where there is ‘no fear of speaking truth to power’, 95 perhaps not only Koeshall’s construct of ‘redeemed power’ could flourish but my construct of friendship-power also. I suspect, however, that I am less hopeful than she for the existence of such dynamic hierarchies. 96 In imagining next steps for developing work on incarnational ecclesial leadership, there are, of course, many additional possibilities. Questions which could further shape the next arc of a flight of prophetic imagination might include the following. (i) What are the metrics of success in incarnational ecclesial leadership? (ii) Alongside practices relating to the Word preached (the pole of historical transcendence), which practices are nonnegotiable in the context, described in chapter 6 , of re-enacting Christ’s life amongst this community of friends? John Thomson comments that ‘practices which foster friendship are vital’ to ecclesial life 97 but what are the practices which uniquely mark the matrix of these friendships as the place of lived transcendence? (iii) How might the praxis described operate in the context of those with intellectual disabilities or those so damaged emotionally that friendship may be challenging to initiate or sustain? (iv) How is friendship understood in non-Western contexts and how might this, along with cultural expectations on appropriate power-distance, affect implementation of my proposals? (v) How is friendship experienced differently by men and women and how might this affect implementation? (vi) Sociologically, friendships undergo phases in patterns of intimacy. 98 How might this play out within an ecclesial community of friendships and how would this affect leadership exercise? (vii) What do practitioners implementing this praxis need to know beyond those matters indicated in this chapter and the next, and how can Western ecclesial contexts successfully transition their de facto understanding of the telos to which ecclesial leadership directs? (viii) Finally, as a cruciform exercise of power, incarnational ecclesial leadership presupposes the laying down of self whilst also admitting the validity and integrity of the self being laid down. Feminist critique of the servanthood motif argues that this tends towards the negation of the self. Is friendship-leadership praxis sufficiently robust in its recognition of the self as to allay feminist concerns?

194 Practising hope Nevertheless, the present arc of prophetic imagination must be completed before pursuing new questions: there is still work for me to do in making concrete the active practices of hope. Particularly, I recognise that friendship is hard to establish and sustain in a creation that groans. There will be challenges and tensions around implementation of friendship-leadership praxis. Chapter 10 constitutes my guidance in the context of the pragmatic task to practitioners engaging the praxis proposed before, finally, the prophetic hope which is incarnational ecclesial leadership is reprised. Notes 1 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 65. 2 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 67. 3 ‘[T]he one who is “received” in this kenotic way is touched at the crucial point of his own “receptivity”’ ( HTRG , 236). 4 Anderson himself hints at this, calling friendship ‘the boundary of God’s presence’ ( Happy , 169). 5 For Thomas, God’s offer of friendship in Christ is made in his atonement and his continuing presence in the sacraments (Jones, Transformed, 101–104). Note parallels here with Anderson’s twin poles of transcendence, one of which relates to the historical reality of Christ, the other relating to his continuing presence in the church. 6 Wadell, ‘Itinerary’, 443. 7 MGB , 52. 8 Indeed, that differentiation expressed as ‘resistance’ is a necessary part of experiencing oneself and discerning the other in order to love them more fully as they are. See Anderson’s comments on pseudo-community (Anderson and Speidell, ‘Interview’, 66–67). 9 Anderson describes a process of discernment and integration ( SPT , 56–58). 10 Admittedly, Aelred would perhaps be more discerning regarding who might qualify for friendship than this leadership praxis (or indeed Thomas) proposes. However, if in the process of testing there remains hope for the one being tested to improve, Aelred appears to suggest one should continue to explore the possibility of a friendship. In his caution at declaring friendships, he imposes an important check on incarnational ecclesial leadership: because the church is located pre-eschatologically, we experience challenge with some, whom we struggle to like or who may reject/betray us, destroying mutuality. Further, see chapter 10. 11 Caltagirone, Friendship , 80. 12 Where the leader experiences mutual relationships with others in the church, not only receiving others but being received, their experience of being received may sustain them to persevere longer in receiving those who make no response of love. Most notably, no one (whether or not with positional leadership authority) is exempt from the need to be received within this ecclesial matrix for this is, in part, how the reality of God is known. When mutuality in one relationship is yet inchoate (cf. n.65), mutuality with others can sustain one who is offering onesided ‘receiving’ to a third. Yet this is not an indefinite solution. Cf. Spencer and Pahl, Rethinking , 84. 13 Caregiving , 87. 14 Similar to incarnational ecclesial leadership’s hermeneutical/interpretative aspect, the plain-speaking of friendship has an element of mutual shaping, interpreting

Leadership and the prophetic imagination 195 one another in light of the telos to which the friends direct themselves. The ‘drawing view’ expressly describes friendship as an act of mutual direction and interpretation, such that one’s choices and preferences become shaped by the others and one’s self-understanding is shaped by the other’s interpretation of oneself (Cocking and Kennett, ‘Friendship’, 503–506). For my purposes, the referent of interpretation in Christian friendship is not only the friend but also the shared good of the friendship: here, deeper participation in Christ and his ministry of love. 15 Consulting a friend about right/wrong and prudent/imprudent action is ‘one of the most vital activities of friendship’ (William K. Rawlins, Friendship Matters: Communication, Dialectics, and the Life Course, New Brunswick: AldineTransaction, 1992, 276). 16 Nicholas M. Healy, Church, World and the Christian Life: Practical-Prophetic Ecclesiology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 26; James M. Gustafson, Treasure in Earthen Vessels: The Church as a Human Community, Louisville: WJKP, 2009, 100, 105–107. 17 This meets Healy’s requirement that ecclesiology must help the concrete church within its context, responding to real problems identified there ( Church, 38, 47). 18 Healy, Church, 31, 34–35. Though for Dulles, also, there is no ‘supermodel’, he still presents his ‘community of disciples’ model as a potential ‘basis for a comprehensive ecclesiology’ – albeit admitting in the same sentence that it is not ‘adequate to the full reality of the Church’ ( Models , 197–198). 19 Messer, Contemporary , 21. 20 Pattison, Challenge, 284. Cf. Garrett Green’s statement that ‘the job of theology is . . . to articulate the grammar of Christian imagination’ ( Theology, Hermeneutics, and the Imagination: The Crisis of Interpretation at the End of Modernity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 205). 21 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 40. 22 ‘The concept of power is useful for understanding how people . . . influence each other in organizations’ (Yukl, Leadership, 189). I do not separate influence and power: ‘in reality the forms of influence and power shade into one another along several axes or continua from the non-social uses of force and manipulation to a near-complete fusion of will and purpose between power holder and power subject’ (Dennis H. Wrong, Power: Its Forms, Bases, and Uses (rev. ed), New Brunswick: Transaction, 1995, 66). I simply recognise the underlying connection between the two; thus, to speak of influence is to speak also of power. 23 Berger and Luckmann, Social, 70–85; Markus C. Becker (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Routines , Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008, 241–242. 24 Hegstad, Real , 134–137; Volf, After , 222. 25 HTRG, 304–305; cf. Leonardo Boff, Ecclesiogenesis: The Base Communities Reinvent the Church (tr. Robert R. Barr), London: Collins Flame, 1986, 6. For institutional transformation to remain possible, institutions must be ‘understood to have no permanent validity in their present, concrete form’ (Alistair L. McFadyen, The Call to Personhood: A Christian Theory of the Individual in Social Relationships , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 241). 26 Hegstad, Real, 126; cf. his critique (135–137) of the position articulated by Emil Brunner in The Misunderstanding of the Church (tr. Harold Knight), London: Lutterworth, 1952, 10–11. 27 Hegstad, Real , 130; also Berger and Luckmann, Social , 106. 28 Volf, After , 236. 29 Regarding the breadth of disagreement: Keith Dowding (ed.), Encyclopedia of Power , Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2011.

196 Practising hope 30 Roy Kearsley, Church, Community and Power, Farnham: Ashgate, 2008; Anita Koeshall, A Search for Redeemed Power and Dynamic Asymmetry: A Case Study among German Pentecostal Churches, Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic, 2012. 31 No micro-group is immune from power dynamics of other varieties, including sovereign and disciplinary power (Kearsley, Church , 43, 55). 32 Kearsley, Church , 85–86, 89. 33 Kearsley, Church , 93. 34 Kearsley, Church, 86, 90. Regarding power’s use and abuse in concrete local churches: Paul Beasley-Murray, Power for God’s Sake: Power and Abuse in the Local Church , Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998. 35 Max Weber’s typology embraces traditional, legal and charismatic authority and locates these in individuals ( The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (ed. Talcott Parsons, tr. A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons), New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964, 324–386). Paul Avis considers how these categories might look in the church ( Authority, Leadership and Conflict in the Church, London: Mowbray, 1992, 58–83). Regarding location of authority in the church community as a whole: Avis, Authority, 9–10; Victor Lee Austin, Up with Authority: Why We Need Authority to Flourish as Human Beings, London: T&T Clark, 2010, 26, 30–31; Werner G. Jeanrond, ‘Community and Authority: The Nature and Implications of the Authority of Christian Community’ (81–109) in Gunton and Hardy (eds.), Being , 96–97 . 36 Kearsley, Church, 179, 184; Avis, Authority, 25. By ‘power over’, Kearsley means ‘exploitation of [others’] . . . powerlessness’; ‘power to’ references ‘a person’s ability to engage their own capability’ ( Church, 40). To separate these definitively may prove impossible: much ‘power to’ has been made possible by increase in ‘power over’ (Jonathan Hearn, Theorizing Power, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, 7). Cf. Martha Ellen Stortz, PastorPower, Nashville: Abingdon, 1993, 50–53, 66. 37 Kearsley, Church, 107, 139, 215; caring is linked in passing with friendship, though friendship is not developed further (220). 38 Kearsley, Church , 160, 165; cf. SoM , 191. 39 Kearsley, Church , 107, 220. 40 Koeshall, Search , 211–212. 41 Koeshall, Search , 232, 236, 241, 282. 42 Dreyer, ‘Women’, 45. 43 Stortz, PastorPower , 106–107. 44 Co-active power is a ‘jointly developing power’ which seeks unity between parties rather than only a level playing field of ‘equality’ on which each party can fight for their interest (Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration (eds. Elliott M. Fox and L. Urwick) (2nd ed.), London: Pitman, 1973, 72–75, 86). 45 Bob Wells quoting Lillian Daniel at the Duke Divinity Theological Colloquium on Excellence in Ministry (‘It’s Okay to Go There: The Place of Friendship in Ministry’, www.faithandleadership.com/programs/spe/resources/dukediv-friendship.html, accessed 13/09/17). 46 Koeshall, Search , 282. 47 Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001, 83. Regarding power-distance in Scripture: Jim Plueddemann, Leading across Cultures: Effective Ministry and Mission in the Global Church, Downers Grove: IVP, 2009, 100–103. 48 Koeshall affirms this in relation to ‘redeemed power’ ( Search , 283–284). 49 Power-giving is Sherwood G. Lingenfelter’s term ( Leading Cross-Culturally: Covenant Relationships for Effective Christian Leadership, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, 110–119).

Leadership and the prophetic imagination 197 50 Though both seek the other’s good, greater responsibility for proper power-use belongs to the one with more power (Machteld Reynaert, ‘A Web of Power: Toward a Greater Awareness of the Complexity of Power’ (3–16) in Annemie Dillen (ed.), Soft Shepherd or Almighty Pastor? Power and Pastoral Care, Cambridge: James Clarke, 2014, 14). 51 Talcott Parsons, Action Theory and the Human Condition, New York: Free Press, 1978, 319–320. 52 Cf. Nel Noddings, Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (2nd ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013, 55–56. 53 Paralleling my comments on communal discernment and interpretative leadership in chapter 6, Evelyn Eaton Whitehead and James D. Whitehead consider significant the point about dialogue around the narrative of the Word in the context of an ecclesial community’s narrative. They describe ‘processes that expand dialogue . . . extend decision making, and . . . enlarge mutual accountability’ as essential ‘structures’ for power shaped by ‘partnership’ ( The Promise of Partnership: A Model for Collaborative Ministry, Lincoln: iUniverse.com, 2000, 174– 176). William K. Rawlins also discusses friendship in the context of dialogue and narrative and how these dynamics generate moral vision individually and for communities ( The Compass of Friendship: Narratives, Identities, and Dialogues, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009). 54 Further on hospitality: Summers, Friendship, ch.7; Luke Bretherton, Hospitality as Holiness: Christian Witness amid Moral Diversity, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006, ch.5; Christine D. Pohl, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999; Christine D. Pohl, Living into Community: Cultivating Practices That Sustain Us, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. 55 Hofstede, Culture’s, 82; Koeshall, Search, 210; Letty M. Russell, The Future of Partnership, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979, 67–70; Boff, Ecclesiogenesis, 5; Kearsley, Church, 89, 93; A.F. Droogers, Play and Power in Religion: Collected Essays, Berlin: DeGruyter, 2012, 158; James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, 179, 182. 56 Kearsley, Church , 93. 57 In the family context, Anderson describes the idea of ‘tutelage’ by which some induct others into ‘the rituals and habits of . . . community life’ ( OBF, 121). The idea is similar. 58 Kearsley, Church , 109. 59 Aelred, Spiritual , 3:91. 60 Relational asymmetry derives not only from organisational exigencies but also is a corollary of the ‘non-identity’ of the persons involved (McFadyen, Call, 147). 61 McFadyen, Call, 147. Where dialogue ceases to be possible, there is risk of power abuse, the concern to which Anderson was originally reacting in his formulation concerning leadership ( SoM , 189–196). 62 Cf. Simmons, Pastor’s, 90–92; Jean Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians – and How We Can Survive Them , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, ch.2. 63 Carter Heyward, Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1989, 35; cf. Jean Baker Miller, Toward a New Psychology of Women , Boston: Beacon, 1976, 3–12. 64 Stortz, PastorPower , 61. 65 It is important to admit that mutuality is ‘an ideal in process’ (Bonnie MillerMcLemore, ‘Sloppy Mutuality: Just Love for Children and Adults’ (121–135) in Herbert Anderson, Edward Foley, Bonnie Miller-McLemore and Robert Schreiter (eds.), Mutuality Matters: Family, Faith, and Just Love, Oxford: Sheed & Ward,

198 Practising hope 2004, 128). It evolves, looking different depending on who the friends are, their personal circumstances and maturity. Thus where there is mutuality of regard and love for the other, lack of equal power – provided this is transient – may not be destructive of friendship. (See further the discussion of equality in the context of mutuality in chapter 8.) 66 Russell, Future , 67–68. 67 Koeshall, Search , 251. 68 Koeshall, Search , 251. 69 Poole, ‘Baptizing’, 84. 70 Suzanne W. Morse, ‘Five Building Blocks for Successful Communities’ (229–236) in Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, Richard Beckhard and Richard F. Schubert (eds.), The Community of the Future, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998, 234. 71 J.R. Woodward, Creating a Missional Culture: Equipping the Church for the Sake of the World, Downers Grove: IVP, 2012, 102, 200, 213–215; J.R. Woodward and Dan White, Jr., The Church as Movement: Starting and Sustaining MissionalIncarnational Communities, Downers Grove: IVP, 2016, 53–69; cf. Gunton, ‘Church’, 77. Volf describes something similar, although is explicit that whilst ordination might not constitute a lifelong appointment because the bestowal of charisms is, from human perspective, provisional, more stability might be expected in charisms focused on the local church as a whole ( After, 225–226, 244, 250–251). 72 Volf, After , 230–231; Woodward, Creating , 102. 73 Whitehead and Whitehead, Promise , 197, 201; also Padgett, Christ , 37–49. 74 Instead of polycentricity, another structure consistent with friendship might be almost non-existent structure, a refusal to designate ‘leaders’, e.g., Cole, Organic, 93. Yet this may indicate naïveté as to power’s unequal distribution (Ian J. Mobsby, Emerging and Fresh Expressions of Church: How Are They Authentically Church and Anglican?,London: Moot, 2007, 78–81). Polycentricity emphasises leadership as activity above the significance of designating ‘ leaders’ but, unlike ‘leaderless’ concepts, does not entirely deny that some may be designated ‘leaders’ because of their relative power to influence others consistently (cf. Avery’s point that fluidity of leadership structures may render an organisation ‘leaderful’ rather than ‘leaderless’ – Leadership , 29–30). 75 Cf. Graham Cray, Discerning Leadership: Cooperating with the Go-Between God, Cambridge: Grove, 2010; Richard Robert Osmer, The Teaching Ministry of Congregations , Louisville: WJKP, 2005, 43–55, 283–302. 76 R.J.A. Doornenbal, Crossroads: An Exploration of the Emerging-Missional Conversation with a Special Focus on ‘Missional Leadership’ and Its Challenges for Theological Education , Delft: Eburon Academic, 2012, 181–182. 77 HM Government, ‘Charity Trustee: What’s Involved (CC3a)’, www.gov.uk/guidance/ charity-trustee-whats-involved, accessed 13/09/17. 78 Charity Commission, ‘Strategy for Dealing with Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Including Children Issues in Charities’, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/611342/Safeguarding_strategy.pdf,accessed 13/09/17. 79 Richard J. Wood, ‘Christ Has Come to Teach His People Himself: Vulnerability and the Exercise of Power in Quaker Leadership’ (208–221) in Mouw and Jacobsen (eds.), Traditions , 212–213. 80 Whitehead and Whitehead, Promise , 202–204. 81 Further: Ruth Haley Barton, Pursuing God’s Will Together: A Discernment Practice for Leadership Groups, Downers Grove: IVP, 2012; Peter Block, Community: The Structure of Belonging, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, n.d., 93–99; Luke Timothy Johnson, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the

Leadership and the prophetic imagination 199 Church, Nashville: Abingdon, 1996; Danny E. Morris and Charles M. Olsen, Discerning God’s Will Together: A Spiritual Practice for the Church, Herndon: Alban, 2012; Patrick Keifert (ed.), Testing the Spirits: How Theology Informs the Study of Congregations, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009; David C. Hahn, ‘Congregational Discerning as Divine Action in Conversation’ (145–165) in Dwight J. Zscheile (ed.), Cultivating Sent Communities: Missional Spiritual Formation, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. 82 Everyone has power of some kind, whether official/positional – see John R.P. French, Jr. and Bertram Raven’s list of types of power (‘The Bases of Social Power’ (150–167) in Dorwin P. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959) as expanded by Yukl, Leadership, 188–196 – or simply to employ the power behaviours described in the previous section. Some level of power imbalance is inevitable but I have argued that this need not undermine friendship. Cf. Pickard’s comment that the issue is ‘our failure to appreciate how to be a friend within relationships of unequal power relations’ (‘Christian’, 50 – italics mine). 83 Chapter 10 considers tensions around the good of the one and many and engages challenges associated with accomplishing continuing mutuality in practice. 84 Brother John of Taizé, Friends in Christ: Paths to a New Understanding of Church, Maryknoll: Orbis, 2012, 119. For further consideration of governance structures as polycentric or otherwise decentralised, see: Hock, One; Boff, Ecclesiogenesis ; Wheatley, Leadership; Avery, Leadership, 26–31, 157–187; Harvey Seifter and Peter Economy, Leadership Ensemble: Lessons in Collaborative Management from the World’s Only Conductorless Orchestra, New York: Times, 2001; Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, London: Portfolio, 2006; Katherine K. Chen, Enabling Creative Chaos: The Organization behind the Burning Man Event , Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2009. 85 These would be high Grid contexts (see Mary Douglas, In the Active Voice (2nd ed.), Abingdon: Routledge, 2011, ch.9). 86 Hegstad, Real , 127. 87 Berger and Luckmann, Social, 90–91. Regarding how reification affects the recipient of action: Michael M. Harmon, ‘The Responsible Actor as “Tortured Soul”: The Case of Horatio Hornblower’ (69–94) in Michael M. Harmon and O.C. McSwite (eds.), Whenever Two or More Are Gathered: Relationship as the Heart of Ethical Discourse, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2011, 85. 88 McFadyen comments that when structures of communication become sedimented, an end to further inter personal communication will result ( Call , 256). 89 Berger and Luckmann, Social , 90. 90 Hegstad, Real , 136. 91 Berger and Luckmann, Social , 108. 92 James E. Loder, The Logic of the Spirit: Human Development in Theological Perspective , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998, 196–197. 93 Cf. Simmons, Pastor’s , 67. 94 Koeshall, Search , 290. 95 Koeshall, Search , 290. 96 Hierarchical leadership structures often ‘fall into [instituting] detached rules’, establishing a command-obedience dynamic rather than mutuality (Kearsley, Church, 180). Douglas elucidates how hierarchies tend towards power insulation ( Active, ch.9). Where an underlying ecclesiology essentially coheres with Dulles’ institutional model, with its resulting structural implications for leadership, I suspect that the dialectic between it and the incarnational ecclesiology

200 Practising hope espoused here will be too great to sustain friendship-leadership. Cf. Stephen W. Sykes, ‘The Dialectic of Community and Structure’ (113–128) in Frederic B. Burnham, Charles S. McCoy and M. Douglas Meeks (eds.), Love: The Foundation of Hope – The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann and Elisabeth MoltmannWendel , San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988, 124–126. 97 John B. Thomson, Sharing Friendship: Exploring Anglican Character, Vocation, Witness and Mission , Farnham: Ashgate, 2015, 25. 98 Blieszner and Adams, Adult , 15, 90–104.

To minimise the gap between the eschatological and historical church is naïve. Standing at present within a creation that groans, the historical church is subject to sin and brokenness with the result that even the elusive, indeed illusory, ‘supermodel’ would be a somewhat uncomfortable fit for such an imperfect church, no matter how detailed the related rules of art might be. Imagining incarnational ecclesial leadership as Christian friendship is therefore unlikely to be without its detractors when it comes to the sometimes painful reality of church in the context of a creation not yet all that it will be. Perhaps the most obvious objection related to a groaning creation is that friendship fails. In William Rawlins’ words, ‘friendships can be hard to accomplish, harder yet to sustain, fragile, vulnerable, and, quite often, tragic’. 1 What kind of leadership is possible, it might be asked, where friendships become exclusive, or where trust breaks down in contexts of betrayal, or where believers refuse to – or find themselves unable to – learn to like those who have been drawn to this ecclesial community to discern the reality of God there? What happens when friendships become toxic because one party’s neediness or desire has collapsed the distance between the friends and the other has responded with perhaps over-robust efforts to reassert the differentiation core to friendship’s unity? What if the jealousy of one has sought to limit the other friendships in which the beloved might engage? Perhaps a less dramatic but more common issue: what if friends have simply begun to drift apart because of life’s pressures? These are indeed all-toofamiliar possibilities for those long accustomed to ecclesial realities. 2 Yet so also are the ways in which less relational leadership approaches break down, whether through the congregation feeling that leadership ‘doesn’t care’ or being treated as little more than cogs in rotas which enable the continued pursuit of some extrinsic goal. 3 Other approaches to ecclesial leadership can also become enmired in power plays 4 which exclude some and betray others, which create toxicity and despair throughout a congregation and which, in pursuit of undifferentiated unity, resist the right of individual believers to self-definition by making their own choices. In both ecclesial leadership and friendship there is pain and potential for huge failure. It would be foolish not at least to admit that friendships may 10 Prophetic hope in a groaning creation

202 Practising hope fail as I consider pragmatic implications of my proposal. Yet the response must also be made that this is not a function of the proposal itself but of a groaning creation. 5 Before the eschaton all experience of ecclesial leadership risks falling short of the prophetic imagination. This is not, however, justification for admitting defeat. The prophetic imagination is necessary so that we might identify both the telos towards which ecclesial leadership must direct the church and the praxis which is participation in that telos. It is, writes Anderson, the ‘ultimate purpose . . . [which must] inform . . . the action so as to correct the design, if necessary, in order to realize the ultimate purpose’. 6 Prophetic imagination fixed on ever-deepening discernment of that telos through engagement in praxis is necessary to correct and shape that praxis towards ever-greater faithfulness to the ministry of Christ. Indeed, as we ‘reach . . . out for what is not present to us, yet in that reaching out we encounter a reality which becomes present to us’. 7 Whilst the pragmatic task is not to pretend that there will be no difficulties in embedding friendship-leadership praxis in concrete contexts, it also must not allow difficulties to push us towards what might seem an easier telos and related praxis. Instead, the pragmatic mandate is partly to identify where problems may likely arise and partly to offer rules of art so that practitioners may both prepare for such challenges and their ‘fall-out’ and also engage in educating fellow believers regarding the exigencies and the vision of a friendshipleadership praxis. Particularly, it might be helpful for practitioners to flag in their ecclesial contexts that Christian friendship emphasises the importance of learning to like those with whom we may not experience immediate affinity and who, indeed, may be very different from us. Cates’ advice, noted in chapter 8 , about intentionality regarding exercising one’s imagination in learning to like others, alongside emphasis on the need for prioritising time together to preserve mutuality of benevolence and affection, may assist in the practicalities of how to begin such a daunting task, 8 but equally helpful may be the admission that friendship recognises different degrees of intimacy, as detailed below, and thus implicitly different levels of liking. 9 Important too is highlighting the inclusive aspect of Christian friendship, its essentially shareable nature. At first blush a friendship-leadership praxis might indicate a ‘cosy’ ecclesial community, one which denies its mandate as the place where unbelievers can be received, there to discern the reality of God, and which permits favouritism. Yet Christian friendship, in its attention to this other, does not thereby forsake all others. Instead, it is permeable to outsiders, recognising that a third friend draws out aspects of each friend which neither could for the other. 10 This may require repeated reminders amongst the church, given, first, the tendency of exclusive cliques to form with their own complex networks of secrets and confidences and, second, ensuing favouritism or factionalism. 11 This, however, does not indicate tension between Christian friendship and incarnational ecclesial leadership’s presupposition, based on believers’ solidarity with the world, that those led

Prophetic hope in a groaning creation 203 will not be only believers but unbelievers. Rather it recognises the dynamic of creation’s groaning. It will be important to remind the church how to understand Christian friendship’s shared ‘good’. It is clearly defined as the friends’ deeper participation in the life of the Spirit, a participation experienced amongst the community of lived transcendence. Thus, as Cristina Traina says, ‘[t]he ecclesial context frames everything . . . within congregations individuals must remember that the friendships they make, sustain, wound, and repair are not their private matter’. Further, ‘[t]he good they wish for each other and themselves must be the good of the congregation as a whole’. 12 In fact, the ultimate good of each one and of the wider relational matrix of friends coincides, though sometimes this will not appear true. Sometimes it will appear to mean loss to one, though short-term loss which does not harm their good in Christ. 13 In these cases, I highlight again the Whiteheads’ decision-making paradigm and its realistic approach to the difficulties of embodying such friendship. 14 Still, to sustain believers’ understanding of the ultimate telos of incarnational ecclesial leadership will be challenging in a culture which prefers to measure friendship by other shorter-term and less costly goods. This renders even more important Christian friendship’s willingness to countenance plain-speaking. A friendship-leadership praxis involves holding one another accountable in relation to any behaviours or priorities, both within and beyond the friendship, which are inconsistent with the witness of Scripture and the Christenacting community practices identified in conversation with Anderson as marking the reality of God in the church. Rawlins recognises a friendship dialectic of judgment-acceptance: whilst ‘[a]cceptance remains a vital aspect of communication between friends’, a friend’s judgment is also valued. Indeed, knowing oneself as accepted by a friend depends on that friend judging one’s ‘ideas, thoughts, and actions seriously’, just as receiving judgment depends on knowing oneself accepted. 15 It is to be expected that, for some, the appropriate balance may be difficult to find: they may deny that friendship includes mutual challenge or may overcompensate by constant correction of others. Those implementing this leadership praxis must recognise the need to educate regarding this tension, especially concerning difficult situations where Christian friendship demands public naming of sin for the sake of the friend and the wider community of friends even where the friend does not consider this judgment comfortable or to their short-term good. The progressive nature of mutuality might also need explaining by those implementing this praxis. This recognises that Christian friendship grows as friends spend more time together and divulge increasingly more of their very selves. 16 In this way, Christian friendships may begin slowly and, as Anderson has shown us, a mutual response of love may follow only after many ‘lengths of love’. However, though Greeley claims that ‘the more common error is to quit just before friendship actually begins’, 17 sometimes mutuality may never come. 18 Christopher Heuertz and Christine Pohl speak painfully about undergoing ‘a form of attachment disorder’ in their friendship

204 Practising hope approach to mission: ‘how many times’, they ask, ‘could we handle being betrayed and abandoned by people we were befriending?’ 19 How many times indeed? Who knows but only that it may be more than ecclesial leaders know how to receive. Though the cruciformity of this friendship requires laying down one’s very self, this subsists in tension with friendship’s requirement that there remains a self to lay down. When every effort has been made to no avail, some hoped-for friendships may, in the pre-eschatological context, need to be set aside, albeit with sadness, because they are toxic to the integrity of the self of one or both friends. This is because friendship requires unity-in- difference to be friendship: if it threatens the integrity of the self of either party, it cannot be friendship. Difficult friendships, offers of friendship which have yet to be received with mutuality, and friendships which have been broken can each be borne only in the context of other friendships where those so betrayed are themselves being received in the community of lived transcendence. In their education of congregations in this praxis, practitioners must be honest regarding how friendship can, thus, both inflict deep wounds and be what binds them up. It might be objected that friendship is relationally too intensive to be the shape of a leadership praxis. It demands too much, setting up expectations of an intimacy far too deep to be possible with more than one or two and thus severely limits the number who can be led at any one time. In one sense this objection misses the reality that friendship intimacy is progressive and thus describes relationships with varying degrees of intimacy. Liz Spencer and Ray Pahl describe ‘friendship repertoires’, the concept that a person has a range of types of friends within their personal community. 20 This emphasises the diversity of friendships which can be sustained: some may have a more intensive quality based on the degree of personal disclosure, 21 the length of the friendship and frequency and regularity of contact; 22 others may be less deep. Friendships also pass through phases depending on rhythms of interaction. 23 As I discussed in chapter 7 , Thomas, particularly, recognised degrees of intimacy based on proximity and affective bonds. Aelred also saw vulnerability in friendship as progressive, as does Vacek’s more contemporary work. Thus friendships are not all intensive: it is possible to have – even to need – a repertoire of diverse friendships, each of varying degree, each of which may also express love differently, 24 and each of which may nevertheless operate intentionally to influence the beloved towards deeper participation in Christ. Furthermore, it is not even desirable for incarnational ecclesial leadership that all such relationships should quickly become intense. People need time to ascertain the reality of God in the church before responding in faith/commitment. 25 For engaging with both historical and personal poles of transcendence must be possible at a person’s own pace. Accordingly, a variety of degrees of ecclesial friendship is inevitable where this is recognised and honoured. In another sense, however, this objection about relational intensiveness is correct. Friendship discloses a public-private dialectic, the balance of which

Prophetic hope in a groaning creation 205 depends on the context’s prioritising of civic responsibility or intimacy. 26 Christian perspectives admit this same tensive quality, recognising friendship’s diversity in the depth of its potential for intimacy alongside the call in Christ to offer friendship to those otherwise outside its embrace or with whom we might find little immediate affinity. Like attempts to conceive political constructs of civic friendship, Christian friendship too risks falling foul of the challenge associated with converting the ‘informal practices of friendship for [seeking the other’s good] . . . to formal public procedures involving numerous people . . . pursuing the common good’. 27 A friendship praxis thus does limit leadership’s reach and may prove problematic in larger churches although it does not, of course, prevent such churches from birthing new, smaller communities of friends which can continue to welcome unbelievers into the place of lived transcendence and which cohere well perhaps with Anderson’s reference to ‘disposable containers’. Even in larger churches, however, such a leadership praxis is not altogether limiting as an example from the corporate world demonstrates. Gore, an organisation of 9,500 people, functions as a relational adhocracy (a ‘flexible, self-renewing organic structure’) by pursuing an organisational form consisting of subunits of maximum 200 people. 28 Relational models thus can successfully structure complex organisations, 29 even larger churches. Further, notwithstanding this tension regarding the potential reach of friendship-leadership praxis, it must be affirmed that where influence (the basis of leadership activity) is towards a telos participation in which is a relational praxis of love, that influence cannot, in fact, be other than through personal relationship. The telos towards which incarnational ecclesial leadership directs the church is participation in the life of the Spirit. Any other process of influence, however much more easily accommodated to very large groups of people, will not move towards this end for it is not an end extrinsic to the means by which it is approached. Rather, means and end are intrinsically related. To participate (more deeply) in the life of the Spirit, the divine life of love, is accomplished as we participate in ever-deepening loving relationship in the place where the reality of God is made known, there encountering God in his Word and his Spirit indwelling the other. A different type of practical objection may be that friendship fails to maintain boundaries which guard against abuse of power. This is rooted in therapeutic thought which argues for appropriate distance between therapist and client so as to manage power inequalities and minimise the possibility of a helper being submerged by the emotions of one helped. 30 Dual relationships, those both professional and personal, are discouraged if not considered impossible. 31 Thus, professional ethics celebrate boundaries which define the nature of a therapeutic relationship, excluding any possibility of friendship. This was the subject of the 1990s ‘Boundary Wars’ debate initiated by Carter Heyward’s critique from her own experience of receiving therapy. 32 Boundary concerns have crept into the church too, establishing caution in some quarters concerning friendship between a

206 Practising hope congregation and its leaders. 33 Yet must we carry wholesale this therapeutic position into the church? Without denying very real concerns around the potential of culture, institutional structures, reification of role and other dynamics to afford inappropriate power to those exercising leadership, I contend that friendship has a place. Friendship is not inconsistent with boundaries which operate to protect and honour the other. Rather, in its desire for the other’s good, friendship presupposes a boundaried respect of the other’s person, a differentiation in the context of unity. 34 Ecclesial leadership is not co-extensive with therapy, though it may include elements of pastoral care. Its focus is on believers’ growth in love, the telos which is their full humanity in Christ. Thus the kind of protection afforded by therapeutic boundaries excluding all possibility of friendship is not required. Where a need to receive specialised care exceeds the reach of friendship, conflicting with it, it may be preferable for ecclesial leaders to point believers to professional therapeutic help whilst maintaining the existing friendship relationship. 35 This is what a friend does: as part of seeking the other’s good, they may point the other away from themselves to a third who can offer better help. Accordingly, therapeutic boundaries are unnecessary: instead, more permeable relationally contextualised boundaries are appropriate. 36 Such boundaries, characteristic of friendship, may indeed better enable growth since there is a danger that rigid boundaries for the sake of ‘safety’ may operate to infantilise the other and remove friendship’s transformative possibility. 37 Whilst safety, the avoiding of power abuse, is important, friendship-leadership praxis is a kenotic/ek-static movement towards the other, desiring their good which is deepened participation in the divine life of love. It thus does not aim to dominate but uses its power on behalf of the other and, where power differentials are real, seeks reduction of that power-distance to zero. Nevertheless, recognising the church’s location in a groaning creation, those engaged in incarnational ecclesial leadership do well to be aware of the complexity and corrupting potential of personal motivation concerning power. In choosing to eschew the rigidity of therapeutic boundaries in favour of friendship, we must take care to hold to the desire for the other’s good as friendship’s foundational motivation, depending heavily on the critique of our motives by other friends within the church before whom our lives are held open. 38 In words ascribed by Paul Wadell to David Wood, ‘[c]ertain key friendships in our lives make other friendships possible’: violation of boundaries in friendship, through misuse of power or demanding more intimacy than a friendship can yet sustain, can be minimised by ‘appropriate intimacy’ in other friendships. 39 Boundaries also traditionally protect against the dangers of dysfunctional expressions of sexuality. For some, the only appropriate response might be discouragement of all friendship between men and women. How, they may then ask, can a friendship-leadership praxis operate in such contexts? My answer is twofold. To some extent, limiting friendship-leadership praxis to

Prophetic hope in a groaning creation 207 relationships between those of the same sex is immaterial (although seeking to express this structurally may effectively create two-churches-in-one, male and female). Second, perhaps more fundamentally, I deny the basic assumption that in Western ecclesial contexts 40 friendship between the sexes is inappropriate. This is another debate, beyond my scope. Briefly, I simply note broad agreement with Dan Brennan who contends that, though naïveté regarding the risk of disordered sexuality is problematic, we should not overcompensate by treating cross-sex friendship as if this itself is disordered. 41 Writing as a non-practising homosexual Christian, Wesley Hill argues similarly that despite friendship’s various risks (including, specifically, sexual transgression), ‘the burden . . . [and] attendant temptations, of isolation’ are equally risky. 42 Again I return to Wood’s sentiment: though cross-sex friendship is risky (and so, of course, is same-sex friendship where same-sex attraction is operative), perhaps it is preferable to mitigate the risk through engagement in a range of friendships than accept the alternative, ‘the burden . . . of isolation’. I certainly cannot deny friendship’s risk. It is risky and it is costly. To engage incarnational ecclesial leadership is to engage a demanding praxis. In its beginning, middle and the sadness of its occasional endings, friendship is difficult. Yet this is not the whole story. To imagine incarnational ecclesial leadership as Christian friendship is also to voice a beautiful hope. It is to speak, with Ray Anderson, of a church who understands her telos as a deepening participation in Christ’s life and ministry, in his kenotic/ekstatic movement of love towards the Father which overflows to humanity in neighbour-love. In its constructive phase, it is to imagine ecclesial leadership in terms that understand the responsibility of influencing others towards that telos by taking the initiative to live out our own participation in Christ, loving others in the church as they seek to discern the reality of God, intending that they might there encounter Christ’s presence in us by the Spirit and in the Scriptures affirming him as the reality of God and that they might be enabled to respond. This praxis, constructed in conversation with Anderson, is one of friendship: not an impersonal love, it is an offer of one’s very self in vulnerability and hoped-for mutuality, inviting the other to respond in deeper faith/commitment to Christ as he is found in the church, a response effected in acts of neighbour-love. Such dyadic relations cannot be understood outside the relational matrix which is the church and incarnational ecclesial leadership thus means not only to look to these but also to maintain the centrality of the poles of transcendence by which the church is the place where the reality of God may be discerned. For it is these poles, Anderson has shown us, which constitute the hermeneutical frame for the church’s identity as the place where God may be encountered through the Son in the Spirit. I have spoken, then, of ecclesial leadership in conversation with Anderson’s theology of incarnation as the praxis of human friendships which are, in some sense, sacramental of the divine-human friendship and are an

208 Practising hope intentional invitation of those befriended to respond in love not only to the human friend but also to encounter there the divine Friend and make the response of faith/commitment to him which is the reciprocation of his love. My interest in making such a proposal is, of course, to offer a theological narrative for ecclesial leadership which engages seriously with the field of leadership in its own right yet which is not drawn into the narrative of managerialism which has been a strong component of that field. I hope, quite simply, to make a small contribution to the need for more intentional and sustained articulation of a theological narrative for ecclesial leadership. It is not that I am denying all validity to management concerns such as structures and processes. These are important. Yet I have repeatedly argued that they are secondary and, particularly, that the priorities of managerialism must not be permitted to become default teloi of ecclesial leadership. The telos of incarnational ecclesial leadership is, rather, the deepening participation by believers in Christ’s life and ministry of love towards the Father which overflows to humanity. This is the end to which leadership must direct the church and the process by which influence towards that end occurs is a praxis of friendship. That affects how power is to be used in the church. Accordingly, when subsidiary objectives may be pursued, associated processes for decision-making and co-ordinating plans for implementation must not contradict the overarching telos and praxis identified. Specifically, the way power is used to accomplish any subsidiary objectives may not contradict the manner in which friendship-leadership praxis engages power. The imagination of ecclesial leadership as friendship is not only valuable in the originality of its contribution to current thinking and practice. It is also bold in the context of a tensive reality where the church is both mystical reality and sociological institution. The temptation might be to say nothing. For critiques will be inevitable, whether that too much weight is ascribed to sociological concerns (perhaps in defining leadership in light of social science literature and allowing this to shape my endeavour) or to normative theological considerations (such that the proposal may be considered to give insufficient attention to concrete ecclesial realities). Some, for example, will want rules defining friendship in the ecclesial context whereas I have promoted mutual processes discerning a concrete church’s particular relational expectations of friendship. In doing so, I favour prophetic imagination which recognises the tensive nature of friendship as eschatological vision in the context of a community’s particular historical reality, offering no firm ‘rules’ but only ‘rules of art’ which practitioners must engage for themselves in the particularity of their contexts. Friendship is contextual by its very nature and to ground this work too specifically in one concrete context is to narrow its potential value as an imaginative work. It is not that there is no grounding of what was always intended as an act of prophetic imagination. This chapter and the previous one engage this task primarily. Yet in recognising, as we have in that grounding work, the

Prophetic hope in a groaning creation 209 many difficult-to-predict ways in which friendship-leadership praxis may look different in different ecclesial contexts and the diversity of ways that a groaning creation may make it challenging to implement, we should not lose sight of the prophetic hope. For we must not forget the eschatological dimension by which the church echoes her Lord in calling that which is not yet as though it already were. Before the eschaton, all human experience is less than it will one day be in Christ, the experience of ecclesial leadership included. In Anderson’s words, we are but on ‘the threshold of the . . . eschaton’. 43 Yet this is not justification for admitting defeat but invitation to bold acts of prophetic imagination. For if the responsibility of ecclesial leadership is to direct the church towards its end, an end we know to have an eschatological dimension, those who would engage in it must have sufficient vision to imagine that end and the praxis which is ever-deepening participation therein. As we look towards our coming hope, we will indeed encounter challenges as we wrestle with how this looks in our churches and as we await eagerly the redemption of a creation that groans. Yet simple participation in this praxis will also quietly take us deeper into the divine life of love and invite others to the same belonging through faith. I conclude with Greeley’s words: That we have not achieved such a combination of leadership and friendship is not a proof that the ideal has been tried and found wanting but, as Gilbert Chesterton has said, ‘it has been found hard and not tried’. 44 What if this unleashing of prophetic imagination were received as a call to try? Notes 1 Rawlins, Matters, 278. Cf. the dialectic of ideal-real in friendships (Rawlins, Matters, 11–15, 271). The difference, perhaps, is that whereas secular perspectives lament that friendship is not what was hoped, the Christian narrative affirms gladly that friendship is not yet what it shall be. 2 Whilst friendship will eventually flourish, ‘there will be . . . trials and pains . . . regressions and new beginnings’ for ‘few of us are strong enough in our selfhood to be able to trust others with ease’ (Andrew M. Greeley, The Crucible of Change: The Social Dynamics of Pastoral Practice, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968, 96–98). 3 Woodward, Church , 54. 4 This was, of course, Anderson’s own concern with ecclesial leadership. 5 In Anderson’s words: ‘Personhood as an existential phenomenon promises more than it can deliver . . . There is something inherently tragic about the form of our present community of human love’ ( OBH , 177). 6 Caregiving, 19. By ‘design’, Anderson means what initially ‘orients the action toward its goal’. 7 OBH , 177. 8 John Swinton also argues that ‘there is a tendency to come to like someone simply as a result of having regular personal contact with them’ ( From Bedlam to

210 Practising hope Shalom: Towards a Practical Theology of Human Nature, Interpersonal Relationships, and Mental Health Care, New York: Peter Lang, 2000, 157). Steve Duck discusses friendship-building skills, recognising that the similarity significant in friendship is an ‘emergent property’ discovered over a process of relating ( Friends, for Life: The Psychology of Personal Relationships (2nd ed.), Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991, 2–5, 30–31). Where one party makes moves towards friendship, the other can find themselves drawn into friendship (Suzanne B. Kurth, ‘Friendships and Friendly Relations’ (136–170) in George J. McCall (ed.), Friendship as a Social Institution, New Brunswick: Transaction, 2011, 155). 9 Perhaps this is what Elaine Storkey misses when arguing that expecting friendship to direct ecclesial life is unreasonable ( The Search for Intimacy, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995, 149–151). Friendship as I express it is diverse, varying in degrees of preference and intimacy depending on each friendship’s context. 10 Lewis, Four , 74–75. 11 Stortz, PastorPower , 119. 12 Cristina Traina, ‘A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Dealing Honestly with Pastoral Power’ (122–144) in Dillen (ed.), Soft, 139–140; cf. Jones and Armstrong, Resurrecting , 75. 13 O’Donovan helpfully distinguishes between ‘ultimate good’ and ‘proximate interest’ ( Resurrection , 234). 14 Consider especially their advised sensitivity to the bruises caused to our friends and the need of time and prayer for healing (Whitehead and Whitehead, Promise , 204). 15 Rawlins, Matters , 20–22. 16 Those with authorised ‘position’ may find this personal vulnerability most difficult of all where they are used to being needed, rather than admitting their own need of others. To admit our own neediness may be the ultimate hospitality (Pohl, Making, 74). Nevertheless, wisdom is required for sometimes unnuanced disclosure may overburden a friend. See Rawlins’ expressiveness-protectiveness dialectic in friendship ( Matters, 22–23) and Andy Crouch’s discussion of inappropriate vulnerability in leadership ( Strong and Weak: Embracing a Life of Love, Risk and True Flourishing, Downers Grove: IVP, 2016, 122–124). Timing one’s disclosure of vulnerability wisely is also key (Olthuis, ‘Face-to-Face’, 147–148). 17 Greeley, Friendship , 46. 18 Cf. Macmurray’s identification of the reality of withdrawal from relation motivated by fear, discussed in chapter 4. 19 Christopher L. Heuertz and Christine D. Pohl, Friendship at the Margins: Discovering Mutuality in Service and Mission , Downers Grove: IVP, 2010, 36. 20 Spencer and Pahl, Rethinking , 58; Rawlins, Matters , 271. 21 Lafollette argues that because intimacy depends on personal revelation which is private, and an act of vulnerability/trust communicated with sensitivity to the hearer, intimacy is a matter of degree and can fluctuate across the course of a relationship ( Personal, 108–119). Note, however, that because of the centrality of personal differentiation in friendship, intimacy does not require revealing everything, especially the secrets of others. This may comfort those who fear that a friendship-leadership praxis removes all possibility of keeping appropriate confidences. 22 Spencer and Pahl, Rethinking , 72, 74. 23 Blieszner and Adams, Adult , 15; Rawlins, Matters , 273. 24 Spencer and Pahl, Rethinking , 66. 25 HTRG , 236.

Prophetic hope in a groaning creation 211 26 Rawlins, Matters , 10–11. 27 Rawlins, Compass, 199. Cf. Martha Ellen Stortz’s consideration of whether civic friendship might be useful for the church in its horizontal interactions (‘Beyond Justice: Friendship in the City’, Word & World 14:4 (1994), 409–418) and Heather Devere’s overview of the civic friendship literature (‘The Academic Debate on Friendship and Politics’, Amity: The Journal of Friendship Studies 1 (2013), 5–33). 28 Avery, Leadership, 30–31, 60–61, 171–187; www.gore.com/about,accessed 14/12/17. 29 However, where relationships centre around one relatively distant leader, LeaderMember Exchange theory notes that the quality of those leadership relationships will be low and group consensus difficult to achieve (Birgit Schyns, ‘The Role of Distance in Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)’ (136–154) in Michelle C. Bligh and Ronald E. Riggio (eds.), Exploring Distance in Leader-Follower Relationships, New York: Routledge, 2013, 136–142). Cf. McFadyen, Call, 257–258. It is likely that Gore operates polycentrically, with many leaders (whether assigned or emergent); other organisations certainly do (cf. Wheatley, Leadership; Hock, One ; Ernst & Young Business Report, ‘Responding to a “Polycentric” World’, http:// www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Business-environment/Winning-in-a-polycentricworld--globalization-and-the-changing-world-of-business---Responding-to-apolycentric-world, accessed 13/09/17. 30 Gordon Lynch, Pastoral Care and Counselling, London: Sage, 2002, 61; Alastair V. Campbell, Moderated Love: A Theology of Professional Care, London: SPCK, 1984, 81–82. 31 Note, however, the impossibility of avoiding dual relationships in rural contexts (Margo Rivera, ‘I-Thou: Interpersonal Boundaries in the Therapy Relationship’ (173–196) in Katherine Hancock Ragsdale (ed.), Boundary Wars: Intimacy and Distance in Healing Relationships, Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1996). In some cultures, dual relationships are even desirable (Mari E. Castellanos, ‘Barriers Notwithstanding: A Lesbianista Perspective’ (197–207) in Ragsdale (ed.), Boundary). 32 Carter Heyward, When Boundaries Betray Us, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. Miller-McLemore summarises the debate (‘Sloppy’, 123–126). 33 Eileen Schmitz, Staying in Bounds: Straight Talk on Boundaries for Effective Ministry, St Louis: Chalice, 2010, 129; Lebacqz, Professional, 110; Jones and Armstrong, Resurrecting, 75; Marie M. Fortune, ‘The Joy of Boundaries’ (78–95) in Ragsdale (ed.), Boundary. 34 Christian friendship, like any other relationship, has relational expectations: chapter 9 discusses discernment of these within the church context. 35 Edgar, God, 182. Karen Lebacqz and Joseph D. Driskill discuss this further ( Ethics and Spiritual Care: A Guide for Pastors, Chaplains, and Spiritual Directors, Nashville: Abingdon, 2000, 73–77); cf. Richard M. Gula, Ethics in Pastoral Ministry , Mahwah: Paulist, 1996, 79. 36 Lebacqz and Driskill, Ethics, 54, 76; Lynch, Pastoral, 63–64. Even in therapeutic situations, some argue that boundaries should be contextual (Rivera, ‘I-Thou’, 174; Miriam Greenspan, ‘Out of Bounds’ (129–136) in Ragsdale (ed.), Boundary ). 37 Paul Bayes, ‘Making Friends’ (15–28) in Tim Ling and Lesley Bentley (eds.), Developing Faithful Ministers: A Practical and Theological Handbook, London: SCM, 2012, 24; Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, ‘Introduction’ (ix–xxiii) in Ragsdale (ed.), Boundary , xvii. 38 Cf. chapter 9 n.12 regarding how ‘being-received’ by friends helps sustain our receiving of others in friendships especially where these other friendships are ‘less mutual’ (see chapter 9 n.65) than we might desire.

212 Practising hope 39 Paul J. Wadell, ‘Ethical Considerations in Mentoring for Vocation’ (Lecture given on 11/11/10 at St. Norbert College, De Pere, Wisconsin), www.snc.edu/vocation/ docs/wadell-mentoring.pdf, accessed 13/09/17. See also n.16. 40 Rawlins notes that the possibility of cross-sex friendships depends on historical and socio-cultural circumstances ( Compass, ch.5); cf. Fehr, Friendship, 142–152. 41 Dan Brennan, Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions: Engaging the Mystery of Friendship between Men and Women , Elgin: Faith Dance, 2010, 54–59. 42 Hill, Spiritual , 41. 43 HTRG , 295. 44 Greeley, ‘Leadership’, 278.

In the Introduction, I referred to my starting points of imagination. Acts of prophetic imagination do not begin from thin air nor from some supposedly objective perception of the dominant consciousness. They begin, rather, with one who expresses the sense of pain. That sense of pain, whilst occasioned by immersion in the dominant consciousness, is also shaped by the subcommunity within which such a would-be prophet is located. For it is this sub-community, with its presuppositions regarding the authority of its tradition, which is the crucible in which the potentially prophetic voice is formed. By its own narratives and worldview, that crucible may, to some extent, amplify the prophetic sense of pain and of dislocation between what is and what could be. Certainly it will constitute, consciously or unconsciously, the starting points of the one who dares to imagine. This sub-community influences too, often in subtle ways, the structures of thought which will shape acts of prophetic imagination arising from within it. There is no shame in this, for to be prophetic is not to disown the authority of what has gone before. Rather, the prophet recognises that divine action, the ongoing ministry of Christ, is participated in the context of human action 1 and thus that the divine voice and act may be discerned in the history and praxis of the sub-community. Even so to be prophetic also means discerning what of that history and praxis is truly Christopraxis and what is in need of transformation. It is for this reason that I must set out the detail of the starting points which I have received from my sub-community. Though I may challenge the degree to which we have accommodated the dominant consciousness, demanding the need for transformation of our praxis in this respect, I must also admit that I will be blind to other aspects of our theology and praxis which are in need of transformation and even, perhaps, that I may be standing upon some of these as I launch my own act of prophetic imagination. Thus, at the very least, I must admit my starting points insofar as I can apprehend them, in order that those who would discern whether there is something of the divine voice and act in this imaginative endeavour might be better able to interrogate what is proposed. Richard Osmer describes such starting points as a researcher’s metatheoretical assumptions. Particularly, these relate to the theory-practice relationship, sources of justification, approaches to interdisciplinarity and theological Appendix Imagination’s starting points

214 Appendix rationale. 2 These assumptions shape practical theological methodology; further, the researcher’s position on one assumption often affects how other meta-assumptions are handled. 3 That I both came to faith and studied theology within a confessional evangelical context has influenced not only my original interest in the question of ecclesial leadership but also my methodological assumptions, the starting points of my act of prophetic imagination. Though David Bebbington characterised evangelicalism in terms of the four pillars of conversionism, activism, biblicism and crucicentrism, 4 the ground has shifted since as evangelicalism has diversified culturally, geographically and in terms of its responses to secularism’s impact on Christendom. 5 Whatever the state of evangelicalism today, however, it has marked me indelibly with a commitment to Christocentrism informed by Scripture as ‘norming norm’ mediating God’s self-revelation, 6 with tradition, reason and experience each providing valuable supporting theological understanding. Practical theology recognises its status as a hermeneutical endeavour: every reading of texts, practices or theologies flows from pre-existing hermeneutical commitments. 7 Accordingly, though holding that theological understanding is possible in light of God’s self-revelation in Christ (through Scripture and the Spirit who makes Christ present, interpreting Scripture to us), and that this understanding occurs in ways that ‘transcend the limitation and flux of . . . cultural and historical horizons of experience’, 8 I also affirm the epistemic necessity of hermeneutical humility. For whilst theological understanding may be theoretically possible, it is also progressive. Interpretation of Scripture as revelatory presupposes historico-critical engagement with the text in the context of a prayerful reading which recognises that the Spirit of God is ultimate interpreter of the Word of God. Though the church’s tradition and reasoned theologies are subordinated to Scripture, I understand them as valuable hermeneutical lenses through which the wider church has discerned in the Spirit God’s revelation mediated by Scripture. 9 For evangelicals, the frameworks of theological predecessors are significant as sources to be integrated and critiqued to create a new construct. Not to emulate the scientist who operates by ‘methodological questioning of what he has already known’ to advance that knowledge is a common error of much theological study which purports to be a ‘start[ing] all over again’. 10 Yet these frameworks are not read to the exclusion of Scripture and, indeed, those theologies which seek to demonstrate themselves authenticated by Scripture are preferred as sources by those employing evangelical method. 11 This contextualises my own constructive approach: I build here on the work of a foremost evangelical practical theologian, 12 albeit not uncritically, engaging also the theological tradition of friendship, in addition to Scriptural material, to shape the discourse further. Experience predominantly occasions our theological efforts and, alongside reason, is of particular worth in practical theology’s descriptive and interpretative moves. My own story perhaps makes apparent how my experience first occasioned my theological wrestling. However, experience of

Appendix 215 participation in ecclesial practices is also formative, causing participants to know the world differently. In this sense, experience carries epistemic weight, making possible a specifically theological understanding not available to those who only observe from outside these traditioned practices. 13 As a believer with a decade of ecclesial leadership experience and twenty years in church, not only my theological questions but also, doubtless, my resulting theological understandings are different than those of both an outsider and a ‘churched’ believer with no ecclesial leadership experience. Despite my commitments to a specific theological rationale and related ordering of theological sources, I do not advocate a straight-line theorypractice understanding. Instead, recognising how my questions arise from experience, chapters 1 and 2seek to deepen that perception of contemporary ecclesial practice in order that the normative and pragmatic work of later chapters proposing how the gospel might be performed in this context occurs within understanding of that context. 14 Osmer typifies the descriptive task as ‘disciplined attention to some form of contemporary human experience’ including insights derived from practices as much as social-scientific research methods. 15 This disciplined attention in these chapters encompasses not only the literature about ecclesial leadership and the commentary of academics and practitioners in the field as indicative of contemporary ecclesial practices. It also casts the net more widely into the field of leadership studies in order to understand a dominant narrative embedded there, an understanding which interprets patterns identified in ecclesial leadership. This reveals my attitude to interdisciplinarity. Though not engaging socialscientific theory in qualitative/quantitative research, this study is not monodisciplinary. Instead it draws on leadership theory to shape its understanding of the proposed subject matter, determining what questions are best asked of the theological material. Priority is still given to Scripture and tradition and, indeed, the traffic is not all one-way from leadership theory to theology: the theological critique of the narrative of managerialism embedded in much contemporary leadership practice is strong and motivates the normative work which follows. Yet there is certainly an interdisciplinary engagement guiding theological construction, informing choices about how to articulate the leadership focus and, particularly, its delimitation. Notes 1 ‘Torrance’, 69. 2 Osmer, Teaching , 306–308. 3 For example, to see the theory-practice relationship as linear, from theory to practice, is implicitly to deny any validity to interdisciplinarity and to afford little to no attention to sources other than Scripture. 4 D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s , London: Unwin Hyman, 1989, 2–3. 5 Brian Stanley, The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Billy Graham and John Stott , Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013, 28, ch.9.

216 Appendix 6 Evangelical method holds Scripture centrally (Kevin Vanhoozer, ‘Scripture and Hermeneutics’ (35–52) in Gerald R. McDermott (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, 36). 7 Cahalan and Mikoski (eds.), Opening , 5. 8 Sally A. Brown, ‘Hermeneutics in Protestant Practical Theology’ (115–132) in Cahalan and Mikoski (eds.), Opening , 128. 9 Claiming to construct theology without sources other than Scripture is naïve. See: Stanley J. Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a PostTheological Era, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000, 131–134; Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context , Louisville: WJKP, 2001, 11–15. 10 Torrance, Theology, 23–24. Moreover, to focus solely on Scripture may engender repetition of traditional doctrinal formulations rather than fulfilling the need for recontextualisations of frameworks in response to changing cultural/historical contexts (John Jefferson Davis, Foundations of Evangelical Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984, 67; cf. Stanley N. Gundry, ‘Evangelical Theology: Where Should We Be Going?’, JETS 22 (1979), 3–13, 11–12). 11 ‘Scripture stands over against tradition as the norm by which it is to be tested’ (Anthony N.S. Lane, ‘Tradition’ (809–812) in Kevin J. Vanhoozer (ed.), Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible , London: SPCK, 2005, 812). 12 Andrew Root, ‘Evangelical Practical Theology’ (79–96) in Cahalan and Mikoski (eds.), Opening , 89. 13 Richard Osmer, ‘Empirical Practical Theology’ (61–77) in Cahalan and Mikoski (eds.), Opening , 70. 14 Swinton and Mowat, Practical , 12–17. 15 Osmer, ‘Empirical’, 61. He thus does not explicitly assume an empirical focus as necessarily requiring qualitative/quantitative study, although he clearly values this mode of investigation in his own work.

Ackrill, J.L., ‘Aristotle on Eudaimonia’ (15–33) in Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. Adair, John, Effective Leadership Development , London: CIPD, 2006. Adair, John, The Leadership of Jesus and Its Legacy Today, Norwich: Canterbury, 2001. Adams, Don, ‘Loving God and One’s Neighbor: Thomistic Charity’, Faith and Philosophy 11:2 (1994), 207–223. Adams, Glenn and Victoria C. Plaut, ‘The Cultural Grounding of Personal Relationship: Friendship in North American and West African Worlds’, Personal Relations 10 (2003), 333–347. Adams, Jay E., Shepherding God’s Flock Vol. 3, s.l.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975. Adiprasetya, Joas, ‘Pastor as Friend: Reinterpreting Christian Leadership’, Dialog 57 (2018), 47–52. Aelred of Rievaulx, Spiritual Friendship (ed. Marsha L. Dutton, tr. Lawrence C. Braceland), Collegeville: Liturgical, 2010. Aelred of Rievaulx, The Mirror of Charity (tr. Elizabeth Connor), Kalamazoo: Cistercian, 1990. Agosto, Efrain, Servant Leadership: Jesus and Paul , St. Louis: Chalice, 2005. Allan, Graham, Kinship and Friendship in Modern Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Allan, Graham and Rebecca G. Adams, ‘Reflections on Context’ (183–194) in Rebecca G. Adams and Graham Allan (eds.), Placing Friendship in Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Allen, Diogenes, ‘Jesus as Lord, Jesus as Servant’, Christian Century (18/03/98), 295–300. Ambrose, On Duties of the Clergy (1–89) in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (eds.), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser. II Vol. 10, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. Anderson, Digby, Losing Friends , London: Social Affairs Unit, n.d. Anderson, Ray S., An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, Oxford: BRF, 2007. Anderson, Ray S., ‘A Theology for Ministry’ (6–21) in Ray S. Anderson (ed.), Theological Foundations for Ministry , Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. Anderson, Ray S., ‘Christopraxis: The Ministry and the Humanity of Christ for the World’ (11–31) in Trevor A. Hart and Daniel P. Thimell (eds.), Christ in Our Place: The Humanity of God in Christ for the Reconciliation of the World, Exeter: Paternoster, 1989. Bibliography

218 Bibliography Anderson, Ray S., Everything That Makes Me Happy I Learned When I Grew Up, Downers Grove: IVP, 1995. Anderson, Ray S., Historical Transcendence and the Reality of God: A Christological Critique , London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1975. Anderson, Ray S., ‘Making the Transition: From a Theology of Ministry to a Ministry of Theology’ (27–38) in Allan Hugh Cole, Jr. (ed.), From Midterms to Ministry: Practical Theologians on Pastoral Beginnings, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Anderson, Ray S., Minding God’s Business , Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Anderson, Ray S., Ministry on the Fireline: A Practical Theology for an Empowered Church , Downers Grove: IVP, 1993. Anderson, Ray S., On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Anderson, Ray S., Self-Care: A Theology of Personal Empowerment and Spiritual Healing , Pasadena: Fuller Seminary Press, 2000. Anderson, Ray S., Soulprints: Personal Reflections on Faith, Hope and Love, s.l.: Fuller Seminary Press, 1996. Anderson, Ray S., Spiritual Caregiving as Secular Sacrament: A Practical Theology for Professional Caregivers , London: Jessica Kingsley, 2003. Anderson, Ray S. (ed.), Theological Foundations for Ministry, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. Anderson, Ray S., ‘The Practical Theology of Thomas F. Torrance’, The Princeton Theological Review 14:2 (2008), 65–77. Anderson, Ray S., The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis , Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001. Anderson, Ray S., The Soul of God: A Theological Memoir, Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004. Anderson, Ray S., The Soul of Ministry: Forming Leaders for God’s People, Louisville: WJKP, 1997. Anderson, Ray S., ‘Toward a Holistic Psychology: Putting all the Pieces in Their Proper Place’, Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology 1:2 (2007), 5–16. Anderson, Ray S. and Dennis B. Guernsey, On Being Family: A Social Theology of the Family , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Anderson, Ray S. and Todd H. Speidell, ‘Interview with Ray Anderson: Toward a Christian Theoanthropology’, Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology 1:2 (2007), 65–72. Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae (ed. Thomas Gilby et al.), [Cambridge]: Blackfriars, [1964–1981]. Aristotle, Magna Moralia (425–685) in Aristotle in Twenty-Three Volumes (XVII) (tr. G. Cyril Armstrong), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977. Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics (tr. David Ross), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Athanasius, ‘Four Discourses against Arius’ (303–447) in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (eds.), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser. II Vol. 4, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. Atkinson, William P., ‘The Trinity and Servant-Leadership’, ERT 38:2 (2014), 138–150.

Bibliography 219 Augustine, Confessions (45–207) in Philip Schaff (ed.), A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Ser. I Vol. 1, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana (519–597) in Philip Schaff (ed.), A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Ser. I Vol. 2, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. Augustine, Tractates (John’s Gospel) (7–452) in Philip Schaff (ed.), A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Ser. I Vol. 7, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. Austin, Victor Lee, Up with Authority: Why We Need Authority to Flourish as Human Beings , London: T&T Clark, 2010. Avery, Gayle C., Understanding Leadership: Paradigms and Cases, London: Sage, 2004. Avis, Paul, Authority, Leadership and Conflict in the Church, London: Mowbray, 1992. Backström, Joel, The Fear of Openness: An Essay on Friendship and the Roots of Morality, Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2007. Baillie, D.M., God Was in Christ , London: Faber & Faber, 1948. Baker, Ken (and with integrated response by Jonathan Bonk), ‘The Incarnational Model: Perception of Deception?’, EMQ 38 (2002), 16–24. Baly, Denis, ‘The Prophetic Imagination: Walter Brueggemann’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41:2 (1979), 300–301. Barbour, Ian G., Myths, Models and Paradigms: The Nature of Scientific and Religious Language , London: SCM, 1974. Barentsen, Jack, Emerging Leadership in the Pauline Mission: A Social Identity Perspective on Local Leadership Development in Corinth and Ephesus, Eugene: Pickwick, 2011. Barna, George, Futurecast: What Today’s Trends Mean for Tomorrow’s World, s.l.: BarnaBooks, 2011. Barna, George, Marketing the Church: What They Never Taught You about Church Growth , Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1988. Barrett, C.K., The Gospel According to St John , London: SPCK, 1978. Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics Vol. 1.1 (tr. G.T. Thomson), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936. Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics Vol. 2.1 (eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance), Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010. Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics Vol. 4.1 (eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956. Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics Vol. 4.3/2 (eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1962. Barth, Karl, Ethics (ed. Dietrich Braun, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981. Barth, Karl, The Epistle to the Philippians , s.l.: SCM, n.d. Bartlett, David L., Ministry in the New Testament , Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Barton, Ruth Haley, Pursuing God’s Will Together: A Discernment Practice for Leadership Groups , Downers Grove: IVP, 2012. Bass, Bernard M., Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, New York: Free Press, 1985.

220 Bibliography Bass, Bernard M., Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research (rev. ed.), New York: Free Press, 1981. Bauckham, Richard, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008. Bauer, W., W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Bauman, Zygmunt, Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds, Cambridge: Polity, 2003. Bauman, Zygmunt, Liquid Modernity , Cambridge: Polity, 2012. Bayes, Paul, ‘Making Friends’ (15–28) in Tim Ling and Lesley Bentley (eds.), Developing Faithful Ministers: A Practical and Theological Handbook, London: SCM, 2012. Beasley-Murray, George R., John (WBC), Waco: Word, 1987. Beasley-Murray, Paul, Dynamic Leadership: Rising above the Chaos of the One-Man Band , Eastbourne: MARC, 1990. Beasley-Murray, Paul, Power for God’s Sake: Power and Abuse in the Local Church, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998. Beasley-Murray, Paul and Alan Wilkinson, Turning the Tide: An Assessment of Baptist Church Growth in England , London: Bible Society, 1981. Bebbington, D.W., Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s , London: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Becker, Markus C. (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Routines, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008. Beeley, Christopher A., Leading God’s People: Wisdom from the Early Church for Today , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Bekker, Corné J., ‘Prophet and Servant: Locating Robert K. Greenleaf’s CounterSpirituality of Servant Leadership’, Journal of Virtues and Leadership 1:1 (2010), 3–14. Bekker, Corné J., ‘Towards a Theoretical Model of Christian Leadership’, JBPL 2:2 (2009), 142–152. Bell, Sandra and Simon Coleman (eds.), The Anthropology of Friendship, Oxford: Berg, 1999. Bell, Skip, ‘A Biblical Theology of Leadership for the Church’ (377–393) in Skip Bell (ed.), Servants and Friends: A Biblical Theology of Leadership, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2014. Bell, Skip (ed.), Servants and Friends: A Biblical Theology of Leadership, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2014. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (3rd ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Belshaw, G.P. Mellick, ‘The Religion of the Incarnation’, Anglican Theological Review 76:4 (1994), 432–443. Bennis, Warren and Burt Nanus, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, New York: Harper & Row, 1985. Berger, Peter L., The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, New York: Anchor, 1990. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge , London: Allen Lane, 1967. Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology , London: Banner of Truth, 1958.

Bibliography 221 Bertrand, Blair D. and Christine Lang Hearlson, ‘Relationships, Personalism, and Andrew Root’, JYM 12:1 (2013), 45–55. Beyer, ‘διακονέω, διακονία, διάκονος’ (81–93) in Gerhard Kittel (ed.), TDNT Vol. 2 (tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Beyer, Gerald J., ‘The Love of God and Neighbour According to Aquinas: An Interpretation’, New Blackfriars 84 (2003), 116–132. Bidwell, Kevin J., The Church as the Image of the Trinity: A Critical Evaluation of Miroslav Volf’s Ecclesial Model , Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Billings, J. Todd, ‘Incarnational Ministry and Christology: A Reappropriation of the Way of Lowliness’, Missiology 32:2 (2004), 187–201. Billings, J. Todd, ‘The Problem with “Incarnational Ministry”’, Christianity Today (July/August 2012), 59–63. Billings, J. Todd, Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church , Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Bjork, David, ‘A Model for Analysis of Incarnational Ministry in Post-Christendom Lands’, Missiology 25:3 (1997), 279–291. Black, Gary, The Theology of Dallas Willard: Discovering Protoevangelical Faith, Eugene: Pickwick, 2013. Blanchard, Ken, Bill Hybels and Phil Hodges, Leadership by the Book: Tools to Transform Your Workplace , London: Harper Collins, 1999. Blatterer, Harry, Everyday Friendships: Intimacy as Freedom in a Complex World, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Blieszner, Rosemary and Rebecca G. Adams, Adult Friendship, Newbury Park: Sage, 1992. Block, Peter, Community: The Structure of Belonging, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, n.d. Bloesch, Donald G., ‘Creative Transcendence’, The Reformed Journal 27:12 (1977), 30. Blum, Lawrence A., Friendship, Altruism, and Morality , London: Routledge, 2010. Bobik, Joseph, ‘Aquinas on Communicatio, the Foundation of Friendship and Caritas ’, Modern Schoolman 64 (1988), 1–18. Boers, Arthur, Servants and Fools: A Biblical Theology of Leadership, Nashville: Abingdon, 2015. Boff, Leonardo, Ecclesiogenesis: The Base Communities Reinvent the Church (tr. Robert R. Barr), London: Collins Flame, 1986. Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Bolsinger, Tod, Canoeing the Mountains: Christian Leadership in Uncharted Territory , Downers Grove: IVP, 2015. Bond, Leo M., ‘A Comparison between Human and Divine Friendship’, Thomist 3:1 (1941), 54–94. Bonem, Mike, In Pursuit of Great AND Godly Leadership: Tapping the Wisdom of the World for the Kingdom of God , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Christology (tr. John Bowden), London: Collins, 1966. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1–3 (tr. John C. Fletcher), London: SCM, 1959. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, No Rusty Swords (ed. Edwin H. Robertson, tr. John Bowden), London: Collins, 1970. Boyd, Craig A., ‘The Perichoretic Nature of Love: Beyond the Perfection Model’ (15–30) in Craig A. Boyd (ed.), Visions of Agapé: Problems and Possibilities in Human and Divine Love, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.

222 Bibliography Bradley, Yvonne, ‘Servant Leadership: A Critique of Robert Greenleaf’s Concept of Leadership’, Journal of Christian Education 42:2 (1999), 43–54. Brady, Bernard V., Christian Love, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003. Brafman, Ori and Rod A. Beckstrom, The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations , London: Portfolio, 2006. Branson, Mark Lau, ‘Ecclesiology and Leadership for the Missional Church’ (94–125) in Craig Van Gelder (ed.), The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations Develop Contextual Ministry, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Brennan, Dan, Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions: Engaging the Mystery of Friendship between Men and Women , Elgin: Faith Dance, 2010. Bretherton, Luke, Hospitality as Holiness: Christian Witness amid Moral Diversity, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Brett, Gregory, The Theological Notion of the Human Person: A Conversation between the Theology of Karl Rahner and the Philosophy of John Macmurray, Bern: Peter Lang, 2013. Brother John of Taizé, Friends in Christ: Paths to a New Understanding of Church, Maryknoll: Orbis, 2012. Brother Roger of Taizé, Violent for Peace (tr. Emily Chisholm/Taizé), Oxford: Mowbray, 1981. Brown, Jeannine K., Carla M. Dahl and Wyndy Corbin, Becoming Whole and Holy: An Integrative Conversation about Christian Formation, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Brown, Raymond E., The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to John, London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971. Brown, Sally A., ‘Hermeneutics in Protestant Practical Theology’ (115–132) in Kathleen A. Cahalan and Gordon S. Mikoski (eds.), Opening the Field of Practical Theology: An Introduction , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014. Brueggemann, Walter, The Practice of Prophetic Imagination: Preaching an Emancipating Word , Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Brueggemann, Walter, The Prophetic Imagination (2nd ed.), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Brümmer, Vincent, The Model of Love: A Study in Philosophical Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Brunner, Emil, The Divine Imperative: A Study in Christian Ethics (tr. Olive Wyon), London: Lutterworth, 1939. Brunner, Emil, The Misunderstanding of the Church (tr. Harold Knight), London: Lutterworth, 1952. Buber, Martin, I and Thou (tr. Ronald Gregor Smith), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958. Buckles, Susan, ‘Life in the Spirit and the Spirit of Life’ (128–146) in Todd H. Speidell (ed.), On Being Christian . . . and Human: Essays in Celebration of Ray S. Anderson , Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Budde, Michael L., ‘The Rational Shepherd: Corporate Practice and the Church’, Studies in Christian Ethics 21:1 (2008), 96–116. Budde, Michael and Robert Brimlow, Christianity Incorporated: How Big Business is Buying the Church , Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2002. Burke, John, ‘The Emerging Church and Incarnational Theology’ (49–79) in Robert Webber (ed.), Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Bibliography 223 Burns, James MacGregor, Leadership , New York: Harper & Row, 1978. Buxton, Graham, Dancing in the Dark: The Privilege of Participating in the Ministry of Christ , Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001. Buxton, Graham, The Trinity, Creation and Pastoral Ministry: Imaging the Perichoretic God , Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Cahalan, Kathleen A. and Gordon S. Mikoski (eds.), Opening the Field of Practical Theology: An Introduction , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014. Cahalan, Kathleen A. and James R. Nieman, ‘Mapping the Field of Practical Theology’ (62–85) in Dorothy C. Bass and Craig Dykstra (eds.), For Life Abundant: Practical Theology, Theological Education, and Christian Ministry, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Caltagirone, Carmen L., Friendship as Sacrament , New York: Alba House, 1988. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion I (ed. John T. McNeill, tr. Ford Lewis Battles), Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. Campbell, Alastair V., Moderated Love: A Theology of Professional Care, London: SPCK, 1984. Carlson, Kent and Mike Lueken, Renovating the Church: What Happens When a Seeker Church Discovers Spiritual Formation , Downers Grove: IVP, 2011. Carmichael, Liz, Friendship: Interpreting Christian Love, London: Continuum, 2004. Carnell, Edward John, Christian Commitment: An Apologetic, Macmillan: New York, 1957. Carr, Wesley, The Pastor as Theologian: The Integration of Pastoral Ministry, Theology and Discipleship , London: SPCK, 1989. Carroll, Jackson W., God’s Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Carson, D.A., Jesus and His Friends: An Exposition of John 14–17, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995. Carson, D.A., The Gospel According to John , Leicester: Apollos, 1991. Carter, John F., ‘Power and Authority in Pentecostal Leadership’, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 12:2 (2009), 185–207. Cartledge, Mark, The Mediation of the Spirit: Interventions in Practical Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Castellanos, Mari E., ‘Barriers Notwithstanding: A Lesbianista Perspective’ (197–207) in Katherine Hancock Ragsdale (ed.), Boundary Wars: Intimacy and Distance in Healing Relationships, Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1996. Cates, Diana Fritz, Choosing to Feel: Virtue, Friendship, and Compassion for Friends, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. Cates, Diana Fritz, ‘Toward an Ethic of Shared Selfhood’, The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1991), 249–257. Chambers, Deborah, Social Media and Personal Relationships: Online Intimacies and Networked Friendship , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Cheline, Paschal G., ‘Christian Leadership: A Benedictine Perspective’, American Theological Library Association Summary of Proceedings 57 (2003), 107–113. Chen, Katherine K., Enabling Creative Chaos: The Organization behind the Burning Man Event , Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2009. Chennattu, Rekha M., ‘Towards a Covenant Model of Leadership: An Interpretation of John 13’, Jeevadhara 42/248 (2012), 133–145. Christakis, Nicholas and James Fowler, Connected: The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives , London: HarperPress, 2010.

224 Bibliography Cladis, George, Leading the Team-Based Church: How Pastors and Church Staffs Can Grow Together into a Powerful Fellowship of Leaders, San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1999. Clapp, Rodney, A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian Society, Downers Grove: IVP, 1996. Clarke, Andrew D., A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, London: T&T Clark, 2008. Clarke, Andrew D., ‘“Be Imitators of Me”: Paul’s Model of Leadership’, Tyndale Bulletin 49:2 (1998), 329–360. Clarke, Andrew D., ‘Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth’, Tyndale Bulletin 43:2 (1992), 395–398. Clarke, Andrew D., Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6 , Leiden: Brill, 1993. Clarke, Andrew D., Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Clinton, J. Robert, The Making of a Leader , Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1988. Coakley, Sarah, Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender, Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Cocking, Dean and Jeanette Kennett, ‘Friendship and the Self’, Ethics 108:3 (1998), 502–527. Cocksworth, Christopher, ‘Holding Together: Catholic Evangelical Worship in the Spirit’ (131–149) in Andrew Walker and Luke Bretherton (eds.), Remembering Our Future: Explorations in Deep Church, Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007. Cole, Neil, Organic Leadership: Leading Naturally Right Where You Are, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. Collins, Jim, Good to Great , London: Random House, 2001. Collins, John N., Diakonia: Re-Interpreting the Ancient Sources, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Collins, John N., Diakonia Studies: Critical Issues in Ministry, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Collins, John N., ‘Ordained and Other Ministries: Making a Difference’, Ecclesiology 3:1 (2006), 11–32. Collins, John N., ‘Theology of Ministry in the Twentieth Century: Ongoing Problems or New Orientations?’, Ecclesiology 8 (2012), 11–32. Colyer, Peter J., The Self-Emptying God: An Undercurrent in Christian Theology Helping the Relationship with Science, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2013. Combes, I.A.H., The Metaphor of Slavery in the Writings of the Early Church: From the New Testament to the Beginning of the Fifth Century, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Cooke, Bernard J., Sacraments and Sacramentality (2nd ed.), Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1994. Cooper, John M., ‘Aristotle on Friendship’ (301–340) in Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. Cormode, Scott, Making Spiritual Sense: Christian Leaders as Spiritual Interpreters, Nashville: Abingdon, 2006. Cormode, Scott, ‘Multi-Layered Leadership: The Christian Leader as Builder, Shepherd, and Gardener’, JRL 1:2 (2002), 69–104.

Bibliography 225 Costas, Orlando E., Christ outside the Gate: Mission beyond Christendom, Maryknoll: Orbis, 1982. Costas, Orlando E., The Church and Its Mission: A Shattering Critique from the Third World, Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1974. Cowdell, Scott, ‘Ecclesial Roots of Clergy Sexual Abuse: A Girardian Reflection’ (233–246) in Scott Cowdell, Chris Fleming and Joel Hodge (eds.), Violence, Desire, and the Sacred Vol. 2: René Girard and Sacrifice in Life, Love, and the Sacred , New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. Cowley, Catherine, ‘Philia and Social Ethics’, Forum Philosophicum 14 (2009), 17–37. Cray, Graham, Discerning Leadership: Cooperating with the Go-Between God, Cambridge: Grove, 2010. Creasy Dean, Kenda and Ron Foster, The Godbearing Life: The Art of Soul Tending for Youth Ministry , Nashville: Upper Room, 1998. Croft, Steven, Ministry in Three Dimensions: Ordination and Leadership in the Local Church (rev. ed.), London: DLT, 2008. Crouch, Andy, Strong and Weak: Embracing a Life of Love, Risk and True Flourishing , Downers Grove: IVP, 2016. Culy, Martin M., Echoes of Friendship in the Gospel of John, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas , Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Davies, Mervyn and Graham Dodds, Leadership in the Church for a People of Hope, London: T&T Clark, 2011. Davis, John Jefferson, Foundations of Evangelical Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. Davis, John Jefferson, Practicing Ministry in the Presence of God: Theological Reflections on Ministry and the Christian Life , Eugene: Cascade, 2015. Davis, Michael L., ‘Spiritual Formation: Retrieving Perichoresis as a Model for Shared Leadership in the Marketplace’, JRL 14:1 (2015), 105–126. Dawe, Donald G., ‘A Fresh Look at the Kenotic Christologies’, SJT 15 (1962), 337–349. Dawn, Marva and Eugene H. Peterson, The Unnecessary Pastor: Rediscovering the Call , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Deddo, Gary W., ‘Resisting Reductionisms: Why We Need Theological Anthropology’ (168–193) in Todd H. Speidell (ed.), On Being Christian . . . and Human: Essays in Celebration of Ray S. Anderson , Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Deeks, David, Pastoral Theology: An Inquiry , London: Epworth, 1987. Deetz, Stanley A., Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization: Developments in Communication and the Politics of Everyday Life , Albany: SUNY, 1992. De Graaff, Guido, Politics in Friendship: A Theological Account, London: Bloomsbury, 2014. De Pree, Max, Leading without Power: Finding Hope in Serving Community, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. Deresiewicz, William, ‘Faux Friendship’, Chronicle of Higher Education 56:16 (12/11/09). Desai, Amit and Evan Killick (eds.), The Ways of Friendship: Anthropological Perspectives , Oxford: Berghahn, 2010. Devere, Heather, ‘Reviving Greco-Roman Friendship: A Bibliographical Review’ (149–187) in Preston King and Heather Devere (eds.), The Challenge to Friendship in Modernity , Ilford: Frank Cass, 2000.

226 Bibliography Devere, Heather, ‘The Academic Debate on Friendship and Politics’, Amity: The Journal of Friendship Studies 1 (2013), 5–33. Dietterich, Inagrace T., ‘A Particular People: Toward a Faithful and Effective Ecclesiology’, Modern Theology 9:4 (1993), 349–367. Dillistone, F.W., Christianity and Symbolism , London: SCM, 1985. Dinoia, J.A., ‘Communion and Magisterium: Teaching Authority and the Culture of Grace’, Modern Theology 9:4 (1993), 403–418. Dodd, Brian J., Empowered Church Leadership: Ministry in the Spirit According to Paul , Downers Grove: IVP, 2003. Dodrill, Mark, ‘A Call for More Critical Thinking Reguarding [sic] the Theological Turn in Youth Ministry’, JYM 12:1 (2013), 7–20. Doornenbal, R.J.A., Crossroads: An Exploration of the Emerging-Missional Conversation with a Special Focus on ‘Missional Leadership’ and Its Challenges for Theological Education , Delft: Eburon Academic, 2012. Douglas, Mary, In the Active Voice (2nd ed.), Abingdon: Routledge, 2011. Dowding, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Power , Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2011. Drane, John, After McDonaldization: Mission, Ministry and Christian Discipleship in an Age of Uncertainty , London: DLT, 2008. Drane, John, The McDonaldization of the Church: Spirituality, Creativity, and the Future of the Church , London: DLT, 2000. Drescher, Elizabeth, Tweet If You ♥ Jesus: Practicing Church in the Digital Reformation , New York: Morehouse, 2011. Dreyer, Yolanda, ‘Women and Leadership from a Pastoral Perspective of Friendship’, HTS 58:1 (2002), 43–61. Droogers, A.F., Play and Power in Religion: Collected Essays, Berlin: DeGruyter, 2012. Duck, Steve, Friends, for Life: The Psychology of Personal Relationships (2nd ed.), Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991. Dulles, Avery, Models of the Church: A Critical Assessment of the Church in All Its Aspects (expanded ed.), New York: Image, 2002. Dumont, Charles, ‘Aelred de Rievaulx’ (527–538) in Théologie de la Vie Monastique: Études sur la Tradition Patristique , s.l.: Éditions Montaigne, 1961. Dumont, Charles, ‘Seeking God in Community According to St Aelred’, Cistercian Studies 1:4 (1971), 289–317. Dunfee, Susan Nelson, Beyond Servanthood: Christianity and the Liberation of Women , Lanham: University Press of America, 1989. Dunn, James D.G., Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2nd ed.), London: SCM, 1989. Dunn, James D.G., The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Dyck, Bruno, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Ebener, Dan R., Servant Leadership Models for Your Parish, Mahwah: Paulist, 2010. Edgar, Brian, God Is Friendship: A Theology of Spirituality, Community, and Society, Wilmore: Seedbed, 2013. Edwards, Gareth, Community as Leadership , Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2015. Edwards, Ruth, Discovering John , London: SPCK, 2003. Elliott, Susan M., ‘John 15:15 – Not Slaves But Friends’, Proceedings EGL & MWBS 13 (1993), 31–46.

Bibliography 227 Ellis, E. Earle, The World of St. John: The Gospels and the Epistles, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Enlow, Ralph E., Jr., The Leader’s Palette: Seven Primary Colors, Bloomington: Westbow, 2013. Evans, C. Stephen, ‘Can Love Be Commanded? Kierkegaard’s View of Neighbor Love’ (73–83) in Craig A. Boyd (ed.), Visions of Agapé: Problems and Possibilities in Human and Divine Love, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. Evans, C. Stephen, Kierkegaard’s Ethic of Love: Divine Commands and Moral Obligations , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Evans, C. Stephen, ‘The Self-Emptying of Love: Some Thoughts on Kenotic Christology’ (246–272) in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins (eds.), The Incarnation , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Fayol, Henri, General and Industrial Management (rev. ed., by Irwin Gray), London: Pitman, 1988. Feenstra, R.J., ‘Reconsidering Kenotic Christology’ (128–152) in R.J. Feenstra and C. Plantinga, Jr. (eds.), Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989. Fehr, Beverley, Friendship Processes , Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996. Fernando, Ajith, Reclaiming Friendship: Relating to Each Other in a Frenzied World, Scottsdale: Herald, 1993. Ferreira, M. Jamie, Love’s Grateful Striving, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Finke, Roger and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America 1776–2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005. Firet, Jacob, Dynamics in Pastoring , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Fiske, Adele M., Friends and Friendship in the Monastic Tradition, Cuernavaca: Cidoc Cuaderno, 1970. Fitch, David E., The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies , Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Fitzgerald, John T. (ed.), Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World , Leiden: Brill, 1996. Fitzmaurice, John, Virtue Ecclesiology: An Exploration in the Good Church, Abingdon: Ashgate/Routledge, 2016. Flamming, Peter J., ‘Incarnational Leadership for Ministry’, The Theological Educator 52 (1995), 7–14. Fleming, Dave, Leadership Wisdom from Unlikely Voices, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Florensky, Pavel, The Pillar and Ground of Truth (tr. Boris Jakim), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Follett, Mary Parker, Dynamic Administration (eds. Elliott M. Fox and L. Urwick) (2nd ed.), London: Pitman, 1973. Ford, David F., Self and Salvation: Being Transformed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Ford, Lance, Unleader: Reimagining Leadership – And Why We Must, Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2012. Ford, Leighton, Transforming Leadership: Jesus’ Way of Creating Vision, Shaping Values and Empowering Change , Downers Grove: IVP, 1991.

228 Bibliography Fortune, Marie M., ‘The Joy of Boundaries’ (78–95) in Katherine Hancock Ragsdale (ed.), Boundary Wars: Intimacy and Distance in Healing Relationships, Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1996. Foucault, Michel, Fearless Speech (ed. Joseph Pearson), Los Angeles: Semiotexte, 2001. Fowl, Stephen E., Philippians , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Fraker, Anne T. and Larry C. Spears (eds.), Robert K. Greenleaf: Seeker and Servant: Reflections on Religious Leadership , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. Frank, Thomas Edward, ‘Leadership and Administration: An Emerging Field in Practical Theology’, IJPT 10:1 (2006), 113–136. French, John R.P., Jr. and Bertram Raven, ‘The Bases of Social Power’ (150–167) in Dorwin P. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959. French, Robert, ‘Sharing Thoughts on Leadership and Friendship’ (43–57) in Kim Turnbull James and James Collins (eds.), Leadership Perspectives: Knowledge into Action , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Frick, Don M. and Larry C. Spears, ‘Introduction’ (1–5) in Don M. Frick and Larry C. Spears (eds.), Robert K. Greenleaf: On Becoming a Servant-Leader, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. Friesen, Dwight J., Thy Kingdom Connected: What the Church Can Learn from Facebook, the Internet, and Other Networks , Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. Fröding, Barbro and Martin Peterson, ‘Why Virtual Friendship Is No Genuine Friendship’, Ethics and Information Technology 14:3 (2012), 201–207. Frost, Michael, Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Frost, Michael and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church , Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. Frye, John W., Jesus the Pastor: Leading Others in the Character and Power of Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Furnish, Victor Paul, The Love Command in the New Testament, London: SCM, 1973. Galbraith, Craig S. and Oliver Galbraith, III, The Benedictine Rule of Leadership, Avon: Adams Media, 2005. Gallagher, David M., ‘Desire for Beatitude and Love of Friendship in Thomas Aquinas’, Mediaeval Studies 58 (1996), 1–47. Garrard, David J., ‘Questionable Assumptions in the Theory and Practice of Mission’, JEPTA 26:2 (2006), 102–112. Gerkin, Charles, The Living Human Document: Re-Envisioning Pastoral Counseling in a Hermeneutical Mode , Nashville: Abingdon, 1984. Gibbs, Eddie, Leadership Next: Changing Leaders in a Changing Culture, Nottingham: IVP, 2005. Gibbs, Eddie and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures , Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Giddens, Antony, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age , Cambridge: Polity, 1991. Giddens, Antony, The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies , Cambridge: Polity, 1992. Gill, Robin and Derek Burke, Strategic Church Leadership , London: SPCK, 1996. Gish, Art, Living in Christian Community: A Personal Manifesto, Tring: Lion, 1979.

Bibliography 229 Gladd, Benjamin L. and Matthew S. Harmon, Making All Things New: Inaugurated Eschatology for the Life of the Church , Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Gooder, Paula, ‘ Diakonia in the New Testament: A Dialogue with John N. Collins’, Ecclesiology 3:1 (2006), 33–56. Gorman, Michael J., Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Grant, Jacquelyn, ‘Servanthood Revisited: Womanist Explorations of Servanthood Theology’ (126–137) in Dwight N. Hopkins (ed.), Black Faith and Public Talk: Critical Essays on James H. Cone’s Black Theology and Power, Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. Grant, Jacquelyn, ‘The Sin of Servanthood and the Deliverance of Discipleship’ (199–218) in Emilie M. Townes (ed.), A Trembling in My Soul: Womanist Perspectives on Evil and Suffering , Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993. Grayling, A.C., Friendship , New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Greeley, Andrew M., Come Blow Your Mind with Me, Garden City: Doubleday, 1971. Greeley, Andrew M., ‘Leadership and Friendship: A Sociologist’s Viewpoint’, Jurist 31 (1971), 266–288. Greeley, Andrew M., The Crucible of Change: The Social Dynamics of Pastoral Practice , New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968. Greeley, Andrew M., The Friendship Game , Garden City: Image, 1971. Green, Chris, ‘The Incarnation and Mission’ (110–151) in David Peterson (ed.), The Word Became Flesh: Evangelicals and the Incarnation, Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003. Green, Garrett, Imagining God: Theology and the Religious Imagination, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Green, Garrett, Theology, Hermeneutics, and the Imagination: The Crisis of Interpretation at the End of Modernity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Greenleaf, Robert K., Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness , Mahwah: Paulist, 1977. Greenleaf, Robert K., ‘The Ethic of Strength: Manuscript for a Book’ (11–105) in Don M. Frick and Larry C. Spears (eds.), Robert K. Greenleaf: On Becoming a Servant-Leader , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. Greenslade, Phil, Leadership: Reflections on Biblical Leadership Today, Farnham: CWR, 2002. Greenspan, Miriam, ‘Out of Bounds’ (129–136) in Katherine Hancock Ragsdale (ed.), Boundary Wars: Intimacy and Distance in Healing Relationships, Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1996. Greig, Jason Reimer, Reconsidering Intellectual Disability: L’Arche, Medical Ethics, and Christian Friendship , Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2015. Grenz, Stanley J., Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era , Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. Grenz, Stanley J., The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, Louisville: WJKP, 2001. Grenz, Stanley J. and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context , Louisville: WJKP, 2001. Griffiths, Steve, Models for Youth Ministry: Learning from the Life of Christ, London: SPCK, 2013. Grint, Keith, Leadership: Limits and Possibilities, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

230 Bibliography Gritsch, Eric W. and Robert W. Jenson, Lutheranism: The Theological Movement and Its Confessional Writings , Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Groome, Thomas H., Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980. Guder, Darrell L., Called to Witness: Doing Missional Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Guder, Darrell L., ‘Incarnation and the Church’s Evangelistic Mission’, International Review of Mission 83:330 (1994), 417–428. Guder, Darrell L., The Incarnation and the Church’s Witness, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999. Guinness, Os, Dining with the Devil: The Megachurch Movement Flirts with Modernity , Grand Rapids: Hourglass, 1993. Gula, Richard M., Ethics in Pastoral Ministry , Mahwah: Paulist, 1996. Gundry, Stanley N., ‘Evangelical Theology: Where Should We Be Going?’, JETS 22 (1979), 3–13. Gunton, Colin E., ‘The Church on Earth: The Roots of Community’ (48–80) in Colin E. Gunton and Daniel W. Hardy (eds.), On Being the Church: Essays on the Christian Community , Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. Gunton, Colin E., The Promise of Trinitarian Theology (2nd ed.), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Gunton, Colin, ‘Two Dogmas Revisited: Edward Irving’s Christology’, SJT 41:3 (1988), 359–376. Gustafson, James M., Treasure in Earthen Vessels: The Church as a Human Community , Louisville: WJKP, 2009. Haenchen, Ernst, A Commentary on the Gospel of John Vol. 2 (tr. Robert W. Funk with Ulrich Busse), Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Hahn, David C., ‘Congregational Discerning as Divine Action in Conversation’ (145–165) in Dwight J. Zscheile (ed.), Cultivating Sent Communities: Missional Spiritual Formation , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Haitch, Russell, ‘Response to “Incarnation and Place-Sharing”’, JYM 12:1 (2013), 37–43. Hallier, Amédée, The Monastic Theology of Aelred of Rievaulx: An Experiential Theology (tr. Columban Heaney), Shannon: Irish University Press, 1969. Halter, Hugh and Matt Smay, The And: The Gathered and Scattered Church, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Halter, Hugh and Matt Smay, The Tangible Kingdom: Creating Incarnational Community , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Hansen, David, The Art of Pastoring: Ministry without All the Answers, Downers Grove: IVP, 1994. Hansen, G. Walter, The Letter to the Philippians , Cambridge: Apollos, 2009. Hardy, Andrew, Richard Whitehouse and Dan Yarnell, Power and the Powers: The Use and Abuse of Power in Its Missional Context , Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2015. Harmon, Michael M., ‘The Responsible Actor as “Tortured Soul”: The Case of Horatio Hornblower’ (69–94) in Michael M. Harmon and O.C. McSwite (eds.), Whenever Two or More Are Gathered: Relationship as the Heart of Ethical Discourse, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2011. Harris, Murray J., Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ , Leicester: Apollos, 1999.

Bibliography 231 Hart, Trevor, ‘Imagination for the Kingdom of God? Hope, Promise, and the Transformative Power of an Imagined Future’ (49–76) in Richard Bauckham (ed.), God Will Be All in All: The Eschatology of Jürgen Moltmann, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Hart, Trevor, ‘Imagining Evangelical Theology’ (191–200) in John G. Stackhouse (ed.), Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Evangelical Method, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Haseldine, Julian, ‘Friendship, Equality and Universal Harmony: The Universal and the Particular in Aelred of Rievaulx’s De Spiritali Amicitia’ (192–214) in Oliver Leaman (ed.), Friendship East and West: Philosophical Perspectives, Richmond: Curzon, 1996. Hauerwas, Stanley, ‘Happiness, the Life of Virtue and Friendship: Theological Reflections on Aristotelian Themes’, Asbury Theological Journal 45:1 (1990), 5–48. Hauerwas, Stanley, Sanctify Them in the Truth: Holiness Exemplified, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Hauerwas, Stanley and Charles Pinches, Christians among the Virtues: Theological Conversations with Ancient and Modern Ethics, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. Healy, Nicholas M., Church, World and the Christian Life: Practical-Prophetic Ecclesiology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Hearn, Jonathan, Theorizing Power , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Hecksher, Charles, Trust in a Complex World: Enriching Community, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Hegstad, Harald, The Real Church: An Ecclesiology of the Visible, Cambridge: James Clarke, 2013. Heifetz, Ronald A., Leadership without Easy Answers, Cambridge: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 1994. Hellerman, Joseph H., Embracing Shared Ministry: Power and Status in the Early Church and Why It Matters Today , Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013. Hendriksen, William, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, London: Banner of Truth, 1959. Herrick, Vanessa, Limits of Vulnerability: Exploring a Kenotic Model for Pastoral Ministry , Cambridge: Grove, 1997. Hersey, Paul, Kenneth H. Blanchard and Dewey F. Johnson, Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources (8th ed.), Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 2001. Hess, K., ‘Serve, Deacon, Worship’ (544–553) in Colin Brown (ed.), NIDNTT Vol. 3, Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Hesse, Hermann, The Journey to the East , London: Peter Owen, 1956. Heuertz, Christopher L. and Christine D. Pohl, Friendship at the Margins: Discovering Mutuality in Service and Mission , Downers Grove: IVP, 2010. Heyward, Carter, Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1989. Heyward, Carter, When Boundaries Betray Us, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. Hiebert, Paul G., Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Hiebert, Paul G. and Eloise Hiebert Meneses, Incarnational Ministry: Planting Churches in Band, Tribal, Peasant and Urban Societies, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.