Abstract
Strategies for the development of Christian leaders in cross-cultural ministry tend to focus on communicating essential knowledge and skills, yet the need to facilitate growth in godly character is arguably of greater importance. Throughout his writings the Apostle Paul regularly presents himself as a model to be imitated by his readers. Careful consideration of his use of imitation reveals an invaluable approach to the development of core gospel values in emerging leaders today. In cross-cultural leadership development this will require contextualization of both the developmental relationship and the expression of these gospel values. The cultural dimensions of power distance and individualism/collectivism are specifically considered for their impact. It is suggested that the intentional use of imitation by living consistently with and teaching these core gospel values will greatly enhance cross-cultural leadership development.
Keywords
Introduction
Mark and his family had been living and sharing the gospel for many years in Central Asia. Aybek had come to faith through their ministry, and was seeking to lead his family in ways that honor Christ. When Aybek’s granddaughter was born, common practice was ignored, and her ears were not pierced. When asked about this, Aybek replied, “I noticed that your wife and daughters don’t have their ears pierced, so I assumed that it wasn’t appropriate for followers of Jesus.”
When Frank went to serve in a small island nation in the South Pacific he noticed that many of the national pastors preached with a handkerchief in their hand. Upon investigation Frank learned that a long-serving previous missionary would preach with a handkerchief to mop his brow because he would sweat profusely in the tropical climate. Without considering the reason, his protégé had faithfully copied the practice.
People everywhere learn by imitation, but when working across cultures, how do we ensure we transmit the values and practices that reflect the priorities of Scripture and not those that are culturally irrelevant?
The dramatic growth of the church in the majority world means that “the development of leaders must be of highest priority in the scope of world missions” (Plueddemann, 2009: 56). To address this need many Christian leaders serve in cross-cultural contexts to train and develop emerging leaders. The challenge is for these trainers to employ leadership development practices that are not only faithful to the Scriptures but also appropriate for the local cultural context. They must go beyond developing knowledge and competence to raise up effective Christian leaders of godly character, shaped by the gospel and walking in the ways of Jesus.
Developmental relationships are a powerful way to pass on these qualities of godly leadership. They are a widely praised strategy for Christian leadership development which both Jesus and the Apostle Paul are often noted as having employed (Banks, 1999; Elliston, 1992; Krallmann, 2002). Though often described as “mentoring” or “modeling,” Paul simply called people to imitate him (Phil. 3:17; 1 Cor. 11:1). But how would this work in a cross-cultural context? Given the extent to which culture shapes leadership practice, can a leader from one culture effectively facilitate the development of an emerging leader in another culture through the practice of imitation? If so, what must be done to ensure that the emerging leader learns what is biblical without taking on what is culturally foreign?
This article seeks to answer these questions through a careful examination of Paul’s use of imitation and consideration of its application in cross-cultural ministry. We would argue that Pauline imitation is an effective means of facilitating another person’s development that can and should be used today. Cultural variation, however, must be allowed to shape the practice of the trainer to ensure its relevance to the context. With this sensitivity to cultural values, Pauline imitation provides a helpful model for the kinds of cross-cultural leadership development relationships that are so greatly needed.
The nature of Pauline imitation
The concept of imitation is found in numerous places through Paul’s writings to highlight the qualities he sought to encourage in his readers. In some passages Paul explicitly employs the imitation (mimētēs) language (e.g. Phil. 3:17; 1 Cor. 11:1), while elsewhere he refers to the personal examples of himself (Gal. 1–2; 2 Tim. 3:10–11) and others (Phil. 2:19–30). This is consistent with the way imitation was employed in the Greco-Roman world; where ancestors, teachers, and leaders were recognized as models of specific virtues and practices worth emulating (Copan, 2007).
The ministry of Jesus also influenced Paul’s use of imitation to take it beyond modeling virtues and practices. Jesus’ washing of his disciples’ feet was a highly symbolic act in which he demonstrated the self-sacrificial love that would ultimately be expressed in his death, and then called his disciples to repeat it (John 13:6–17). Leon Morris (1995: 550) notes that Jesus’ command to repeat this act was a way of emphasizing the “principle that underlay the action.” In the same way, Paul employed imitation to pass on foundational principles consistent with the gospel of Christ and to encourage the behaviors that flow from them. He did this by reminding people of the gospel, highlighting the values that Christ displayed, and then pointing to his own example as a model of how these values might shape their attitudes, priorities, and relationships.
Given the great need for gospel-shaped leadership development today, developmental relationships that employ this kind of imitation are invaluable. Leaders must allow gospel values to shape their relationships and behavior so they can encourage emerging leaders to imitate these values. This focus on core gospel values, rather than behaviors, also makes it amenable to use in intercultural contexts. The way that the values are expressed may differ across cultures, but the values themselves are universally relevant.
Imitating gospel values
Careful analysis of the many passages in Paul’s letters where the language or concept of imitation is evident reveals three core gospel-shaped values that Paul sought to model to all believers. These are: (1) single-minded devotion to God; (2) self-sacrifice for the well-being of others; and (3) faithful endurance of suffering.
Single-minded devotion to God
As people who have been transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ, Paul expects his readers to devote themselves in every aspect of life to the God who saved them. Through imitation he helps them understand how to do this in practice.
In his letter to the Philippians, Paul calls his readers to conduct themselves “in a manner worthy of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27). This is not just a change in their outward behavior but the expression of a mindset (phroneō) of devotion to God (Phil. 2:2). Philippians 2 reviews how Jesus (vv. 5–11), Timothy (vv. 19–24), and Epaphroditus (vv. 25–30) all displayed this mindset. In chapter 3 Paul contrasts his Jewish heritage with the value of knowing Christ and reports how he invests all his effort in knowing Christ, “the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings” (Phil. 3:10). He acknowledges that he has not yet achieved this goal and so he continues to “press on” (Phil. 3:14). He then explicitly calls the Philippians to “become imitators” of him and other “mature” believers who “live according to the pattern” he had shown them (Phil. 3:15–17). This devotion to God shaped Paul’s behavior and life as a whole (Phil. 3:17); and he expects that it will do likewise for the Philippians.
The first letter to the Thessalonians shows a similar emphasis on the imitation of single-minded devotion to God. In chapter 2, Paul indicates the importance of observing his and his companions lived model. They had been “holy, righteous and blameless” among the Thessalonians because they wanted to see them living “lives worthy of God” (1 Thess. 2:10–12). They fulfilled the role of “father” for the new believers by showing them through words and deeds what a life devoted to God looked like (1 Thess. 2:11). Imitation is not primarily focused on behavior, but on an attitude of devotion to God.
In the letters addressed to the emerging leaders, Timothy and Titus, Paul again invites imitation of his single-minded devotion to God. Both the recipients are described as “true son(s)” in the faith (1 Tim. 1:2, 18; Tit. 1:4) and are thus expected to “follow” Paul’s teaching and his “godly” way of life (2 Tim. 3:10–11; 1 Tim. 4:6; Tit. 2:11–12). This “godliness” (eusebeia) is an all-encompassing attitude that has been described as “a technical term (in the Pastoral Epistles) for a life totally consecrated to God” (Mounce, 2000: 251). Paul had modeled this total consecration to God and calls Timothy and Titus to pursue the same goal with single-minded devotion.
Regardless of the context or nature of ministry, single-minded devotion to God is a fundamental value for godly leaders that flows from the heart of the gospel. Those seeking to develop emerging leaders will do well to model, and invite imitation, of this value in ways that are appropriate to the context.
Self-sacrifice for others’ well-being
The second value that Paul sought to model for his readers was willing self-sacrifice for the well-being of others. He calls the Philippians to express this value (Phil. 2:3–4) and then proceeds to present as models worthy of imitation those who have foregone their own comfort for the needs of others. Christ is the ultimate example in his obedient self-humiliation from the heights of “equality with God” to the depths of “death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6–8). Paul reflects a similar commitment to their spiritual well-being, even to the point of having his life “poured out like a drink offering” (Phil. 2:17). Timothy displayed “genuine concern” for the Philippians’ welfare rather than seeking his “own interests” (Phil. 2:20–21), and Epaphroditus risked his life to work alongside Paul (Phil. 2:29–30). These four exemplary models of willing self-sacrifice are to be imitated by the Philippians as they “take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you” (Phil. 3:17).
The Corinthian church is also called to imitate this value as Paul addresses the issue of food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:1–11:1). Though food is the presenting problem the real issue is how people care for their “brother or sister” (1 Cor. 8:11). Paul speaks not only of his willingness to refuse food for the well-being of another (1 Cor. 8:13), but also to “become all things to all people so that by all possible means [he] might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). This core value of seeking the good of others is therefore in focus as he calls them to “become imitators” of him just as he was of Christ (1 Cor. 10:31–11:1).
As these examples show, the practices that result from the prioritization of others’ needs will vary depending on the context, but in every situation emerging leaders need to learn how to follow this example as their teachers follow Christ.
Faithful endurance of suffering
The final value we see Paul encourage through imitation is faithful endurance of suffering. The believers at Thessalonica had faced suffering from the time the gospel was first preached to them (1 Thess. 1:6; 2:2). In this suffering they became “imitators of God’s churches in Judea” as well as of the apostles (1 Thess. 2:14). It was not just the experience of this suffering that made them imitators of Paul, but the joy that they displayed as they faced it (1 Thess. 1:6). Following Christ inevitably meant facing affliction, but by imitating Paul and his companions, the Thessalonians had endured their affliction with joy.
The first letter to the Corinthians also displays a close relationship between Paul’s call for imitation and the description of his life of suffering (1 Cor. 4:8–13, 16). Paul outlines how the apostles had “become the scum of the earth” and then he exhorts his readers to imitate him (1 Cor. 4:13–16). Paul is not calling them to imitate his suffering per se, but his faithful endurance of this suffering as part of his willing self-sacrifice for their well-being.
Paul’s most explicit calls to imitate his endurance of suffering are found in his second letter to the emerging leader, Timothy. Just as Paul had faced suffering because of his ministry (2 Tim. 1:11–12; 2:8–9), Timothy would also need to “endure hardship” (2 Tim. 4:5). He would not only follow Paul’s “way of life, purpose, faith, patience, (and) love” but also his “endurance, persecutions and sufferings” (2 Tim. 3:10–11). As Paul’s spiritual “son” (2 Tim. 1:2; 2:1), Timothy was expected to imitate Paul by faithfully enduring the suffering that would undoubtedly come.
These three core values, single-minded devotion to God, willing self-sacrifice for the well-being of others, and faithful endurance of suffering, flow directly from the gospel of Jesus and are to be encouraged among all believers. Paul has shown that imitation can be powerfully employed to help Christians develop these qualities. Regardless of the cultural context, those seeking to develop emerging leaders will do well to intentionally model these values as expressions of the gospel they proclaim.
Imitating Paul’s use of imitation
In addition to these three core values, passages addressed to emerging leaders in the Pastoral Epistles also contain calls to imitate Paul’s use of imitation itself. Paul had provided a model of behavior for these young leaders, and he explicitly commands them to do the same for others. Timothy was expected to “set an example … in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity” and to “watch his life and doctrine closely” so that everyone would “see [his] progress” (1 Tim. 4:12, 15–16). Titus likewise was to provide an example in “good deeds” and “sound speech” for those whom he served (Tit. 2:7–8). This clearly shows that imitation is not reserved only for apostles; it is useful for anyone seeking to develop younger Christians and particularly emerging leaders. This understanding of Paul’s practice of imitation provides a valuable insight into how similar practices may be employed in developmental relationships today.
Pauline imitation in leadership development
Paul called his readers to imitation in an effort to shape their core values around the gospel of Jesus Christ. It was an intentional means of discipleship and character formation. Given that godly leadership is primarily a function of godly character (1 Tim. 3:2–7) and people naturally imitate those they admire, imitation is also an ideal approach in the development of Christian leaders today. By understanding this biblical pattern of imitation, leadership trainers are better able to intentionally model these gospel values and draw their trainees’ attention to the things of greatest importance.
To employ imitation today a trainer needs to give emerging leaders ample opportunity to observe how the gospel should shape daily life. Paul calls for imitation much more in letters to those with whom he had spent significant time. The Philippians, Corinthians, Thessalonians, Timothy, and Titus had significant opportunity to observe his daily life. It is as an emerging leader sees someone living out their devotion to God, expressed through willing self-sacrifice and endurance of suffering, that they learn how the gospel must shape their own lives.
Yet, it is not only through behavior that the trainer passes on these values. The fact that these values derive from the gospel of Jesus means that there must also be regular teaching about the person and work of Christ. This is why Paul reminds the Philippians of Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice (Phil. 2:5–11), before encouraging them to imitate those who reflect this way of life (Phil. 3:17). Likewise he reminds the Corinthians that his practice of submitting “his own good, [to] the good of many” is to be imitated because it is the “example of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:31–11:1). The emerging leader needs to be constantly reminded that Jesus is the ultimate source of these values. This comes through regular presentation of the gospel message together with the opportunity to observe the core gospel values lived out. This will prepare them to declare and display the gospel message so that others may also hear and see it. The challenge for the trainer is to have sufficient understanding of the local context, to display these gospel values in culturally appropriate ways.
Imitation in cross-cultural leadership development
The use of imitation in a context where the cultural background of the trainer is significantly different from that of the emerging leader requires careful consideration. Paul Hiebert (2009: 18) describes culture as a complex and multi-faceted concept that influences the “behavior, signs, products, rituals, beliefs and worldviews” shared by a particular group of people. The challenge of cross-cultural leadership development is to facilitate the development of biblical faith authentically expressed in the local cultural context. The values modeled by Paul are relevant to people in every culture; however, their expression will vary. Total devotion to God, willing self-sacrifice for others, and endurance of suffering must be lived out in ways that are appropriate to the local culture. Sometimes this will confront cultural norms, while other aspects of a local culture will be affirmed or transformed.
The task for someone seeking to employ imitation in a culture other than their own is to understand the differences between their own culture and the culture of those they are seeking to develop. Though individual variability exists, it is possible to identify broad trends across a cultural group on a number of evaluative dimensions. One widely recognized tool for assessing these cross-cultural differences is based on the work of Geert Hofstede (2010).
Through analysis of the values of people in over 50 countries, Hofstede originally identified four dimensions along which each national group could be compared. These were “power distance,” “collectivism/individualism,” “masculinity/femininity,” and “uncertainty avoidance” (Hofstede et al., 2010). 1 Countries were then ranked for each of these dimensions to enable comparative analysis. Though these dimensions are typically described in their extreme forms, it is the relative difference between cultures that is most significant. All four of these dimensions would influence the expression of the gospel values described above. However, the nature of power distance and individualism/collectivism demands that these be carefully considered (Plueddemann, 2009).
The impact of differences in power distance on the practice of imitation
Power Distance (PD) describes how people within a society deal with differences in equality. 2 The higher a culture’s PD the more people expect a difference in status and power between those in authority and those they lead. This has enormous implications for the development of Christian leaders. Scripture does not prescribe the PD that Christians must prefer, but it has a lot to say about the use of power. The cultural norms around power imbalance must therefore be carefully considered in cross-cultural developmental relationships.
Low to high PD
Cross-cultural trainers seeking to form developmental relationships with emerging leaders in cultures with a higher PD than their own must restrain their egalitarian preferences. Higher PD cultures tend to place greater significance on qualifications, ordination and age. A trainer will likely need these sources of status before they will be regarded worthy of imitation. They may also need to accept titles, such as “pastor,” “reverend,” or “doctor,” which they may otherwise be uncomfortable using, preferring to relate on the same level as the trainees.
However, the greater relational distance of higher PD cultures will aid the use of imitation. As in traditional patron–client relationships, teachers are seen to embody rather than simply transmit their knowledge (Hofstede et al., 2010: 69). A willingness to accept the role of “patron/teacher” will embed imitation in the relationship and every interaction becomes a potential teaching moment, just as it was for Paul (1 Cor. 4:15–17; 1 Thess. 2:8). Del Chinchen (1995) discusses the power of these relationships for indigenous discipleship, but highlights the importance of mutuality. Two-way exchange of gifts is essential and the “patron” must have needs that can be met. This may be uncomfortable for individualistic, low PD trainers, but provides a potent context for imitation.
High to low PD
Cross-cultural trainers seeking to develop emerging leaders in cultures with a lower PD than their own will also be required to make adjustments. In particular, they will need to recognize the more subtle ways in which learners demonstrate respect. Emerging leaders in lower PD cultures expect egalitarian relationships with their trainers. They tend not to use titles and will be used to questioning, challenging, and even disagreeing with their superiors. Rather than seeking to cause offence, this familiarity may actually reflect personal connectedness. Emerging leaders from lower PD cultures will also expect more independence than higher PD trainers may be used to. This is not a sign of disrespect, but an indication that the trainee is growing in capacity and confidence. Imitation will effectively take place in this kind of relationship as long as the trainer invests time in the relationship to earn the trainees’ respect. The trainer may also need to direct the learner’s attention to the core gospel values they are seeking to develop.
Emerging leaders from a lower PD culture also tend to be more interested in ministry competence than qualifications, and respect impersonal truth over personal wisdom. Though this may seem unnecessary for higher PD trainers, it provides the opportunity to emphasize the core truths of the gospel and then to demonstrate how they are to be lived out in life and ministry. Emerging leaders will appreciate having the gospel clearly articulated and the core value implications both discussed and lived out. Though potentially burdensome for a higher PD trainer, this will help to facilitate the learner’s imitation of the values in conformity to the gospel.
Gospel values and PD
When considering the specific values that Paul sought to model for emerging leaders, different levels of PD have advantages and disadvantages. The expectation for superiors to be benevolent in higher PD cultures means it is natural to show total devotion and dependence upon God, who is their ultimate teacher, father, and leader. However, the expectations for members of higher PD cultures to show dependence upon and deference to their parents and community elders will result in greater challenges when allegiances are tested and respectful disobedience of superiors is needed (Luke 14:26; Matt. 10:37).
The values of self-sacrifice for the well-being of others and faithful endurance of suffering are likely to be more counter-cultural in higher PD cultures. Paul was confronting problems associated with high PD in the church in Corinth, when he reminded them that God has no respect for worldly status symbols (1 Cor. 1:12, 26–31) and that the apostles themselves had become “the scum of the earth” (1 Cor. 4:6, 13). Christian leaders in higher PD cultures will sometimes need to contradict cultural expectations by accepting significant personal disadvantage for the benefit of those they lead (1 Cor. 12:12–31). This may also be the case with regard to the endurance of suffering. In a higher PD culture, a suffering leader may lose the respect of their followers (see 2 Cor. 12:11). Emerging leaders will need to be constantly reminded of the counter-cultural nature of the gospel. We have a servant Lord, in whose sufferings we are called to share and faithfully endure (Phil. 1:29–30).
A trainer seeking to employ imitation in an intercultural developmental relationship must give careful consideration to the impact of PD in their context. Both low and high PD tendencies in leadership must be confronted at various points; however, not everything needs to change. As Plueddemann (2009: 103) notes, “Scripture seems to leave room for some flexibility regarding power distance in leadership style but not in leadership attitudes.”
The impact of individualism and collectivism on the practice of imitation
Individualism and its opposite, collectivism, describe the degree to which individuals are connected and committed to the groups of which they are a part. This may include family, caste, organization, team, or church. William Gudykunst (1998: 46) suggests that individualism/collectivism is “the major dimension of cultural variability used to explain cross-cultural differences in behavior.” As for PD, the Bible does not prescribe the degree of collectivism among believers, but it has a lot to say about the value and importance of Christian community.
Variation in the degree of individualism/collectivism between the culture of the trainer and the emerging leader will significantly impact the developmental relationship. 3 Members of individualist cultures prefer leaders who are autonomous, and who encourage task-orientation and individual discretion in their subordinates (Gelfand et al., 2004). While members of more collectivist cultures prefer leaders who prioritize the well-being of the team and who see conformity and cooperation as the means to fulfilling the task (Plueddemann, 2009). There is great value in both approaches; therefore a cross-cultural trainer needs to carefully consider what is expected of leaders in the culture of those they are seeking to train.
It will also influence whom they should seek to train. In an individualist culture it is entirely appropriate to single out a potential leader for a focused developmental relationship; however, in a more collectivist culture the focus must be on developing the whole group, trusting that those who are most gifted for leadership will naturally take the lead (Hoppe, 2004). This also ensures that the group rather than the expatriate trainer can endorse the most appropriate future leaders.
Developmental relationships are a powerful strategy in more collectivist cultures because of their preference for high-context communication (Gudykunst, 1998: 180). Imitation happens naturally as members of collectivist cultures pay more careful attention to the behaviors and the nonverbal communication of their trainers. Those seeking to train people in a culture that is more collectivist than their own must therefore realize that every dimension of their lives will be observed. By contrast, those moving into a more individualistic culture will need to be intentionally more explicit in their articulation of the values and behaviors they are seeking to develop.
Gospel values, individualism, and collectivism
The degree of individualism/collectivism will influence the expression of the three core gospel values in various ways. More collectivist cultures will find single-minded devotion to God more difficult when there is a conflict between the expectations of their group and the commands of God. A cross-cultural trainer needs to appreciate the depths of this struggle when encouraging developing leaders. However, the value placed upon interpersonal relationships in collectivist cultures accords well with the other gospel values. Members of collectivist cultures will likely find it easier to make the kind of self-sacrifice for the well-being of others that Paul modeled because of their commitment to their group. The challenge comes when the “other” is not a member of their group and therefore not someone they would usually show concern for. Plueddemann (2009: 120–124) suggests that as a collectivist leader matures, the sphere of their concern should extend in scope until they reflect God’s equal concern for all people. A cross-cultural trainer will need to learn how to model concern for outsiders while ensuring that this is not interpreted as disregard for the trainees cultural group. This will be best achieved if it is complemented by clear teaching on the gospel foundations of these actions.
As in higher PD cultures, collectivist cultures tend to view the status and well-being of the leaders as reflective of the whole group. A suffering leader may therefore be seen as bringing shame on their group. The social pressure upon a leader to shun suffering is therefore high. Emerging leaders in collectivist cultures may need help to appreciate the value of suffering for stimulating spiritual growth (1 Cor. 4:12–16; Phil. 1:29–30; 3:10–15). This requires regular and contextualized presentation of the gospel message to ensure that the foundations of these values are fully appreciated. This will also help to equip the emerging leaders to faithfully proclaim the gospel message themselves.
Conclusion
The need for godly leaders is great and cross-cultural differences pose significant challenges to effective leadership development; yet, it is possible. Paul’s practice of imitation provides valuable guidelines for the development of godly character, which is of much greater value than skills or knowledge. Though their expression may vary, these core gospel values are relevant to any context and need to be declared and displayed.
A cross-cultural trainer must exercise wisdom as they seek to facilitate the development of Christ-like leaders in other cultures. To do this effectively the trainer must enter the new culture as a learner, taking time to understand the many ways in which the target culture differs from their own. They need to recognize how their own culture has shaped their expression of gospel values and be willing to change their own behavior for the well-being and development of those they serve. We have noted how imitation may be employed in cultures with varying levels of PD and individualism/collectivism, yet the fundamental values are consistent. Humble contextualization is essential, yet following in the way of the Master and inviting others to imitate us as we imitate him is a powerful and much-needed means of leadership development in any context.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interest
The Author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
