Paul Vs. Peter Analysis by sradulesku

The Apostles’ Challenge-Paul Vs. Peter: Examining The Leader’s Mind, Hesitancy and Organizational Impact During Situational and Transitional Times An Inner Texture Analysis of Galatians 2 BY RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR. Draft Unpublished Working Paper

Why is it that leaders demonstrate dysfunctional behaviors even though intrinsically and conceptually they know that they are to operate differently? “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!”1 “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”2 The scripture in Revelation inspires the pericope in Romans. The intent is for leaders to align actions to belief and to intensify belief to results. In order to execute, there has to be transitions in the leader’s life to arrive at that perfect alignment between actions and belief. It does not mean that the leader will not stumble; however, the ultimate intent is for perfect alignment. In this paper, the approach will be one that examines the pericope Galatians2 with the key question in mind as to why many leaders do not change and alternately, what are the stumbling blocks to effective leadership change. The intent of the author is to effectively analyze Galatians 2 by utilizing social rhetorical criticism specifically inner texture analysis; clearly and effectively define leadership from the context of literature; align the actions of early apostles as leaders and effectively apply concepts from ancient to contemporary times. As servants of Christ we are called to be exemplary citizens and for those of us who aspire to and or in leadership, we are called to reflect the very nature of Christ. The critical aspects of our leadership development is the role that our environment play in our decision to either be true to our beliefs or to skirt those beliefs when we are challenged by situation and circumstances that are out of our control. This paper will attempt to shed some light on this.

I. INTR O DUCT I O N “We judge ourselves by our actions, others judge us by our behavior; we don’t see our behavior and others don’t see our intention”3 The concept that we know what we should be doing and yet we do not do it is not new. It is a relatively aged term. It is important that consistency in actions corresponds with our philosophical beliefs and also our principles. There are leadership situations wherein leaders are called upon to demonstrate to the team the unwavering beliefs and values that are needed to concretize taught concepts and express them 1

as reality. Instead what has occurred is that the situation and circumstance might cause a leader to act contrary to the very beliefs that are exposed by the leadership. The interesting thing is not that this occurred. Believers and non-believers are prone to make mistakes. The critical question is “why did it happen?” What causes someone to do something that is so contrary to what her basic beliefs are? Was it a planned event, or was it a simple neurobiological response that caused the leader to effectively betray her very belief?

Revelation 3:15 (NIV) Romans 12:2a (NIV) 3 M.J. King-Harman, British Boys, their training and prospects. (London: G. Bell & Sons , 1917). 2

RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR. We observe in literature some of the greatest corporate leader’s demise such as Bernard Ebbers (WorldCom), Kenneth Lay (Enron), Dennis Kozlowski (CIT) John Rigas (Adelphi Communications).4 The key is why did these individuals, who at some time express belief in corporate equality and ethics do things that were contrary to basic ethical conduct? It is possible that basic issues in their upbringing, personal beliefs, culture and the environment could have triggered the leaders to acts that render their leadership a failure. To arrive at a possible scope in answers we will utilize socio-rhetorical criticism as the foundation. Exegetically, socio-rhetorical criticism will be used with a specific focus on one text. The application of inner texture analysis will be employed to understand the intent of Paul when he wrote his letter to the Church at Galatia. Socio-rhetorical criticism challenges interpreters to explore human reality, religious belief, and practice through multiple approaches to written discourse in texts.5 The goal of socio-rhetorical interpretation is to enter as fully as possible into how a text works to persuade its hearers at every level, using a great variety of resources, and to nurture and sustain Christian community in the facts of the exigencies of a particular situation.6 It connects us to the ancient text. Socio-rhetorical criticism contains concepts such as Inner Texture (What the text means?), Intertexture (How does a particular text relate to other text?), social-cultural texture (What is the cultural dynamics behind the text?), ideological texture (What is the message in the text?) and sacred texture (How does the overall text relates to the deity of God and the message that is shared?). In addition to inner texture analysis, there will be a light application of intertexture criticism and input will be taken from the social and cultural context in which the scripture was written. This will help the reader gain the full application of the scripture by bringing clear answers to the questions posed above. The intent of this paper is to utilize the historical text to make application to present day leadership and to position the subject for further research. 4

The text being reference is Galatians 2 (New International Version) with a specific focus on verses 11-16. Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 As for those who were held in high esteem— whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along. 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like 1

John Tasini, The Audacity of Greed: Free Market, Corporate Thieves and the Looting of America. (New York: Ig Publishing, 2009). 5 Vernon K. Robbins, A Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology. (New York: Routledge, 1996, 13). 6 David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Context, Methods and Ministry Formation, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004, 24).

The Apostles’ Challenge-Paul Vs. Peter a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith inChrist and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. 19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

II. BACKG R O UN D Change is a constant in society. As we move towards more chaotic times, there is the expectation that change will almost inherently, if not already, become the norm. It is important as we study leadership and their impacts on organizations that we delve into the meaning of change and also transition. John Kotter, the renowned Harvard Business School professor and strategist, in his book Leading Change, cited an eight-step process for creating and exacting major change. Though Dr. Kotter’s book was primarily directed to organizational change, the steps outlined can be directed at any entity, whether it is an individual, corporation, church, or any other organization. 7Key elements and the focus of the process can be implemented for any group. The eight steps are: 1) Establishing a Sense of Urgency, 2) Creating a Guiding Coalition, 3) Developing a Vision and Strategy, 4) Communicating the Change Vision, 5) Empowering Broad-Based Action, 6) Generating Short-Term Wins, Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change, and Anchoring New Approaches in Culture. The key item focused on is the sense of urgency. Until someone informs us of the need to change, our tendency is to continue to be who we. 7

William Bridges, in his book Transitions: Making Sense of Life’s Changes, addresses the issue of transition and change. Specifically, Bridges speaks of change as instantaneous and transition as emotional, “as an inner process through which people come to terms with change, as they let go of the way things used to be and reorient them to the way that things are now.”8 Transition, according to Bridges, has three specific components to be successful 1) an ending, 2) a neutral zone, 3) and an actionable beginning. We need to come to terms with what we are to change and what we would like to transition from. It is a conscious step to look at what you are addressing and make a conscious determination to stop any behavior, mannerism, or way of doing things to improve your general well-being. The neutral zone is the time when we, for lack of a better word, feel weird or not normal about what we are going through. Finally, after going through the neutral zone, we encounter a new beginning—the new us or the new me. This is where we engage a new dimension of who we are and our change. The word change is mentioned seven (7) times in the scriptures: God’s command to Abram (Genesis 12:1–9); internal, external change (Genesis 35:2), time for change (Deuteronomy 1:6); tear down, build (Ecclesiastes 3:3), don’t imitate ancestors (Zechariah 1:1–6), comparing old, new Luke (5:36– 39), and Paul feared Corinthian reunion (2 Corinthians 12:20–21). The word transform on the other hand is mentioned two (2) times: to radically change inner character (Romans 12:2) and contemplation of the Lord’s glory leads to transformation (2 Corinthians 3:17–18). Moses wore the veil over his shining face until he went in to speak with the Lord; and Paul asserts that all Christians can, like Moses, approach the glory of the Lord with unveiled faces and experience the same transformation. The emphatic “we all” refers to the experience of all Christians, not just that of apostles or Christian ministers, because Paul is not simply contrasting himself with Moses.9 All Christians may approach the Lord as Moses did when he went up Mount Sinai into the presence of the Lord. The results are similar. Beholding with an unveiled face the glory of the Lord causes us to be trans-

John P. Kotter. Leading Change. (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1996). William Bridges. Managing Transitions. (Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Lifelong Books, 2009). 9 D. E. Garland. 2 Corinthians (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. Vol. 29, p. 198, 1999). 8

RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR. formed into the same image. 10And as we look into this by faith, freely and unobstructed by any covering of a fleshly mind (such as impeded the vision of the Jews)—we are changed into the same image.—The image here is the image of the Lord, and that with which it is said to be identical (αὐτὴν), is not the πάντες (as if he would thus say that all were made alike), but that which they had been said to look upon, viz., the very same image which we all behold, for we all behold the glory of the Lord as in a mirror. While thus looking we shall be changed: we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is (1 Jno. 3:2; comp. Rom. 8:29).11 So contextually if anyone is called a new creature in Christ, then it is expected that they will be changed, transitioned and transformed into new creatures by His Spirit. The transformation in spirit is not expected immediately as opposed to over time and there are debates as to the particulars of such. Regardless of the results of the debate, clearly one who is called a spiritual leader is expected to be changed into the very image of Christ.

III. HI S TO R I CA L A N D S O C IAL CO NTEX T O F THE PE R I CO P E Cultural & Social Background The social and cultural nature of a text as a text will be examined. “A text is part of society and culture by the way it views the world (specific social topics), by sharing in general social and cultural attitudes, norms and modes of interaction which are known by everyone in a society (common social and cultural topics) and by establishing itself vis-a-vis the dominant cultural system (final cultural categories) as either sharing in its attitudes, values and disposition at some level (dominant and subcultural rhetoric) or by rejecting these attitudes, values and dispositions (counterculture, contraculture, and liminal culture rhetoric).”12 10

Culture deals with a set of values, ways of relating and ways of looking at the world shared by members of a particular group or region, and providing the framework for meaningful communication.13 Social Identity refers to a person’s sense of “us”, of belonging to a group. It is defined as the part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.14 It is important to understand about the location in which the church is situated to better ascertain how the execution of leadership communication in a cross cultural environment is handled specifically. Galatians contains one of the most important autobiographical reflections anywhere in the writings of Paul. Here he spoke of his “previous way of life in Judaism,” his ardor for the “traditions of [his] fathers,” and his surpassing zeal as a persecutor of the Christians (1:13– 14). These statements are borne out in his other writings as well. He told the Philippians (3:5–6) that he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin (as had King Saul, his biblical namesake), that he had been properly circumcised on the eighth day, and that he held to a strict Pharisaic position on the law.15 Paul’s opponents in Galatia may in fact have alluded to his preconversion proclamation in their efforts to embarrass him and denigrate his law-free gospel.16 Thus while Paul was a citizen of the Roman Empire and urged obedience to the civil authority, he also knew that the Christian’s prior political allegiance (politeuma, cf. Phil 3:20) was to that heavenly commonwealth, “the Jerusalem that is above” (Gal 4:26). There is no evidence that Paul ever conceived of Christianity as providing the social and religious basis for imperial consolidation and stability, “the soul which might give life to the body of the empire,” as a historian of an earlier generation put it.17

Ibid. J. P. Lange, P. Schaff, C. F. Kling & C.P. Wing A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 2 Corinthians. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008, 59). 12 Robbins, A Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology, 144. 13 DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Context, Methods and Ministry Formation, 111. 14 H. Tajfel. Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. (London: European Monograph in Social Psychology 1978, 14). 15 Timothy George. Galatians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scriptures. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994). 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 11

The Apostles’ Challenge-Paul Vs. Peter Galatians is the only one of Paul’s letters addressed neither to an individual nor to Christians in one specific city. In the period of late antiquity “Galatia” was an elastic term reflecting the changing political developments in central Asia Minor.18

IV . STR UCT UR E The Structure of Galatians From a literary standpoint, before going into the inner textual analysis of the specific chapter, there was a need to understand the entire book in context. Hermeneutical expression calls for the expositor to give proper context with scriptures. There is a need to understand the text within context. Hermeneutics is derived from the Greek word meaning “to interpret.” It has meant “the science which delineates principles or methods for interpreting and individual author’s meaning. ”19 Hermeneutics deals with interpreting, but exegesis introduces another dimension into the relationship with the text. Exegesis is focused attention, asking questions, sorting through possible meaning. It is rigorous, disciplined, intellectual work.20 So to understand the text in context we need to look at the chapter organization. Galatians 2

Biography

Theology

Ethics

Chapters

1-2

3-4

5-6

In the first two chapters, Paul recounts his spiritual autobiography wherein he wanted to demonstrate that he was a true apostle of the highest order. Paul understood that people had to understand his apostleship before they would accept his gospel.21 Chapters 3 and 4 focus on the theology of Paul and the theology of justification by faith in Christ alone. The final chapters conclude with ethical matters under consideration. The ethical matters specifically dealt with whatever we do for Christ should 18

be centered on the taking theology and applying to daily life.

V. INNER TEXTURE ANALYSIS Inner texture analysis connects us with the past. It connects us with the ancient text precisely in the manner in which modern Christian leaders, hear, interpret and apply the text to persuade others to deeper discipleship. In our context, the scripture created and expounded upon is the entire chapter of Galatians 2. In looking at the Narratological units, it appears that there are three units. They are the opening, body and closing.

Narratological Units in Galatians 2:11-21 There are three major scenes that are clearly observed in the chapter. In the opening scene called the introduction, Paul appears to be giving justification as to why he is an apostle. The justification is further confirmed when we look at scene two, “the body” wherein Paul challenges Peter (Cephas) as to why he was behaving in a manner that was contrary to basic Christian belief. This is the same belief that Peter agreed to and was further observed by Peter’s (intertextually in Acts 10) vision where he was challenged by God to eat that which he (Peter) thought was unclean. The Lord caution Peter then, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”22 Peter learned a vital lesson from his vision where he exclaimed, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”23 The second scene is the focus of the passage as not only does Paul challenge Peter, but he challenge him from a position of authority (apostleship), knowledge (the Gospel) and history (Peter as a known Jew). Scene three focuses on the impact of breaking the law, the results and Paul masterfully points others to Christ by utilizing justification through faith as the only criteria for being saved, and not the law.

Ibid. Grant. R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (2nd ed.) (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2006, 21). 20 Eugene H. Peterson, Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006, 43). 21 Phillip Graham Rankin. Galatians: Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005). 22 Acts 10:15 (NIV) 23 Acts10:34-35 (NIV) 19

RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR. Introduc�on: Gala�ans 2: 1-6 1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 3 4 5 6

I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.

This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.

We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.

Body: Gala�ans 2: 7-17 7 8

On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.

James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

9 10 11

All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along. When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

12 13

The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 15

16 17

For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles

know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!

Conclusion: Gala�ans 2: 18-20 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. 18 19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.

20 21

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

Repetitive-Progressive Texture and Patterns in Acts 2:11-21 The repetitive progressive texture represents motion, movement and progression through the narrational units of the chapter. In the NIV translation of the bible, the first narrational unit is identified by several repetitive word units.

of the law was mentioned once or twice. Paul used himself as the backdrop to most statement that he made to Peter specifically and to the group, in general. It is interesting that the most mention progressively and sequentially was Paul and Christ Jesus while circumcised Jews and Gentiles were the next most repeated words. The highlights of the top four words are, in actuality the focus, of the text.

In terms of usage of main words, Paul is mentioned 10 times throughout the chapter; Christ Jesus 9 times, circumcised/Jews 7 times, Gentiles 7 times, Peter was mentioned 5 times, true believers and sinners/unbelievers 3 times respectively. Barnabas and James (men of James) were mentioned twice and other items such as Titus, Barnabas, Greek, task of preaching, slaves, oppressed and condemned, work

The first unit focuses specifically on the backdrop of Paul’s justification for his position and gives historical context as to how he arrived where he is. There is clear mention that after 14 years, Paul went to Jerusalem and took along with him Barnabas and Titus. He met with the leaders to inform them that even though he brought Titus along, he (Titus) was not circumcised. It is clear that Paul was trying to make

The Apostles’ Challenge-Paul Vs. Peter by living by faith and pointing others to Christ through faith is one able to lead others into leadership of integrity.

VI. D ISCU SSION T O ORGAN IZ AT ION AL L E AD E RSHIP

Sensory-Aesthetic Texture and Pattern

Leadership by definition and task varies widely. Leadership is “the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led and induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and cooperation” (Moore, 1929). “Leadership is personality in action under group conditions…It is interaction between specific traits of one person and other traits of the many, in such a way that the course of action of the many is changed by the one”.26 Leadership is the activity of influencing people to cooperation toward some goal which they come to find desirable” Tead.27 Increasingly there is more evidence that leadership is not an intellectual exercise but an emotional one driven by social influence: “leadership is a social influence exerted on individuals and/ or groups to achieve goals.”28 Congruent with the social skills paradigm—and though much debate remains about its veracity in relation to leadership—emotional intelligence has emerged as one of the most notable leadership effectiveness constructs.29 Leadership, like money, is anthropomorphic It is the action of leadership that leads to a recognition of good or bad leadership. Furthermore, leadership can lead to healthy or unhealthy organizations.

The final element of the inner texture analysis is the sensory-aesthetic texture and pattern in the text. The sensory-aesthetic texture focuses on as Tennenhill observes, the tensions in the language that calls for reassessment and self-criticism and evoke new convictions, dispositions and actions.25 It appears that the pattern and texture outlined is one that is confrontational, direct, reflective, though provoking and one that would require others to act. Paul was being a true apostle in his direct confrontation with Peter—not to embarrass Peter, however what Peter did publicly needed to be addressed publicly and Paul ensure that this was done with appropriate historical context in mind upon his presentation. Paul recognized that the doctrine of union with Christ explains why the Christian is dead to the law. As such for Peter to allow himself to be influenced by those who did not know better, or worse yet, knew better (had knowledge), but did not do it was an affront to the gospel. The doctrine that promotes sin is believing that one is justified by doing things according to the Law and not by grace. The fact that the table fellowship was the basis that was being used as representation of the new Christianity was of significant concern to Paul. He (being a Jew) saw that Paul’s action threatened the very existence of the gospel, if it was allowed to go further. “Peter was rebuilding with one hand what he had destroyed with the other.”

Peter was a leader in his own right. He had been called by Jesus Christ. He engaged with the Lord for many years. He was there when the Lord was accused, but yet denied his knowledge of the Christ. Peter’s failure then is an indicator of things to come as was demonstrated in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. The key leadership question is why a leader of this magnitude failed to execute on his leadership in a time when it was sorely needed and called for. Further, what were hindrances to his leadership that rendered his actions ineffective? Peter was given the opportunity to exercise his faith in a manner that advanced the Kingdom. Was it the culture that created an environment that created a leadership challenge? Studies show that in most organizations, two out of three transformation initiatives fail.30 Man-

Vernon K. Robbins, A Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology, 64. Emory S. Bogardus, Leaders and Leadership. (New York: Appleton-Century. 1934). 27 Ordway Tead. The Art of Leadership. (New York: McGraw-Hill. 1935). 28 Philip A. Lewis, Transformational Leadership (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996, 61). 29 Douglas L. Prati et al. “Emotional Intelligence, Leadership Effectiveness, and Team Outcomes” International Journal of Organizational Analysis 11, no. 1 (2004): 21-40. 30 Harold L. Sirkin, Perry Keenan & Alan Jackson. The Hard Side of Change Management. (Harvard Business Review. October 2005). 26

RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR. aging change is tough, but part of the problem is that there is little agreement on what factors most influence transformation initiatives.31According to Sirkin et al, there are four factors that determine outcome of any transformation initiative, obviously ones being led by Paul and Peter, 1) the duration of time until change program is the usual work completed, 2) the project teams performance, 3) the commitment to change that top management and employees affected by the change display and 4) the effort over and above the usual work that the change initiative demand of employees.32 However, it needs to be clear that Peter was not only enacting a change in the way ministry was being done. He was one of the anointed leaders enforcing the change. According to William Bridges, he needed to transition from a place where he stopped doing certain things (ending), assess what that change means to him (neutral zone) and proceed to a new actions (new beginnings).33 So were there hindrances to his effective execution? Did he not realize that he was in an uncomfortable position when the “Men of James” came from Jerusalem to obverse Peter as he led the Church? What emotional state was Peter in, to have shunned away from the very Gentiles that he has had table fellowship with previously? Peter must have had to process how he would respond to the “men from James.” His mind processes and his action would indicate that he did something contrary to his core beliefs and also his principle. According to Howard Gardner, his processing filter consisted of five minds: 1. Disciplined mind: Applying ourselves through disciplined ways in learning, training, etc. 2. Synthesizing mind: Surveying a wide variety of resources and deciding what is important. 3. Creating mind: Looking for and executing on new ideas, practices, innovations, taking chances, discovering. 4. Respectful mind: Mind that tries to understand and form relationships with other human beings and

5. Ethical mind: Broadening respects for others into deciphering the world that one needs to engage in and shape.34 The ethical mind requires one to go beyond own experiences. It requires one to go beyond individual beliefs and look at the greater impact within the community. It is obvious that Peter was disciplined; offered synthesis in understanding the differences between Judaic law and newly embraced Christian beliefs; that he was creative and respectful. However, it is obvious that there was a lapse in his ethical mind. He could have simply believed that what he was doing was correct. Alternatively, the corporate chieftain that were referenced earlier such as Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay, etc. could have thought for a moment that what they were doing was ethically correct in the execution of their leadership, but failed to recognize the impact that that their actions were having on the community at large. “Employees certainly listen to what their leaders say, and they watch what their leaders and colleagues do even more carefully. Employees feel psychologically emboldened or pressured to emulate the bad behavior that they see in leaders and others who “get away with it.”35 This is effectively what Paul had confronted Peter about, not so much his act, but the possibility of his actions on those other Christ followers. A leader therefore needs to focus on the execution of his leadership potential to drive the organization, which at one time was rigid, but now is extremely fluid and boundary less. So as situation and organizations change, so the individual must adapt. However, there are issues and challenges that personally have to be addressed before expression beyond person to community and society. How did Peter process what was occurring in Antioch? What was the mental sieve that he used to process what was happening when the “men of James” appeared—could current leadership process information in the same manner? According to Kegen and Lahey, there are three plateaus that exist in the mental complexity of processing.

Ibid. Harold L. Sirkin, Perry Keenan & Alan Jackson. The Hard Side of Change Management. (Harvard Business Review. October 2005). 33 William Bridges. Managing Transitions. (Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Lifelong Books, 2009). 34 Howard Gardner: Different Voices: The Ethical Mind. ((Harvard Business Review. October 2005). 35 Ibid. 32

The Apostles’ Challenge-Paul Vs. Peter According to Kegen and Lahey there are multiple ways in which information is processed by the leader.36 We learn the method of processing over time (figure 1) based on the way in which we develop and formulate ethical and altruistic beliefs. The definition is giving in figure 2 below. We develop our position based on our socialized mind—this is where we are and where we belong. Are we people who want

to be part of the team? Are we people who want to just follow and not lead? These are some of the items that are addressed at the socialized mind level. However, as time goes on we either gain or accept leadership. We begin to drive the agenda. We being to set the pace and solve problems. Finally, at the self-authoring stage of mind, we determine how to lead and to learn from our leadership.

Complexity

Self-authoring mind Self-authoring mind

Socialized Mind Team Player Faithful Follower Aligning Seeks direc�on Reliant

Agenda-driving Leader learns to lead Own compass, own frame Problem-solving Independent

Meta-leader Leader leads to learn Mul�frame, holds contradic�ons Problem -ﬁnding Independent

Time Figure 1: Plateaus in adult mental development Source: Keegan & Lahey: Immunity to Change From a biblical perspective, the author disagrees with Keegan and Leahy and agrees with Gardner. According to Keegan and Leahy, at the stage of self-authoring the leader tends to lead, but incorporate others input into fundamentals that could lead to change in principle. This would contradict with Gardner who asserts that the ethical mind leads to broadening respects for others into deciphering the world that one needs to engage in and shape which is

based fundamentally on the principles learned and captured based on experience. Kegan and Leahy goes on to state that the prevention to change occurs on three dimensions 1) change prevention system (thwarting challenging aspirations), 2) feeling system (managing anxiety) and 3) knowing system (organizing reality).37

Robert Kegan & Lisa Laslow Lahey. Immunity to Change: How to Overcome It and Unlock the Potential in Yourself and Your Organization. (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Review Press, 2009). 37 Ibid.

The Apostles’ Challenge-Paul Vs. Peter Pastors and spiritual leaders seem to have two functions: nurturing the general spiritual health of the inner core group of believers and helping to identify and prepare leaders for ministry in the congregation and, in a few instances, beyond the perimeter of the congregation.38 So the leader is not only just present to nurture the organization (congregation) and those internally (pastors and teachers), but also the evangelistic trust beyond the wall of the Church (apostles, evangelist and prophets). It is important therefore that we understand our mind at work in the execution of organizational leadership. Our mind has to be transformed for the leader to execute in an effective manner with the team and those around him. Failure to do so would create conflict in the culture, the organization and the community.

VI I . CO NCLUS I O N A N D FUTUR E R E S E A R CH This paper touches on an intriguing topic in the world of Christian Leadership. According to Heifetz et. al. there are things that Peter could have done to engage his emotions to the execution of his leadership. They highlighted

five major constraints that could have created or hindered Peter from doing the appropriate things when looking at his leadership:

1. Loyalties to people who may not believe that you are doing the right thing

2. Fear of incompetence 3. Uncertainty about taking the right path 4. Fear of Loss 5. Not having the stomach for the hard parts of the journey.39 Peter could easily have experienced the actions above—these actions are physiological and emotional. It by no means formulates a conclusion that is complete in its assessment of why leaders do not take the necessary steps, consistent with integrity and their own principles, when it is required. It serves as only the launching point of further research in this topic to assess the environment, physiology of those entrusted to make and execute change for themselves and their organization, further deep analysis of the hindrances to arrive at executable strategies for success. This paper by no-means answer the question, but is a first step in the task of understanding organizational and transformational leadership from the depth of emotions.

ABO UT TH E A UT HO R Rupert A. Hayles, Jr. is the President of The Center for Emotional and Spiritual Development and Executive Pastor of TLCC.org. He is certified in many emotional intelligence instruments and has coached ordained as well as lay leaders. He has over two decades of leadership experience with corporations such as Prudential Financial, Merck and Cytec Industries. Currently a Ph.D. candidate at Regent University focusing on Emotional Intelligence and Fruit of the Spirit, Rupert has a MBA from Wharton School and undergraduate degrees from Seton Hall University. His book includes, “The Church and Emotional Intelligence”, “The leader’s and student guide to the Church and Emotional Intelligence” and a secular business book- “Practical Strategy, Aligning Business with Information Technology”. He is an organizational strategist, author, lecturer and adjunct professor.

Jack Niewold. Set Theory and Leadership: Reflections on Missional Communities in the Light of Ephesians 4:1112. (Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership. 2(1), 2008, 44-63). 39 Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow & Marty Linsky. The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.2009).