Introduction

The book of Revelation contrasts two distinct approaches to leadership. These are demonstrated by the figures of the Lamb and the Dragon. This paper seeks to describe these opposing views, and then draw conclusions as to how Christians should practice leadership in light of the Eschaton. Then an appeal is made to incorporate these conclusions into the practice of leadership in the church today.

Purpose of Paper

Such a study is needed, because how leadership is practiced in the church has a profound effect on the accomplishment of its mission. Success for God’s people in the last days can only happen when leadership is practiced according to God-honoring principles. Only the self-sacrificing servant leadership of the Lamb, which is transformational in nature, and seeks what is best for others, will enable the church to be and do what the Lord intended for it, especially during the time of the Eschaton. This paper concludes that the loving, non-coercive, relational dynamic, demonstrated by the Lamb’s leading during the Eschaton, provides a biblical template for Christian leadership in the present time. Our human proclivity for leadership that seeks to serve our own interests contradicts the witness of the church, and hinders its proclamation of a last-day message to prepare people for the coming of Jesus. Our ecclesiology (which includes how we lead in the church) must be informed by our eschatology. Peter makes this connection between the Eschaton and how we live our lives today, when he is describing the Day of the Lord, and the desolation of the earth that will take place at the Second Coming. His advice for our lives in the present is “Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11, RSV). Speaking of the relationship between ecclesiology and eschatology, Wondra says, “Practice goes a long way in anticipating what we long for God to bring into being.”¹ Our practice of leadership now should reflect that of the last days, heaven, and the New Earth.

Definition of Eschaton

The English Oxford Living Dictionaries defines Eschaton as “the final event in the divine plan; the end of the world.”² But there remains a significant relationship between what is predicted and the present. This relationship affects how Christians should live today, and how they should practice leadership. The relationship blurs any discreet separation between now and the time of the Eschaton. According to LaRondelle, there is a sense in which the time of the end has already begun, in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. “The apostle Peter then announced that the ‘last days’ had arrived, the days of Christ’s spiritual kingship had begun (Acts 2:17; cf. Heb 1:2).”³ In our present time, we are challenged to embrace the leadership model of the Lamb. It is this transformation that prepares us to lead in a God-honoring manner in the context of the Eschaton.

Overview of the Paper

This paper will explore biblical principles of leadership drawn from three scriptural meta-narratives, (a) pre-rebellion leadership, (b) post-rebellion leadership, and (c) leadership principles of the Apocalypse. Finally, we call for reformation in how the church practices leadership today.

Biblical Principles of Leadership Drawn from Three Meta-narratives of Scripture

Pre-Rebellion Leadership

Genesis provides no defining statement of what constituted leadership behavior prior to the origin of sin. The creation narrative,⁴ however, reveals elements of God’s leadership practices. The first verse of Genesis introduces us to the Creator as Elohim, which is a plural form of the word for God. We cannot assume that this alone supports the concept of a triune God, but when coupled with the deliberative conversation of Genesis 1:26, we find support for the plurality of persons.⁵

Leadership as Conversation

Christian faith and practice did not emerge in a vacuum, but in a rich and varied historical context. Doukhan describes the inclusion of the leadership dimension in the creation narrative of Genesis 1:

The first word of the Hebrew Bible bereshit, generally translated “in the beginning” (Gen 1:1), encapsulates the essence of leadership: it is derived from the word rosh, which literally means “head” and is the technical term normally used to designate one who is leading in a given situation. The event of creation is thus from the start described as an act of leadership. Creation is leadership par excellence.⁶

The creation story reveals nothing that would indicate the presence of dominance-oriented behavior or the aspirations of ambition. “In the beginning God created” (Gen 1:1) gives no hint of the distinct positions or roles held by the members of the Godhead—no ranking or hierarchy that would indicate a prior process of establishing dominance or role. There is a consistent sense of oneness wherein no one member of the Trinity is elevated or abased relative to another. The expression “Let us make man in our image” (Gen 1:26) reveals the planning aspect of creation as a conversation rather than a command. Doukhan goes on to discuss the question of who is in conversation:

Generally Jewish tradition held the plural to refer to God addressing His heavenly court, the angels,⁷ as supported by Job: “when I [God] laid the foundations of the earth . . . all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:4, 7). An important Jewish tradition reported by the great medieval commentator Rashi explains this text as a lesson of humility on the part of God: “The superior must take counsel and ask authorization from his inferior.”⁸ The text of the Midrash Rabbah which is the source of Rashi’s remark is even more explicit and reports the story that when Moses received this phrase by revelation he was disturbed and asked God to explain. And God answered: “Since man will be the lord of creation, it is appropriate that I ask their agreement to the higher and lower spheres, before I create him. Humans will then learn from Me that the greatest should ask the agreement from the smallest before imposing on him a leader.⁹

From the time of the Church Fathers, Christian theologians in general saw the plural as a reference to Christ or/and the Trinity.¹⁰ Certainly the traditional Christian interpretation would not exclude the traditional Jewish interpretation, insofar as the divine council (the heavenly host) is understood in a broad and larger sense, though with some nuances. In the former interpretation, the sharing operation involves other beings than God Himself. In the latter interpretation, it takes place within the Godhead and is here understood as an inherent quality of God Himself.

This Christian view reveals a discussion between equals¹¹ where a suggestion about creating humans is adopted and carried out without addressing the issue of dominant voice or position. No one is given credit for the suggestion, nor does the context seem to expect that the recommendation needed to be credited to an individual member of the Godhead.

Though the NT attributes the responsibility for creation to Jesus (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2, 10), the creation account mentions the activity of God in a plural sense. The plural nature of the Godhead is revealed in the creation narrative in that the Spirit is mentioned specifically as an active agent in the creation process (Gen 1:2). It seems that the credit given to Jesus as Creator in the NT is assumed to extend to all three members of the Trinity.

Leadership Assumes Oneness

Jesus described the nature of the relationship of the Trinity to his disciples as a radical oneness (Jn 14:7-18) that it allowed him to use the first person singular pronoun “I” when clearly referencing the presence and activity of the Spirit (Jn 14:18). He reminds Thomas and Philip that he and the Father share this oneness to the extent that seeing one allows for the recognition of the other (Jn 14:7, 9). Further, his followers are included in this radical oneness which defies physical reality— “I am in the Father, you are in me and I am in you” (Jn 14:20). This spiritual oneness leaves no room for competitive behavior. Dominance and prominence over others is simply not an issue in the cosmos prior to Lucifer’s rebellion.

Leadership is a Shared Process

The creation process reveals inclusion in the planning and decision-making process. “Let us” (Gen 1:26) reveals a sharing of ideas as well as effort. This sharing of responsibilities is a hallmark of the relationship enjoyed by the Trinity. The spoken word that became the written word (Jn 1:1, 14; 14:23-26; 17:8) is a collaboration between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Shared power and authority was exercised by each in unique and effective ways (Matt 18:18; 28:18-20; Jn 5:17-30; 14:6-16).

The collaboration is not unique to the Godhead alone. The creation plan records the extension of this sharing to humanity even before man and woman were created (Gen 1:26-30). The plan embraced a shared leadership model with humans serving as stewards of the earth. Immediately following the creation of man this new relationship was expressed in an assignment given to Adam. He was charged to name the animals that God had created “And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name” (Gen 2:19, 20). This reveals the sharing of authority by God with humans.

The stewarding of leadership is revealed in God’s intentional empowerment of the first humans as serving the needs of the earth and its life forms. This leadership assignment has never been withdrawn. It is a link between the pre-fall world and the restoration of humanity with God following the Parousia. Those redeemed from the earth are promised a seat on Jesus’ throne (Rev 3:21) from which they will once again share in leadership with the Godhead.

Summary of Pre-Rebellion Leadership Behavior

Creation is arguably the most challenging leadership task ever untaken. In the context of creation, God reveals a leadership model of collegiality and collaboration—a community process. Competition for position was unknown and leadership was processed through conversation rather than command. A radical oneness among the Godhead and his creatures supported a generative environment where the healthy growth of every person contributed to a culture of shared leadership and uncompromised inclusiveness. God’s word reveals a pre-fall world that provides a beautiful glimpse of life and a model for leadership to be restored in the Eschaton.

Post-Rebellion Leadership

The fall into sin by humans had a profound impact on the subsequent nature and behavior of humanity. Cain’s violent reaction (Gen 4:2-8) to the faithfulness of his brother, Abel, records the first conflict that ends in murder. The innumerable lives forfeited because of conflict and other dominance-related acts provides incontrovertible evidence of the diminished influence of love as a driving force in human nature, being displaced by a compulsion to dominate and even destroy to achieve ascendancy. Cain’s response to God’s query regarding Abel artfully acknowledges the move from other to self (“Am I my brother’s keeper?”, Gen 4:9) in the post-fall world.

Leadership as a conversation within community (Gen 1:26) is replaced by rulership that relies upon command and control. The concept of leadership as service is lost in the shift from others to self, and awaits rediscovery in the person and ministry of the Messiah.

Lucifer as Progenitor of Dominance

Dominance and the dance to attain preeminence over others is not an issue in the cosmos prior to Lucifer’s rebellion. The poetry of Isaiah 14:13–14 and Ezekiel 28:11-15 reveal the origins of the ascendant-dominant approach to leading people. The prophetic narrative that foretells the rise and fall of the King of Babylon (Isa 14:3–11) also includes a metaphorical comparison with the rise and fall of Lucifer (Isa 14:12–21). The origin of leadership as self-ascendancy¹² that aims at dominance is revealed in this depiction of his coveting the throne of God.

The consequences of this change impact leadership behavior and practice more than any other event in history. An angel, Lucifer, created with great gifts of service and leadership, inexplicably feels envious toward the God who created him. Though his position was that of “the guardian cherub” (Ezek 28:14), ordained to serve next to God, he began to doubt the love and wisdom of God. Conflict followed (Rev 12:7). This dramatically and tragically impacted life on our planet. Humans, who had been entrusted with leading planet earth, were influenced to side with Lucifer, which altered their very nature and thereby indelibly changed leadership behavior.

Isaiah quotes the divine account of the thoughts of Lucifer as he contemplated his rebellion against God:

I will ascend to the heavens;

I will raise my throne above the stars of God;

I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.

I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High. (Isa 14:13-14)

The verbs and the pronouns within these lines of poetry reveal much about the core elements of his philosophy—“I” is the prominent pronoun and ascendancy is the overriding direction of his movements. His intense self-centeredness contrasts with the generative attitude of the Creator, characterized as a giver who blesses and enhances the lives of others. We also see the seeds of competition for primacy that germinate in his heart and bear the fruit of dominance and control throughout the history of the human race—war, murder, conflict and slavery, to name but a few.

The desires of Lucifer’s heart, as recorded in Isaiah 14, have been inherited by humans. Their influence on the practice of leadership is ubiquitous and provides the foundation for leader behavior throughout history. Power and force replaced the cooperative conversations in the previous era. Great Man Theory as a model for leadership went unchallenged for most of earth’s history, except by Jesus. He condemned the wickedness of Capernaum (Luke 10:15) by referencing the language of Isaiah 14. He inverted the common wisdom of leadership by characterizing the great men as slaves (Matt 20:26–27) and recalibrating what it means to be a leader by inverting first with last (Matt 19:30; 20:16; Mark 9:35).

In the eschatological passage of 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, Paul clearly references competition born of a covetous heart that hopes to occupy the throne of universal leadership as the sin that will mark the time just before Jesus returns. These passages bracket the history of leadership on this earth after the rebellion of Lucifer and the moral fall of humankind.

Hierarchies of power emerged as the structures that formalized Lucifer’s self-ascendant move toward dominance and control. Ambition that motivates positional dominance finds its origin in the cosmic rebellion initiated by Lucifer and presages the murderous treachery of the likes of Abimelech toward Gideon’s 70 sons (Judg 9:1–5), the attempt at dominance initiated by Salome for her sons (Matt 20:24), the arguments among Jesus’ disciples as to who among them was the greatest (Luke 22:24), and countless other cases that stain the history of the human race.

After years of resisting, God, the invisible spiritual ruler that Gideon affirmed when he was asked to be king of Israel (Judg 8:22, 23), allowed the installment of a human king. Positional governance replaced the Divine-human relational structures of Israel’s covenant with God. It is critically important to the formation of an understanding of God’s leadership ideal that we recognize that kingly administration was not originally included in that model. God predicted that it would become a part of their future (Deut 17:14f) because He knows the tendency of the human heart. The covenant relationship of God with His people established Him as ruler and the people as followers and stewards of His authority on earth, but the kingly model was an accommodation to the desires of His people to have a tangibly visible human leader.

The demise of the theocracy was initiated by a request of the elders of Israel for a king (1 Sam 8:20). The subsequent act of choosing a king for Israel was accompanied by a warning from God through Samuel: he predicted that the king would rule¹³ with complete control and that his subjects would eventually bemoan their request for a king (1 Sam 8:11–18). In summary, the ubiquitous nature of dominance as the primary underlying leadership behavior of the fallen human race has its origin in the rebellion of Lucifer and has been present to a greater or lesser degree in human leader-follower relations since.

Leadership in the Disciples’ Community (Matt 20:20–28)

The social dynamics at play in Salome’s request reveal a predictable response to the interjection of a process of positional dominance into a relational social context. To this point in time the disciples had related as peers, while Jesus served as the authoratative alpha figure apart from formal position. The mother of James and John interjected the possibility of a new social order among the disciples based upon positional rank. The request that her sons occupy the preeminent positions to the right and left of him (Matt 20:20–21) contains three assumptions: (1) that Jesus possessed the authority to speak (είπέ) and it would happen (Great Man Theory), (2) that the organizational structure of the disciple’s community would be ordered according to the familiar hierarchical structures that marked the world (power-based and top down), and (3) that the relational structures that held the community together were inadequate without hierarchy.

Jesus challenged the first assumption by claiming that granting positional rank to the disciples was not His to give (v. 23), but the Father reserved that right. Though he did not defend the relational nature of his community, he gave no hint that it needed the imposition of hierarchical power structures. The third assumption is undone during Jesus’ earthly ministry by the clear absence of formal positional ranking among the disciples.

The intent to inject rank and position (dominance through social competition for position) into the disciple community by this mother caused an immediate negative emotional reaction toward James and John by the other disciples (v. 24). Mark’s account, “they began to be”,¹⁴ indicates that the tension created in that conversation continued in their relationships. This incident illustrates the role dominance plays as a primary source of conflict in the church and elsewhere—perennial relational stress resulting from competition for positional honor and influence. This reality mirrors the initial cosmic rebellion and conflict between God and Lucifer memorialized in the words of Isaiah—“I will ascend” (Isa 14:13).

It is in this context that Jesus refutes the leadership behavior of the rulers of the people or nations (άρχοντες τῶν έθνῶν) (v. 25), who anticipate becoming great. Again, this language reinforces the invasive nature of dominance behavior as a negative element of leadership. It is ironic that His followers who are receiving this counsel are embroiled in such behavior at the moment His words decry it. This ubiquity is not confined to the Gentiles only, but is the modus operandi of Jewish leaders as well—both political and religious. Jesus expands His counsel to include the great or important ones (μεγάλοι), those who exercise authority (κατεξουσιάζουσιν) that comes from the top down to subjects, or authoritarian leadership rather than the generative authority in the more positive demonstration of authority (προΐστημι)¹⁵ (1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17). In contrast, Jesus counsels His followers that those who anticipate becoming great (θέλῃ εἶναι) must first descend into service.

The non-competitive, collaborative, interdependent leadership model that is revealed in the context of Eden prior to the fall is the only viable alternative to dominance. The contrast is implicit in Jesus’ directive to His disciples that such behavior will not be demonstrated by those who follow Him. This statement of the ideal confronts both the positional maneuvering of James, John and their mother, and the anger of the other 10 disciples. What it does not do is describe the positive alternative. Here we have authoritarian leader behavior that Jesus identifies as universal among the people and which He condemns among His followers, but contrasted with what? If authoritarian leadership behavior is universal, then we must move to a different dimension to discover the model that contrasts with the autocrat. This ideal pre-fall model was not yet a reality among the followers of Christ but was, by faith, within reach of this fledgling community.

Oneness with Christ now goes beyond the relationship dimension and embraces an identity and behavior consistent with that of the Trinity. Even as the greatness of Jesus was experienced by emptying Himself of desire for honor and glory (κενόω, Phil 2:7), so also, the believer who would become great is encouraged to find greatness as a servant (διάκονος, Matt 20:26). Those who desire primacy have the greater challenge in that they must become slaves (δοῦλος) to the other believers—a mighty challenge when contrasted with the mental models upon which their social understanding of position and leadership were based.

The narrative concludes with Jesus referencing himself as their example (cf. 1 Pet 5:3). He left his place in glory and descended to serve. His life would be forfeited to serve the transformational process of his followers. The contrast that challenges the ascendant-dominant model of leadership may be found only in the descendant-service model demonstrated in the persons and relationships of the Godhead.

Jesus as the Model for Godly Leaders

Due to the universal impact of Lucifer’s rebellion upon humanity, it is imperative that we look beyond human leadership, even among the most faithful of biblical leaders, as the foundation for a God-honoring model of leadership. In using humans as a source for the model, we risk importing the deficiencies inherited from the fall into the model we embrace as “Christian.” There is only one dependable human source: Jesus Christ. The Messiah lived and led in a manner that always honored his Triune community. He rejected position as the platform upon which leadership rests and chose relationship—friendship to be precise (John 15:15)—and distributed leadership broadly and inclusively among his followers without reference to position (1 Pet 2:5) or he neutralizes the relationship of position and leadership by describing all as “kings and priests” (Rev 1:6). He points us back to a time when “lording it over others” did not happen because others were always the focus of leadership efforts (Matt 20:24-28).

Leadership Principles of the Apocalypse

Revelation explicitly indicates that leadership is not a merely methodological issue, but an ontological matter. The 144,000 follow the Lamb, whom John describes with the metaphor of a shepherd of the remnant (Rev 7:17; 14:4). In contrast, “the dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority….The whole earth…followed after the beast” (Rev 13:2, 3). Revelation suggests that humans reflect the leadership characteristics and practices of the Lamb or the Beast. The 144,000 belong to God and the Lamb, and they “follow the Lamb wherever He goes” (Rev 14:4). They reflect the Lamb’s character and leadership (cf. Rev 14:5).

Christian leaders are called to practice the leadership principles of the Lamb, rather than those of the Beast (Rev 14:1). Revelation reveals that the character of the Lamb is consistently connected to his leadership throughout the Eschaton. Thus, the readers of Revelation may discern leadership principles by studying the Great Controversy between the Lamb and the Dragon.

Shared Power and Authority

The relationship between the Lamb, the Father, and the Holy Spirit in Revelation demonstrates that power and authority are to be shared. The Lamb is voluntarily subordinated to the Father. Revelation 5, where the Lamb is presented, follows chapter 4, where God is being worshiped by heavenly beings. The Lamb receives “the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne” (Rev 5:7). However, chapter 7 immediately presents the doxology of a great multitude for both Father and the Lamb: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (Rev 7:10, NIV).

Afterward, the merit of redemption is attributed to both the Father and the Lamb (cf. Rev 14:1; 22:1, 3). Therefore, power and authority are shared and decentralized in the relationship between the Father and the Son. This mysterious relationship is presented in the last scene of the judgment. One who is seated on a great white throne gives a final sentence to the dead (Rev 20:11).¹⁶ The Lamb is not present, in spite of His profound role in the Great Controversy. Aune argues, “the absence of any mention of the Lamb in this judgment scene is striking.”¹⁷ However, the throne of the Lamb finally appears in the last chapter of Revelation. Here the throne is shared by both the Father and the Lamb (Rev 22:1, 3), and the throne is also occupied by the overcomers (Rev 3:21).¹⁸ Thus, the authority of God is exercised by the Lamb and God’s people through the sharing of the throne.¹⁹

This paradoxical relationship demonstrates that God’s kingdom does not follow the Greco-Roman hierarchical system, which is typical of human leadership. Despite the profound verticality between God and creatures (cf. Rev 4:8, 10), the twenty-four elders are exalted to their own thrones (cf. Rev 4:4). Moreover, the authority of God is distributed to the saints (cf. Rev 20:4). Nevertheless, it seems that shared authority is no threat to God’s sovereignty. The redeemed have learned that the desire for an exalted position caused the tragedy in the Dragon’s leadership and was replicated the human experience (cf. Isa 14:12, 13). They also learned self-denial through the love of the Lamb. The stability of heaven seems to be based on this horizontality in verticality found in the relationship between the members of the Trinity, and between God and the saints.

Familial Relationship

Another important characteristic of God’s kingdom is familial relationships (cf. Rev 21:7). Satan seeks his purposes through transaction (cf. Ezk 28:16; Matt 4:8, 9). The Great Controversy was initiated by Lucifer’s attempt to usurp the highest authority through a transactional process. Revelation depicts that the beast uses the harlot (cf. Rev 17:16) to entice kings and merchants by trade. The harlot relates transactionally with kings and merchants of the earth (cf. Rev 18:11-19). This transactional approach is represented by the words “immorality” or “fornication” (cf. Rev 14:8; 17:2, 5; 18:3, 9; 19:2). The adultery is implied in the attitude of selling and trading truth and innocence to attain selfish benefits. The transaction is not grounded in godly motivation.

This approach to leadership contrasts with godly, biblical leadership, which reflects Christ’s humility. Philippians 2:5-11 is Paul’s response to the exercise of power in the Christian community. The word strife (Phil 2:3, eritheia) relates to baseness, self-interest, ambition, and contention. Interestingly, this word relates to the vocation of a harlot who attains her benefits by trade (cf. Ezk 23:5, 11, 12). Also, the word eritheia connotes “electioneering” or “intriguing for office.” If someone plots or conspires to achieve a position, then his/her attitudes show that he/she is a spiritual prostitute. However, the Lamb is the one “who has been slain” (Rev 13:8). He sacrifices everything and is willing to suffer for our redemption (Isa 53:11) because He is our brother (cf. Rom 8:29; Heb 1:6). The familial relationship is the foundation of God’s kingdom, which is marked by love and sacrifice rather than struggles for personal gain and power.

Love Characterizes Motivation

Love is the foundation of the Lamb’s leadership. One of the most impressive aspects of the Lamb is his silence. Leadership often involves persuasion via a strong voice. However, Jesus, when described as the Lamb, does not speak a single time in Revelation. There is no hint that the Lamb commands people. One of the distinctions between the Lamb and the Dragon is related to speech. The beast coming out of the sea has “a mouth like that of a lion” (Rev 13:2, NIV, emphasis added) to “utter proud words and blasphemies” (Rev 13:5, NIV, emphasis added). And the beast coming out of the earth “spoke as a dragon” (Rev 13:11, emphasis added). The beast “was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed” (Rev 13:15, NIV, emphasis added).

In contrast, the Lamb is standing on Mount Zion (Rev 14:1) without utterance. The image of the silent lamb harmonizes with the prophet Isaiah’s description of the suffering servant: “Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth” (Isa 53:7). This servant “will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets” (Isa 42:2; cf. Matt 12:19).

Why does the Lamb keep silent? One apparent answer is that He respects mankind’s free decision making. The trustful relationship between the Lamb and His followers resulted from the Lamb’s faithful acts, not by forceful threat. He knows that trust cannot be commanded. The Dragon and his followers wield might and power with strong voices and commands to get attention. However, the Lamb woos the hearts of his people, and he proves his love by his sacrifice. This indicates that godly leadership is not marked by threat, but by genuine love. Thus, silence can be a more powerful behavior than speaking. According to Doukhan, concerning silence in heaven (Rev 8:1), “Silence expresses what even words, music, and art cannot. Only silence can communicate the unutterable. And only silence may express the infinite God.”²⁰

Missional Focus of Christian Leadership

Revelation reveals a missional focus of Christian leadership. The impending judgment seems to be delayed in the seven seals and the seven trumpets. The voice of the souls under the altar reaches a climax when the fifth seal is broken by the Lamb, saying “How long … until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” (Rev 6:10, NIV). Then, “there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until [the number of] their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also” (Rev 6:11, emphasis added). Here, the judgment seems to be delayed to give more time to accomplish the mission.

The ministry of the Lamb in the Great Controversy is not completed quickly. The judgment is delayed in behalf of the saints (Rev 6:10, 11). Chapter 7 describes the sealing ministry of four angels, who hold back “the four winds of the earth” (Rev 7:1) until “the seal of the living God” (Rev 7:2) have been placed on “the bond-servants of our God in their foreheads” (Rev 7:3). The Lamb continues His leadership for the purpose of leading the saints to the final destination, springs of living water (Rev 7:17).

The description of the sixth trumpet is informative: “And the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk; and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts” (Rev 9:20-21, emphasis added).²¹117 Again, judgment is delayed because of God’s longing for people to repent (cf. 2 Pet 3:9). The genuine reason of delay is love. He initiates the final stage of judgment to repay the blood of the saints (cf. Rev 6:9-10), but he still longs for the repentance of those who dwell on the earth (cf. Rev 6:11). Then, between the sixth and the seventh trumpets there is another mighty angel who says “[T]here will be no more delay” (Rev 10:6, NIV) and at the same time “You must prophesy again” (Rev 10:11, NIV). So even as judgment is meted out, the call of mercy persists. The exposing of the arrogant rebellion of the Dragon in chapters 12 and 13 precedes the three angels’ messages “to those who live on the earth” in chapter 14. In the same manner the invitation of salvation is given in chapter 18 after describing the seven bowls of wrath (Ch. 15-16) and exposing the judgment for the great harlot (Ch. 17). At least three times a merciful invitation (cf. Rev 10:11; 14:6; 18:4) is given to people before the determined destruction (cf. Rev 10:6; 11:18; 15:1). The judgment seems to be delayed by the insertion of a missional invitation. In this long running combat, the Lamb as Michael (Rev 12:7) fights for His “called, chosen and faithful followers” (Rev 17:14, NIV). Though the goal is already set, the process needs a longer time in God’s strategy because the ultimate purpose of Revelation is to lead people to read and hear and take to heart the gospel invitation (Rev 1:3). Thus, Revelation concludes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen” (Rev 22:21, emphasis added).²² In reality, God’s patience manifests the love of God for saving people.

Empowered Leadership

The Lamb appears to be weak, however, his leadership influence is powerful. The 144,000 willingly follow wherever He goes (Rev 14:4). The ten horns “will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful” (Rev 17:14). The Lamb’s leadership is empowered in unity with the Father and the Spirit. Calvin Miller reveals the paradox of Jesus’ powerful influence expressed in “meekness” (Matt 11:29), and defines Jesus’ meekness not as the absence of power, but as power under control.²³ The Lamb’s leadership is not self-centered leadership, but self-emptied leadership where the Father works in Him (Phil. 2).

Dan B. Allender summarizes two elements of God’s character as “strong” and “loving” from Psalm 62:11-12.²⁴ These attributes of God should be demonstrated through a Christian leader’s character. In Revelation, Jesus is the Lamb and at the same time He is the Lion (Rev 5:5). He has a bow but no arrow (Rev 6:2). He has a sword, but it is a metaphorical sword (cf. Rev 2:16). He has the sword, but does not wield it in battle. Jesus is both warrior and Lamb. He is strong yet tender. These paradoxical characteristics of Jesus’ leadership can only be properly understood when a leader is emptied of self, and equipped by the power of the Spirit. This mysterious leadership always fights with the power of evil (division), and always embraces people who have different ideas (unity).

Summary

In Revelation, the Lamb is not focused on Himself. Rather, he chooses to be silent. He pursues “no reputation.” There is no indication of transactional leadership. Only self-sacrifice and humility, born of genuine love, speak without sound. Henry J. M. Nouwen insists that “the Christian leader of the future is called to be completely irrelevant and to stand in this world with nothing to offer but his or her own vulnerable self.”²⁵

The core of Christian leadership is the relationship between God and leaders. The faithful in Revelation follow the Lamb not because of rewards granted, but because of his sacrificial love. Christian leadership is not a technique or a method for achieving organizational goals. Leadership is character and trust. Leadership is not about command and control. Leadership is grounded in a relational community marked by love. Thus, the fruit of leadership is conditioned on trusting relationships. Therefore, to be a Christian leader is nothing less than to be a faithful and trusting person in the service of Christ. Revelation indicates that leadership is not simply a matter of organizational effectiveness and efficiency, but one of relationship within community.

A Call to Relational Leadership Arising from Shared Eschatological Vision

Scholars commonly assert that leadership is shaped by culture.²⁶ As servants of Christ, we are participants in mission with fallen humanity, and frequently reflect our culture. This awareness is crucial. Without it we cannot confess our need for biblical spirituality and theology to reform our leadership practices. We risk routinely moving through the motions of religious life while simply imitating cultural leadership practices without regard for the distinctive nature of our mission.

The loving, non-coercive, relational dynamic demonstrated by the Lamb’s leading during the Eschaton provides a biblical template for Christian leadership in the present time. This vision of time as we experience it on this Earth alerts us to the need for reform. Such an eschatological vision empowers us to parse our culture’s normal practice of leadership and contrast these practices with biblical leadership principles.

In this context, it is essential that we recognize the work done in recent years calling us to a biblical theology of leadership that transcends our various cultural contexts.²⁷ We set aside a biblically centered theology of leadership in favor of cultural tradition at the peril of mission, our identity, and most importantly, our witness to His character in the end time. Precisely because we are witnesses for Him in the end of time, we must seek to humbly and prayerfully reflect His character in our leadership.

19th Century New England: Culture, Mission, and Eschatology

As we consider the challenge to live out a biblical template for leadership, it is helpful to note the Adventist movement’s birth in New England during the Second Great Awakening. The Second Great Awakening was a Protestant movement in the United States in the first half of the 19th century.²⁸ Many Protestant denominations grew rapidly during this period. The movement was characterized by enthusiasm, conviction, and faith, rejecting the skepticism of the Enlightenment. Those embracing the Awakening challenged the values of society and launched reform movements addressing such issues as slavery, women’s rights, and temperance. They were convicted that the evils in society needed correction prior to the Millennium and Second Coming of Christ. Postmillennialism dominated, and leaders asserted their divine calling to bring purity into the world and the church in preparation for the coming Millennium.²⁹ Religious leaders saw it as their divinely appointed duty to institute reform, and members saw their role as instituting reform in the social order.³⁰ Shaped by that culture, Adventist mission was focused on preparing Christians for the end time. Preparation for the end meant being separate from the world, to come out, to be ready.

It would seem apparent that in the pursuit of a distinctive Christian experience before the end of time, the call for reformation of leadership distinguished from cultural or secular norms would find a receptive hearing among early Adventists. And it did.

One of the secular norms that worried early Adventist believers was the inclination toward dominance and power, even in Christian institutions. George Storrs wrote in 1844: “Take care that you do not seek to manufacture another church. No church can be organized by man’s invention but what it becomes Babylon the moment it is organized.”³¹

They knew the inclination to seek power and its corrupting influence on leadership within the religious organizations. Thus they affirmed an emphasis on community, rejected the notion of an elite academic theology, emphasized every member’s ability to come to God personally, and taught the ministry of every member empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, there was considerable caution among Adventist pioneers regarding organizational steps that might lead to the abuse of power and authority. Calls for the democratization of leadership have been asserted at various moments of our organizational history. As a corrective for centralization of control, Ellen White advocated the proper use of the committee system that had been established when the General Conference was organized in 1863. She made it clear that even in the operation of institutions one person’s mind was not to control the decision-making process. She emphasized that “among a multitude of counselors there is safety. God would not have many minds the shadow of one man’s mind.”³² Implicit in her condemnation of those who followed that practice was reproof for those who permitted them to do it without seeking to correct the situation. In 1883, speaking to the members assembled for the General Conference session, she urged local conference leaders to make their own decisions without undue influence from the General Conference. The president of the General Conference could not possibly “understand the situation as well as you who are on the ground.”³³

In 1892 the denomination was trending toward greater centralization of power in the church’s leadership. In December Ellen White wrote a long letter from Australia to denominational leaders. She reviewed the blessings of organization “that God gave us special light upon The system of organization proved a grand success.”³⁴ However, the letter also pointed out the dangers of bureaucratic machinery. She suggested that procedures had become burdensome. She was careful to distinguish between the blessings of organization and the difficulties caused by abuses of the organization. She further noted: “In reviewing our past history, having traveled over every step of advance to our present standing, I can say, ‘Praise God!’ As I see what the Lord has wrought, I am filled with astonishment and with confidence in Christ our Leader. We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.”³⁵

Ellen White’s observations from Australia were largely ignored. This created a reaction, and set the stage for reorganization at the General Conference session in 1901. This reorganization of the denominational structure was radical, but necessary. The formation of union conferences decentralized much of the denomination’s decision making. The first union conference had been formed in Australia in 1894, without General Conference involvement, but with the encouragement of Ellen White.³⁶ The enlargement of the General Conference Committee to twenty-five, with all union presidents as members ex officio, further broadened the base of decision making. Policies were established that would distribute resources more evenly. Departmental organizations, serving as resources for ministry, would function not only at the General Conference, but on the union and local conference levels as well.

The reorganization of the denominational structure was largely due to the counsel of Ellen White. She called for change. Taking the pulpit at the General Conference session in April 1901, she told church leaders: “You have no right to manage unless you manage in God’s order. . . . What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build upon a different principle. . . . There are to be more than one or two or three men to consider the whole vast field. The work is great, and there is no one human mind that can plan for the work which needs to be done. . . . According to the light that has been given me—and just how it is to be accomplished I cannot say—greater strength must be brought into the managing force of the Conference. . . . There must be a renovation, a reorganization; a power and strength must be brought into the committees that are necessary.”³⁷

The response of the church to the counsel for decentralization is astonishing. The changes were made because the members were willing to prioritize mission. L. H. Christian, himself a General Conference officer, comments on the structure of the Adventist Church: “Many have asked whether the Adventist worldwide church organization is congregational, presbyterian, or episcopal. . . . While it has similarities with other churches, it is really different, and an organism by itself. It came as a fruitage of the creative ideas of the advent message guided by God through the Spirit of prophecy. The Adventist Church is a church with a task, and the Lord gave it a body to fit the task.”³⁸

A Biblically Formed Model for Reforming Leadership

Reformation in the application of biblical leadership principles should accompany a shared apocalyptic vision. What reformation means in the context of biblical leadership in the end time requires clarification. It is not reformation that reflects the concepts of last generation theology.³⁹ Where a person positions themselves in that discussion does not alter the reality that biblically formed understandings are required if godly leadership principles are to progress in the heart of a person and the soul of an organization. Reformation in leadership practice requires transformation of character. That reformation alters leadership practice and is the work of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, in our lives and in our community. The reformation we appeal for in this paper is not an argument for a holy and perfect life among a last generation of Christian believers. Rather, it is an appeal to form our leadership behavior around biblical understandings, and thus provide an extraordinary witness for Christ to the world.

Therefore, we wish to emphasize principles of godly leadership evident in scripture that provide a distinct witness for God in the end time. Broadly speaking, the biblical principles of godly leadership we have chosen for the focus of this paper can be described by the term relational leadership. More specifically, we have noted leadership as conversation, as oneness, and as shared process. Other important aspects of biblical leadership could be noted, but we have limited the focus of this paper to those principles to retain the appropriate scale of the work.40

God is relational. Leadership is exercised with the intention of bringing people into relationship with Him and with one another. Therefore leadership involves commitment and service among and to friends. Jesus expressed this eloquently in describing His disciples as friends (John 15:12–17). Christian leadership is not about control, superiority, or dominance. Christian leadership in the end time of Earth’s history models an extraordinary respect for others that seems radical in secular culture. Dependence on control in personal or organizational relationships through rewards or punishment will be replaced by conversation, oneness, and shared process.

Conversation expresses energy and participation among members of the community. It is lively and involves interaction. It is collaborative and transparent rather than private. It encourages and invites participation of everyone. It embraces new ideas, is open ended, unscripted, ongoing, and expands with time. Conversation is intellectually active, involves an exchange of ideas, and involves listening. It is not rushed. It includes risk.

In church leadership conversation may be experienced in various ways. It is happens in print and online publications that invite and provide differing and unedited points of view. Certainly the conversations preserved in church publications are respectful, and well-reasoned. But where conversation is valued, such contributions will not be filtered by the views of one or a handful of people holding positional power.

Conversation is demonstrated in the various gatherings of the church when time is given for diverse voices, when those contributions are listened to, when views are not preconditioned by organizational views. Conversation yields ideas that are tested in various settings, prayerfully discussed, and adopted by consensus only after thorough consideration. In our assemblies, the groups that have considered, reasoned approaches to an issue should have voice and be unedited. Even the act of voting is an expression of conversation, and should provide freedom of each individual to express their voice without pressure from a group or center of influence.

Oneness is implicit within the biblical template for Christian leadership in the present time. The promise of the eschaton infuses the church with the promise of the Holy Spirit as it continues God’s mission in a suffering world. That mission engages all people in ministry, without regard to race, education, gender, wealth, or age. Oneness recognizes and promotes diversity and creativity. Oneness does not replace diversity. As we serve, with and through the community, we apply the various gifts and talents he provides. We all are stewards of the Master’s household. We serve in our context, in oneness with others in their context. We are not called to usurp the sovereignty of our Lord as head of the church, to be the answer for others, or to determine the right course for others. We are one community.

Christian leadership is a shared process among people in a spiritual community (Col 1:28–29). It is expressed throughout the community, and all community members may participate. Leadership is not the work of an appointed few; it is everyone’s opportunity. Godly leaders serve the community as they fulfill certain roles and are themselves participants in the leadership process. They are one with the community they serve. They are not distinct from the community nor do they rule over the community.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have contrasted God’s way of leading, demonstrated in the pre-rebellion way God led, and how Jesus leads in the book of Revelation, with that of Satan, evident in the post-rebellion leadership approach that is described in the OT and the Apocalypse. We have seen that God wants leaders in the church who are true servants, whose focus is on what is best for others and for the kingdom of God, even if it entails personal suffering or loss. Love for God and people motivates the godly leader. Satan has inculcated into the fallen human race a desire for control and domination, which centers on the needs of the leader, even at the expense of the people under his or her authority.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church are a people of prophecy; our movement emerged from a serious focus on fulfilled prophecy and the Second Coming of Jesus. It makes sense, then, that when we analyze the way we do leadership in the church, we should use as our template the way that Jesus leads, particularly in the end time scenarios of the book of Revelation, for we believe we are living in the Eschaton. Therefore, leadership today in the church should be relationally based, motivated by a pure love for Jesus and for all people. We cannot emulate the Dragon, and his top-down, coercive, self-centered practice of leadership. To do so is a denial of who we are as Adventists, and a rejection of the very theology that we claim makes us unique, and defines our mission in the world. Only the self-emptying servant leadership, based on agape love, and not on coercion, will enable leaders in the church today to be effective in preparing a people to meet the Lord when he comes in glory.

1. See chapter 21 in Bell, Skip. Servants and Friends: A Biblical Theology of Leadership. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2014, for an expanded treatment of the principles of a biblical theology of leadership as described in the remaining paragraphs of this section of the paper.▴