LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Leadership in the Disciples’ Community (Matt. 20:20–28)
CLED 700
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Ministry Department of Christian Leadership and Church Ministries
By
Henry Edwin Shikuku
Lynchburg, Virginia
10/2022
Leadership in the Disciples’ Community (Matt. 20:20–28)
The social dynamics at play in Matthew’s narrative of 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
central alpha figure apart from formal position and in whom they freely acknowledged
authority. The mother of James and John interjected the possibility of a new social order among
the disciples based upon positional rank as would be dictated by Jesus. The request that her
sons occupy the preeminent positions to the right and left of Him (Matt. 20:20–21) contain
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 community built around Jesus
would be ordered according to the familiar hierarchical structures that marked the world
around her (power-based and top-down), and (3) that the relational structures that held the
community together and by which it functioned were inadequate without hierarchy.
Jesus challenged the first assumption in His response by claiming that
granting positional rank to the disciples was not His to give (v. 23), but the Father reserved the
right to determine the role of each. 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 injection of rank and position into the disciple community by this
mother caused an immediate negative emotional reaction toward James and John by the other
disciples (v. 24)—dominance through social competition for position. Mark’s account, “they
began to be” (Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown, 1921, Mark 10:41), indicates that the tension
created had its beginning here but continued on 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 contrasts the leadership behavior of the rulers of the people
or nations (άρχοντες τOν έθνOν) (v. 25) who anticipate
becoming great. Again, this language reinforces the ubiquitous 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 reference 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 (προ:στημι) (Vincent, 1887; 1 Pet. 5:3; 1 Thes. 5:12; 1 Tim.
5:17). In contrast, Jesus counsels His followers that those who anticipate becoming great (θέλῃ
εἶναι) must first descend into servitude to accomplish that end.
The contrast comes forward implicitly 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
that welled up among the other 10 disciples in reaction to James’ and John’s bid for prominent
position on either side of Jesus. 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 as unacceptable 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 or authoritarianism. The non-competitive,
collaborative, interdependent leadership model that is captured and revealed in the context of
creation and in Eden prior to the Fall is the only viable alternative. This ideal 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 the Christ was experienced by means of 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 (James and John)
have the greater challenge of passage in that they must become slave (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) in that He left His place in glory and descended to serve to the degree that His
life would be forfeited in order to serve the transformational process of granting salvation and
eternal life to those captured in the grip of sin and death. The contrasting model that faces off
against the ascendant-dominant model of leadership may be found only in the descendant-
service model demonstrated in the persons and relationships of the Godhead.
Reflection
1. The contrasting models represented by Lucifer’s ascendant-dominant model
revealed in Isaiah 12 and Ezekiel 28 and that revealed in the New Testament depiction of Jesus’
incarnation and life of dedication create a paradox for people regarding authority and
accountability. Jesus indicated that leaders must be last, and the great will be as slaves. Where
does my accountability come from, if I lead as a servant (from above, or below, or both)? I was
born looking up for authority and up for accountability (Mom and Dad). To what extent can I
trust my natural intuition relative to authority and accountability if I am committed to being a
disciple of Jesus as a leader?
2. Assume that you are a part of the body of Christ and belong to a congregation
where each one has received different spiritual gifts for ministry. Do you need to ask permission
in order to exercise your spiritual gift? In what ways does the pastor of the church serve as a
manager of the collective spiritual gifts of the church? How extensive is the pastor’s personal
authority? How can he or she ever legitimately proclaim, “Do it because I said so!”?
References
1. Doukhan, J. B. (2014). Creation is leadership. In S. Bell (Ed.), Servants and friends: A
biblical theology of leadership (pp. 31–47). Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University
Press.
2. Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1921). A commentary, critical and explanatory,
on the whole Bible. New York, NY: George H. Doran.
3. Jankiewicz, D. (2013). Authority of the Christian leader [Faculty Publications, Paper 134].
Paper presented in July 2013 at the meeting of the Theology of Ordination Study
Committee. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theology-christian-
philosophy-pubs/134/.
4. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on
semantic domains (2nd ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY: United Bible Societies.
5. Powell, M. A. (Ed.). (2011). HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (3rd ed., rev. & updated). New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
6. Rahlfs, A. (1971). Septuaginta; id est, Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes.
Stuttgart, Germany: Württembergische Bibelanstalt.
7. Vincent, M. R. (1887). Word studies in the New Testament. New York, NY: C. Scribner’s
Sons.
