THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
1
The Impact of Understanding the Fall on Research in Intersectional Leadership Development Models
Amanda Weber
Department of Psychology, Liberty University
Author Note
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Amanda Weber, American
Psychological Association, 750 First St. NE, Washington, D.C. 20001, United States
Email: aweber[email protected]
THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
2
Abstract
In this paper the author attempts to explain the impact of understanding the Christian concept of the fall
on her area of research. The paper addresses both a transformationalist view and the opposing two-
kingdoms view and offers an explanation of existing strengths and weaknesses in both approaches. The
author describes the current state of intersectional, values-based leadership and posits a theory about
the development of universal leadership competencies.
Keywords: the fall, Leadership Development, Intersectional Leadership, Values-Based Leadership
THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
3
The Impact of Understanding the Fall on Research in Intersectional Leadership Development Models
My area of research and my professional realm are both in leadership development. In
particular, the study of intersectional leadership, and of intersectional leadership development models.
To explain the way in which an understanding of the fall affects my view of research into this field, it is
first important to define what my understanding of the fall actually is, which model of belief most
influences that understanding, the limitation and potential pitfalls in my point of view, an alternate
approach and ultimately, the way I view my area of research as a result of all of these.
I am a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and I believe in the two-kingdoms
explanation of the fall and my subsequent responsibility as a Christian who believes in redemption. As
with most, to me the term “the fall” refers to the transition of humanity from a state of obedience and
harmony with God’s will to a state of guilty disobedience through deliberate action (New International
Version Bible, 2011, Genesis 3:1-24). As a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which is classified
by the Pew Research Center (2018) as a mainline Protestant denomination (as opposed to an evangelical
denomination) my own understanding of the fall and its consequences are often different from
Christians that belong to more purely evangelical denominations (referred to from here on out as
evangelicals). Essentially, while many evangelicals view the fall through a transformationalist lens, my
own worldview is better defined by the two-kingdoms approach. The two-kingdoms approach is built on
the understanding that there are two spheres of existence, the redemptive, spiritual kingdom, and the
non-redemptive social and civic one (Vandrunen, 2007). This means that, rather than seeing the Great
Commission (New International Version Bible, 2011, Matthew 28:16-20) as a mandate to continue the
redemptive work of God’s creation through social and cultural change, the two-kingdoms model adheres
to a stricter separation of church and state. Subscribers to the two-kingdoms approach believe that the
non-redemptive kingdom is ultimately governed by natural law and by civic law, both of which ultimately
come from moral norms which God has laid on the hearts of all humans as an integral part of their make-
THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
4
up. To be clear, these moral norms are not salvific, since salvation can only be attained through belief in
Christ, his sacrifice, and his resurrection. Instead, natural law and civic law are gifts, or perhaps, the
result of a gift, from the Lord to allow for peace and coexistence among those in the non-redemptive
kingdom, even if they are unsaved and thus ungoverned by the laws of God which preside over the
redemptive kingdom. This redemptive kingdom is where the work of church comes in. In this model,
Christians have a metaphorical green card; we are natives of the spiritual kingdom, but we reside in the
civic one. This means that, just like a foreign traveler in the United States with a foreign passport, we
must adhere to the laws of both the kingdom that we call home, and the one we are currently, physically
present in . What this means for me practically is that, while I wish to transform society to the
betterment of all humans, and that I believe that doing so is pleasing to God because it demonstrates
the care and compassion he has demanded of his followers, I do not believe it is the job of the church
specifically to guide this transformation. I believe that as a Christian, a researcher, and a thought leader, I
can and should be involved in the civic kingdom, and other Christians should too! I simply also believe
that the church itself should be limited to only those things expressly prescribed in the Bible, just as the
laws of the civic kingdom should not be allowed to interfere with matters specifically prescribed by
Scripture.
In having explained my beliefs, I also understand the dangers and limitations inherent to them.
The two-kingdom approach has come under criticism by many modern evangelical theologians such as
Jordan J. Ballor (2012) and Timothy Lim (2009) for giving the impression that God and Christianity have
no place in the public sphere at all. The key to ensuring that I don’t drift into that adopting that
impression myself is to hold fast to the Scriptures that tell us that got has ordained and rules through
both spheres (New International Version Bible, 2011, Mark 12:13-17). Just because the church might not
belong in the non-redemptive realm, it does not mean that his followers do not belong there, and
furthermore absolutely does not mean that he is not the ruler of both kingdoms. God is the king all, he
THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
5
simply appoints different governing bodies to the two separate kingdoms. To forget His place as king in
both kingdoms would result in the other major pitfall that might lurk in the waters of the two-kingdoms
approach. Separation of church and state might lead to the separation of Christianity from everyday life
if we do not make a conscious effort to spend deliberate, intentional time in the redemptive kingdom.
An alternate approach to the two-kingdoms model is one that many modern evangelical
denominations follow, transformationalism. In Albert Wolters’ Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a
Reformational Worldview (2005), the author defines a transformational worldview (which he refers to as
“reformational,” but which does not actually describe the practices of all reformed Protestants, as
demonstrated above in the discussion about the two-kingdoms model) by building on the work of
traditional transformationalist theologians such as John Calvin (1962) and Abraham Kuyper (1961). In
contrast to the two-kingdoms view of Christianity and the fall, Wolters’ explanation of the fall and its
consequences, and his ideas about the responsibility of Christians to work in service to the redemption
of a sinful world, include all of creation. There is no separation of church and state in this model, all is
one kingdom and should be governed by the word of God as interpreted by the church. Modern
transformationalist theologians and scholars such as Wolters and Cornelius Plantinga (2002) believe that
all things, spiritual and physical, currently exist in a state of guilty disobedience to God’s original will as a
result of the fall. Furthermore, since God wishes to redeem his creation, transformationalists believe that
it is the work of the church to continue the creation mandate (New International Version Bible, 2011,
Genesis 1:28) through the redemption of human culture. In many ways, evangelical churches already do
this through political endorsement, involvement in grassroots advocacy, and in expansion practices. The
biggest strength of this worldview is that it clearly recognizes and emphasizes the inherent goodness of
God’s original creation and centers Him in all aspects of life.
While on the surface it seems like transformationalism avoids the pitfalls ascribed to the two-
kingdoms approach, there are many elements of the transformationalist model that are problematic and
THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
6
lead to another set of potential drawbacks. First, by failing to distinguish between the realms of the
secular and the spiritual, the transformationalist approach risks conflating the works of God with the
works of man. By this, I mean that the works of God are always good, they are intrinsically and infallibly
so. However, the works of man are not always good, and in some cases, they are evil. To insist that
everything, everywhere, is a result of God’s work and is therefore a part of the goodness inherent
therein is to deny the existence of evil and wrong-doing, which both precludes accountability and the
need for salvation. The other major flaw in the transformational approach also comes from the failure to
distinguish between the secular and spiritual realms. Since there is only realm in this view, every part of
culture is up for grabs in terms of Christian reform. Not only is this problematic from an equity, diversity,
and inclusion standpoint, it also risks the perpetuation of corrupt and ungodly practices which can crop
up within the church. Humans are fallible by nature, and it is a very, very short distance from
“Christianity should influence all areas of culture,” to, “Only Christianity is allowed,” and finally to, “Only
one specific denomination is allowed.” History has shown time and again the result of such thinking, and
there can be no credible argument that pleases the Lord to justify the atrocities that resulted therefrom.
Despite my misgivings about the transformationalist approach, I think there are elements of the
model that can also be helpful as I examine existing research into leadership development. For example,
since this model centers not just Christ but Christianity in all things, it means that followers of this model
are able to view their professions and employment as vocational callings. In his seminal work, Frederick
Buechner (1973) describes a calling as the intersection between a person’s deepest joy and the world’s
deepest hunger. This is the biggest lesson I hope to take from the transformationalist view of the fall and
of our resulting responsibilities. If I view the research and review of resources on leadership
development as services to my vocational calling, it can only deepen my passion and vigor for the work.
Through the lens of the two-kingdoms model, I see evidence of His hand and His pleasure in so
many places inside both the non-redemptive kingdom and the redemptive one. I truly believe that, since
THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
7
he is the author of both kingdoms, nothing can be written that does not fit into his design. However, this
does not mean that I think all the works of humans are pleasing to Him. I believe that there is much that
we do that is in direct opposition to His will. Chiefest among those things is the oppression and
disenfranchisement of one another. I believe that racism, sexism, ablism, homophobia, transphobia, and
other hate-based, exclusionary practices are anathema to a Creator who made us in His image with love.
All of those things came instead from humanity’s disobedience and puts us out of harmony with God’s
will. A way that I am interested in addressing that is through helping to develop leaders that not only
understand how to recognize the value in diverse and nontraditional people and their ideas, but further
understand how to lead across those differences. In this way, I can contribute to both the redemptive
and non-redemptive kingdoms. My responsibility in service to the redemptive kingdom is to ensure
there is a leadership model available to the church that is grounded in the Bible, scaffolded on a human-
right framework, and focuses on intersectionality and leading across difference. The beauty of this model
is that it can be adaptable for secular needs as well.
The starting point is to define universal leadership competencies drawn from the many areas
where the secular and spiritual kingdoms overlap. The creation of widely accepted, global, leadership
competencies is work that is ongoing, and to date, has been largely unsuccessful (McClellan, 2021). I
hypothesize that this is because we have only ever developed sets of competencies that are very
applicable to one kingdom or the other. It might appear at first that a two-kingdoms approach would
preclude the development of a set of competencies that span both spheres, but I think that the key is to
fully use the metaphorical green card I mentioned above and capitalize on the fact that Christians are
essentially citizens of both. The trick is to define competencies which are scriptural, but not necessarily
church specific. Since God inscribed on all of our hearts a set of natural moral, there is naturally a lot of
overlap in not only the secular and spiritual realms, but also between diverse religious faiths and
THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
8
practices. If we can figure out the things that make an effective leader in a diversity of settings, cultures,
and circumstances, we can begin to teach those things.
THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
9
References
Ballor, J. J. (2012). Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the two kingdoms, and Protestant Social thought Today. La
Revue Farel , (6), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2145346
Buechner, F. (1973). Wishful thinking: A theological ABC. Harper & Row.
Calvin, J. (1962). Institutes of the Christian religion. James Clarke & Co. (Original work published 1536)
Kuyper, A. (1961). Lectures on Calvinism. William B. Eerdmans. (Original work published 1943)
Lim, T. (2009). Christ and culture revisited - by D. A. Carson. Religious Studies Review, 35(2), 115–115.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0922.2009.01341_2.x
McClellan, J. (2021). Addressing the problem of Global Leadership Theory: Proposing a cognitive process
model for leadership training and development. European Journal of Training and Development,
46(5/6), 607–626. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-03-2021-0041
Morin, R. (Ed.). (2018). (rep.). The Religious Typology: A new way to categorize Americans by religion
(pp. 1–99). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
New International Bible. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1978)
Plantinga, C. (2002). Engaging god's world: A Christian vision of faith, learning, and living. William
B. Eerdmans.
Vandrunen, D. (2007). The two kingdoms doctrine and the relationship of Church and state in the early
Reformed tradition. Journal of Church and State, 49(4), 743–763.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/49.4.743
Wolters, A. M. (2005). Creation regained: Biblical basics for a reformational worldview (2nd ed.). William
B. Eerdmans.
THE FALL AND INTERSECTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
10
