The Transformational Leadership of the Apostle Paul

Evangelicals have a tendency toward being anachronistic when it comes to applying contemporary theory to Christian ministry. The development of contemporary ministry principles through the use of familiar business colloquialisms is common practice. We are often left to believe, for example, that Priscilla and Aquila were entrepreneurial business people in Corinth (Suter, 2003; Tsukahira, 2003). As some have noted, there is apparently little difference between business and ministry theory (Barna, 1988; Shawchuck, Kotler, Wrenn, & Rath, 1992; Stevens & Loudon, 1992; cf. Eskridge & Noll, 2000; Orne, 2000; Walls, 2000). On occasion, we appear to be marketing the church as if we were selling a product in order to attract new consumers. Leadership theory is no exception. It often appears that many of our church leaders and professors of practical theology look to business as much as Scripture for leadership principles. While there are those like Ford (1991), Cedar (1987), and Sanders (1967) who draw explicitly from Scripture, a cursory look at the bibliographies or footnotes of Barna (1996), Logan (1989), or Maxwell (1998) reveals a decade of reliance upon leadership principles drawn from business.

This paper will discuss leadership theory in recognition of the inherent anachronisms. That is, the contemporary study of leadership theory does assist us with general categories that are understood in contemporary American culture, but these categories should not impose themselves on the biblical text. As such, the Apostle Paul could be thought of in terms of a transformational leader; his leadership style, which obviously antedates the study of leadership theory, might be characterized by using business vernacular so as to provide meaning for contemporary discourse in Christian leadership theory. Nevertheless, the Scriptural context must be preserved to such an extent that the meaning of the text not only informs contemporary theory, but also potentially transforms its application.

Through a discussion of Paul’s leadership characteristics taken from 2 Timothy, this paper will look at the leader’s relationship to Christ, doctrine, and others. As a leader matures in these areas, that person leads from who he or she is rather than from the position. In this way, biblical leadership can be thought of in terms of the transactional-transformational paradigm. This is particularly important for those in higher education as well as in contemporary ministry. As ministry educators and leaders, our lives should model Paul’s as we equip the body of Christ, no matter the vocational service.

A theory of leadership that is often regarded as biblical is servant leadership. Servant leadership was born in the tumultuous 1960s and early 1970s by Robert Greenleaf (1977). At the time, the United States was in turmoil over its involvement in the Vietnam War. Students especially were disillusioned with the political leadership of the country and seemingly devoid of hope. Demonstrations and riots were not uncommon on college campuses, and some universities called in Christian leaders to help bring stability and perspective. It was in this context that Greenleaf responded with his idea of servant leadership (p. 3). American Christians picked up on it and began to demonstrate how Christ was a servant leader. As such, servant leadership was equated with biblical leadership.

Greenleaf’s (1977) original concept posited that serving was the first priority of a leader. A leader must first seek to assure that people’s highest priority needs are met. Only when people are satisfied that a leader is concerned for their plight does the leader earn the right to lead (p. 13). In his book, Servant Leadership, Greenleaf outlines his ideas of leadership and how they can impact every area of American society. He was applauded as a prophet of his day, and his ideas helped calm a nation wrought with poor examples of leadership.

However, as Bradley (1999) has pointed out, leadership that focuses on being a servant can distort the task of leadership (p. 52). Critiquing Greenleaf’s model of leadership, Bradley comes to two conclusions. First is one of perception. Leadership that is perceived as focused on being a servant can be thought of as weak or indecisive (p. 52). Second, “the servant-leader idea underestimates the need for accountability in leadership, the wide variations in human conceptual abilities, and the general aggressiveness of people in the workplace” (p. 52).

During the last two decades of the 20th century, a new paradigm of leadership has been studied called transactional-transformational. This leadership theory was built around leader behaviors and perception along with what has been referred to as “New Leadership” (Bryman, 1992, as cited in Bass, 1997). Drawing from theory initially studied by James Burns (1979), Bernard Bass (1997) states, “Since 1980, general findings have been assembled that the best of leaders are both transactional and transformational” (p. 132). As such, the transactional-transformational paradigm is not a continuum (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Seltzer & Bass, 1990), but rather “transformational leadership adds to the effectiveness of transactional leadership; transformational leadership does not substitute for transactional leadership” (Bass, 1999, p. 21). Bass (1997) defines this paradigm:

The transactional-transformational paradigm views leadership as either a matter of contingent reinforcement of followers by a transactional leader or the moving of followers beyond their self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society by a transformational leader. (p. 130)

Stephen Covey (1992) acknowledges that both types of leadership are necessary. However, transformational leadership “must be the parent, as it provides the frame of reference, the strategic boundaries within which transactions take place” (p. 287). Simply understood, transformational leaders are those who “uplift the morale, motivation, and morals of their followers,” whereas transactional leaders “cater to their followers’ immediate self-interests” (Bass, 1999, p. 9). A transactional leader focuses on the exchange that serves the self-interest of the leader and follower while the transformational leader motivates the follower past self-interest. Bass and Avolio (1993) posit that transformational leaders move their followers to maturity and achievement through “idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration” (p. 112). Bass (1997) writes:

Transformational leadership tends to be more effective and satisfying than contingent rewarding, contingent rewarding is more effective and satisfying than managing by exception, and managing by exception is more effective and satisfying than laissez-faire leadership. Transformational leadership tends to add to the effects of transactional leadership, not substitute for the latter (p. 137).

While there has been some discussion regarding the cross-cultural effectiveness of the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm, Bass suggests that there is universality in the styles of leadership found globally. Even as cultural beliefs, values, and norms vary from culture to culture, certain generalizations can be made in the leader-follower relationship. According to Bass (1997), the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm reflects these generalizations and is by nature transcultural (p. 135–136). If this is the case, one might find evidence of transactional-transformational leadership in Scripture. In this way, Bass’s paradigm might be of use in a theory of biblical leadership.

While more work on an application of the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm to historical leadership figures is needed (cf. Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987), this paper suggests that the Apostle Paul might be considered an example of Bass’s observation of a transactional-transformational leader. His leadership style was unquestionably transformational, as evidenced by the change and increasing maturity in the lives of the people he served. Consider, for example, Timothy. He developed from a young, timid individual to a church leader who, tradition states, died for his faith. Onesimus matured from a runaway slave to a beloved brother of Paul (Phlm). John Mark changed from an immature and frightened young man to a valued member of Paul’s team (Col 4:10; Phil 1:24; 2 Tim 4:11). The list could go on and on. However, Paul was also a transactional leader. He expected people to respond to his leadership in a positive way. For example, he demonstrated graciousness as when he wrote,

Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice. (Phil 1:15–18)

Paul was unrelenting in his pursuit of living the Christian life: “Whether then you eat, drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:30). His passion for living the Christian life no doubt caused some to reconsider their faith or to take a different stance on doctrinal issues (2 Tim 1:15; 2:17–18; 4:10). To them he responded, “Indeed, the solid foundation of God is established, having this seal ‘The Lord knew His own,’ and ‘Turn away from unrighteousness all who call upon the name of the Lord’” (2 Tim 2:19).1 However, Paul’s passion was not for his own gain. It was he who said, “For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21).

Paul epitomized what many contemporary observers call visionary leadership. Most assuredly he would not have used this taxonomy as a self-description. However, if he would have, it would have indicated a person whose eye was set on God rather than one who designed ministry methodologies. He was focused on the important issues of the Christian life, and nothing was more important than his relationship with and reliance on his God. Those issues were what made Paul an effective transactional-transformational leader.

One key to Paul’s leadership was empowerment. While Paul challenged people to change, and required something in return for his leadership, he also empowered them to make the required change. Bass (1990) asserts that a transformational leader is one who pays attention to those who are led to such an extent that the leader understands the development needs of each (p. 30). That is one area where Paul excelled. The apostle was a leader who influenced those around him. He led not from his position as apostle, but from who he was as God’s bondservant.

Paul was a leader of leaders with a proven track record of successful ministry. He led people from many different cultures—people from Palestine, Lycaonia, Asia Minor, Macedonia, Achaia, and Crete. He led people from different socio-economic classes: tradesmen, religious leaders, government officials, lawyers, doctors, as well as former magicians, slaves, and the poor. He was more than proficient in cross-cultural communication. He was fluent in Greek and Hebrew (Acts 21:37–22:2), as well as familiar with Hellenistic, Roman, and Semitic cultures (Acts 22:3, 25). He was not a stranger to the implications of what is today called incarnational ministry:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became a Jew . . . to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law . . .to those without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ . . . to the weak I became weak. . . . I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Cor 9:19–22)

I once sat in a seminary classroom where the professor exclaimed something to the effect that we should no longer use Paul as a model of leadership. His reasoning included the controversy over women in leadership, as well as the apparent authoritarian style with which many characterize Paul. I respectfully questioned his reasoning, and suggested that perhaps the characterizations were embedded within American idealism and individualism rather than within a biblical worldview. One need only read 2 Timothy to see the sensitive side of the apostle, and there is sufficient reason to suggest that this was indeed Paul’s character.

Second Timothy is arguably Paul’s most personal letter. Paul is near the end of his life and is being held in a prison in Rome when he writes this letter. He is feeling alone and shares his personal desires with Timothy. In this letter we see Paul’s passion for the work of God, but even more so his passion for the Christian life and for the life of his child of the faith. Timothy is a longtime friend and co-laborer. They had worked together for almost 20 years and co-authored six epistles. We not only see a concern for Timothy, but also Paul’s pain for those who had fallen away from the faith.

Timothy was more than likely in Ephesus when Paul wrote what was probably one of his final letters. The church was experiencing continued difficulties. However, Paul concentrated more on Timothy’s life than the life of the church where he served. He concentrated more on who Timothy was or what he should be rather than on what he should do as a minister. Paul knew that Timothy must lead from who he was as approved by God (dokimon parastêsai tô theô [2 Tim 2:15])2 rather than from his position as pastor/church planter. This letter also shows us Paul’s style of leadership.

In my years of ministry in Eastern Europe and now as a college professor, I have found the importance of a leader’s relationship with Christ, with doctrine, and with co-laborers essential to empowering people in ministry. I have found that focusing on the minister being who God intends rather than on the minister doing the ministry brings lasting change into the life of a church and individual. Ministry flows from being rightly connected to God so that we can be rightly connected to others. The following principles based on Paul’s leadership are key to a biblical leadership that is transformational.

The Leader’s Relationship with Christ

In 2 Timothy 1:12, we see that Paul knew he had been called into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Paul knew in whom he had placed his trust and was assured of his salvation. He emphasizes his confidence when he says in 1:3 that he serves God with a clear conscience. To Paul, a clear conscience meant that he served God in such a way that would please Him and fulfill the purpose that God had for him. This strong sense of moral responsibility is characteristic of a transformational leader (Bass, 1999, p. 14). Paul was completely devoted to God, and he expected those who followed him to be the same.

He also knew that his salvation was by grace. In 1:9 he writes, “. . . who [God] had saved and had called us to a holy calling, not according to our work, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.” Paul knew not only in whom he had believed, but also he knew that he was Christ’s. He makes a bold statement in 1 Corinthians 11:1: “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” This proclamation is from one who knew that he walked righteously before God. Paul knew his salvation meant that he was predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom 8:29). Paul was confident of who he was in Christ. That confidence was not self-derived, but rather emanated from his understanding of what Christ had done. The aorist participles sôsantos (has saved) and kalesantos (has called) give the idea that this was a one-time event that happened because of the power of God.

Paul was dependent on the power of Christ as he served others with his gifts. His call to a personal relationship with Christ and his gifts determined his ministry and gave him character that others could follow. In 2 Timothy 1:12, he writes that he is not ashamed of his sufferings. He knew that Christ would strengthen him. In fact, that had been his very experience. Paul had experienced many trials in his ministry, but he had also experienced Christ’s strength. Paul knew that Christ had the power to keep what was entrusted to him. The Greek is a little ambiguous in verse 12 and can be translated in a couple of different ways. I take it that Paul is referring to the fact that Christ had entrusted to him his ministry as a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher (2 Tim 1:11). As such, Paul writes, “For this reason also I suffer but I am not ashamed, for I know in whom I believed and I am convinced that He is capable to guard what he entrusted to me until that day” (2 Tim 1:12). It was Christ’s power that would guard his ministry. It is Christ who would sustain him (2 Tim 4:18).

Paul used his gifts, not for his personal agenda, but rather for equipping others in ministry. A leader must minister in his area of giftedness. God gave gifts in order that the body of Christ might be built up, rather than for the implementation of various ministry programs (1 Cor 12:7, 14:12; Eph 4:12). If a leader is not using his gifts to transform others, then it is as if he is saying programs rather than people are what the body of Christ needs.

A leader must be assured of his call to Christ and must be dependent upon the power of Christ. This was extremely important for Timothy and is equally important for those who follow a leader. A follower needs to know that his leader is walking with God. He needs to know that the leader’s interests are also God’s interests. When the leader is walking with God, his own personal agenda is put aside for the interest of empowering others to follow God. Only by a strong relationship with God can the leader set aside his own interests for God’s interests in others. This will give others the confidence that the leader’s motives are not self-derived, but pure.

Paul’s relationship with Christ was marked by his commitment to the priorities that Christ set for the church rather than his personal priorities. Those priorities can be summarized in a leader’s commitment to Scripture, prayer, worship, fellowship, and missions (Acts 2:41–47). It is interesting to note that Paul never referred to methods for doing ministry. He continually pointed people to Christ’s priorities for the church, and thereby focused on empowering others with biblical principles rather than methodologies.

A Leader’s Relationship with Doctrine

Paul also knew the importance of the Scriptures. He knew that the gospel was the power of God for salvation—salvation not only in a soteriological sense, but also in an eschatological sense. He writes in 2 Timothy 3:16–17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable towards teaching, towards rebuking, towards correcting faults, towards teaching in righteousness in order that the man of God might be fully qualified towards all good works, completely equipped.” Scripture prepares the person of God for life and ministry.

A leader must become attentive to the importance of orthodoxy before orthopraxis. When people place a greater importance on orthopraxis, the result is a doctrine based upon experience rather than Scripture. It is true that experience is important and acts to confirm and legitimize our belief; however, belief based on experience is dangerous, resulting in orthopraxis becoming the measure of truth. When this happens, Scripture becomes irrelevant to a leader. A leader must stand on his personal biblical convictions. That is why Paul was concerned that Timothy would focus on pure doctrine. In 2 Timothy 2:15, Paul wrote, “Do your best before God as one being approved, a worker having no cause to be ashamed, one who teaches correctly the word of truth.” At the same time, just as an over-reliance on practice is a concern, so is an over-reliance on doctrine. Too great a focus on doctrine makes the leader insular. Doctrine without practice is not Christianity. In a very real sense, Christianity is doctrine in practice.

The Leader’s Relationship with Coworkers

Timothy was apparently having a difficult time in Ephesus. False teachers had infiltrated the church and had led some astray. He was discouraged at the plight of the church and needed some motivation from his longtime friend. In 2 Timothy 1:3–5, we see three essential characteristics of a leader’s relationship with those who follow.

First we see Paul’s appreciation for Timothy. In verse 3, Paul thanks God for Timothy. The word he uses, charin, has at its root the idea of grace. It could be translated grateful, and emphasizes the fact that Timothy is a cause of thanksgiving for Paul and an example of God’s grace. A leader must communicate appreciation to those who follow. People in our ministries are a source of God’s grace, and they must know that they are valued.

Next we see Paul’s commitment to Timothy. His commitment to Timothy was demonstrated by his relationship with Christ and with his dependence on pure doctrine. Furthermore, Paul demonstrated his commitment to Timothy through prayer. Paul writes, “I have unceasingly remembered you (tên peri sou mneian) in my prayers night and day” (2 Tim 1:3b). The Greek construction tên peri sou mneian is not unique, although the phrase is only used here (Johnson, 1996, p. 46), and emphasizes the fact that Paul is consumed with Timothy’s friendship as demonstrated by his continual prayers. It is a strong written reminder to Timothy that Paul is praying for him. The seriousness of the leader’s relationship with those who follow him can be measured by the amount of time he spends praying for them. Paul constantly prayed for Timothy night and day.

Thirdly, Paul was a source of encouragement for Timothy. He had a great desire to see Timothy, knowing that he was approaching death. Because Timothy was a source of God’s grace to Paul, he knew that he would be filled with joy when he saw Timothy (2 Tim 1:4). In his greatest moment of need, the great New Testament apostle was longing to spend time with his faithful disciple and son in the faith. What an encouragement for Timothy! Paul was reminded of Timothy’s 20 years of faithfulness. Likewise, Paul encouraged Timothy by identifying with him. In 2 Timothy 1:7 he wrote, “For God has not given us [italics added] a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.” At Timothy’s lowest moment in ministry, Paul came alongside him and identified himself with Timothy’s struggle.

Those three essential characteristics of a leader’s relationship with his coworker—appreciation, commitment, and encouragement—gave Paul the right to challenge Timothy. In fact, as Luke Johnson (1996) comments, “[They] are intimately connected” (p. 47). Combined with Paul’s relationship to Christ and doctrine, they influenced Timothy in such a way that he was open to change. A transformational leader inspires others by communicating high expectations. Timothy knew of Paul’s appreciation for him as well as his commitment and encouragement to him. Paul’s relationship with Timothy did not just happen; it evolved over a period of time. He had a relationship with Timothy of accountability that earned him the right to say, “For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim 1:6). Paul challenged Timothy to use that which God had given him. In his moment of discouragement, Timothy needed somebody to come alongside him and remind him of his spiritual gift. Paul was just that person. Paul also challenged Timothy to follow him. It was not a blind following that would lead to borrowed convictions, but rather a following based on the sound biblical teaching of Scripture. Timothy was to follow Paul’s example (2 Tim 1:13–14; 2:2–3, 7, 14–15; 3:10; 4:2, 5). This was the transaction in terms of contingent reward that Paul expected as Timothy was being transformed by his relationship with him.

Paul led from who he was—not from a position of authority but from his person. That is what Paul did for Timothy and that is what the leader must do for those who follow him. In order to motivate people, a leader must strive to develop relationships such as Paul’s relationship with Timothy. This is what Bass has termed individualized consideration (Bass, 1990 pp. 20–21). A leader must also inspire confidence as Paul inspired Timothy. This inspiration was based upon Paul’s deep commitment to Christ and doctrine. That commitment served to influence Timothy’s understanding of what God had done in his life. A leader who demonstrates these three principles as exemplified in Paul’s relationship with Timothy can expect a person to follow. The following table illustrates Paul’s transformational leadership.

Apparently, Timothy responded to Paul’s leadership. Ultimately it appears that Timothy visited Paul in Rome. He might have witnessed his longtime friend’s martyrdom under Nero. The writer of Hebrews records that Timothy was imprisoned for a time and released (Heb 13:3, 23). While it is unclear whether or not he was imprisoned in Rome or elsewhere, tradition says that he returned to Ephesus where he was martyred in the streets around A.D. 97 for standing on his own convictions.

One might argue that transactional-transformational leadership is not necessarily biblical leadership. I would agree, but neither is servant leadership as it has been defined in contemporary terms. Most would agree that servant leadership and transactional-transformational leadership offer a framework for understanding the practice of leading. What I suggest here is that the transactional-transformational paradigm has become a frequent point of discussion in business theory. As such, it is a useful designation when discussing biblical leadership. However, any discussion of leadership must be informed by the biblical text rather than just by contemporary theory.

The early apologist Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 220) held that the philosophical ideas that were congruent with Christianity should be incorporated into its theology. In fact, he maintained that the origin of such ideas came by way of “divine effluence” (Exhortation to the Heathen, VI). Similarly, one might say that business theory, where it is congruent with biblical ideas, can be incorporated into our contemporary ministry practices and education, not as a wholesale adoption, but as a critical examination and application. In this manner, leadership can be taught based upon principle rather than methodology.

There is a possible danger when teaching leadership principles developed from business practices. As previously discussed, at the point where the practice becomes the standard rather than the biblical principle, the tendency is to lay aside Scripture and to innovate. Therefore, application of any leadership principle needs to be firmly grounded in Scripture. That again is not to say that contemporary theory has nothing to offer.

This paper has argued for a critical examination of the transformation-transactional leadership paradigm. Paul appears to model the characteristics of this leadership as understood by Bass and others. As such, it might provide a model for leadership development in our ministries and schools. Paul gave all that he was in order to see Timothy succeed. His service to Timothy, however, produced a transformation in his life.

For people to grow in a dynamic mode there must exist a leadership that concentrates on serving in such a way that lives are transformed. It is a leadership that inspires others to move from the past, through the present, to the future. This is a type of leadership that knows where God wants His church, why that is important for the church, and how to move the church to that end. This leadership must concentrate on developing solid relationships with those who follow based on the leader’s relationship with Christ and Scripture.3