Self-Sacrificial Leadership:
Is it time for Islamo-Christian culture?

By Dr. Jay Gary

“An Islamo-Christian civilization will require self-sacrificial leadership from both Western and Islamic civilizations. Evangelicals must see it consistent within their biblical meaning-making to transform conflict with Islam.”

Yesterday I woke up to learn that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” (Norwegian, 2009, para 1). While this award for global leadership dealt with his “work for a world without nuclear weapons,” many also view Obama’s “new beginning” speech to Cairo Egypt (Obama, 2009) as a sign that a better future can be created between the West and Islam.

Not all Americans are ready to seek common ground with their Muslim neighbors and co-workers. Two weeks before Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, a New Jersey mosque called for 50,000 Muslims to gather in front of the U.S. Capitol building “for the sole purpose of prayer” (Islamoncapitolhill.com, 2009). This massive Muslim prayer rally incited a counter call by Lou Engle, Pentecostal evangelist, for “five days of concerted prayer” to “restrain the spiritual powers behind Islam” and counter more mainstream prayer invitations to “understand our Muslim friends” (Engle, 2009). At a time when Muslims are seeking to peacefully pray for the welfare of their families and America, Christian evangelists can’t resist throwing gasoline on the fire. They intentionally insult one-fourth of humanity.

Is evangelical rhetoric widening Huntington’s (1993, 1996) ‘clash of civilizations’ between Islamic and Western civilization? Even after the faith-based presidency of George Bush, are evangelicals still itching for a civilizational fight (Hoover, 2004)?

Bulliet (2004) maintains that Huntington’s ‘clash of civilization’ phraseology reformulated Middle East confrontation rhetoric. Where once it had been dominated by nationalistic and Cold War rhetoric, the new formulation took on cosmic proportions, reinforcing conservative Christian thinking that Christianity and Islam are irreconcilable.

Cimino (2005) examined anti-Islamic polemics in evangelical literature over a two-year period after the tragedy of September 11th as part of a pattern of encounter, competition and conflict. The polemic against Islam took shape in three forms: (a) evangelical apologetics to prove the truth of Christianity against Islam; (b) speculative prophetic literature linking Islam as the main protagonist in end-times scenarios; and (c) charismatic literature applying ‘spiritual warfare’ teachings to Islam.

While the events of September 11th did rally evangelicals to support the war on terrorism, evangelicals were simultaneously unsettled by Bush’s comments that Islam was a religion of peace (Bush, 2001). Cimino argues the main effect of September 11th was to intensify evangelical concerns about religious pluralism, the threat of syncretism, and the mixing of Christianity with other religions.

In this polarized context, Bulliet argues that Middle East experts, historians and religionists must make the case for an “Islamo-Christian” civilization. He concedes that the omission of “Judeo-” from this phrase might initially jar consciousness. Yet Bulliet aim to draw attention to something different than the generic Abrahamic religions (Al-Faruqi, 1995; Dirks, 2004).  He argues the phrase “Islamo-Christian” civilization “denotes a prolonged and fateful intertwining of sibling societies enjoying sovereignty in neighboring geographic regions and following parallel historic trajectories” (p. 10). He claims neither the Christian society of Western Europe, nor the Muslim society of the Middle East and North Africa, can be understood without relation to the Other.

Central to this paper’s argument is that the construction of an Islamo-Christian civilization will require self-sacrificial leadership from both Western and Islamic civilizations. Its corollary is: if this is to happen, evangelicals must see it as consistent within their biblical meaning-making to transform their conflict with Islam.

More than sixty-five years ago William Ernest Hocking called for Christianity to reject both imperialism and synthesis in favor of ‘the way of reconception’ (1940). The way of reconception meant that the positive religions would come to understand how their historically conditioned particularity created different symbol sets, reflecting different formulations of truth. Hocking envisioned a time when religions would grow more intimate with each other. In the process, each faith would become more true to its roots.

Paul Tillich likewise envisioned the living religions breaking through their particularities and using them to affirm the divine presence and human choice found in other traditions (1963). At the time, before World War II, Hocking’s proposal for re-conception appeared too optimistic and relativistic to Christian missionaries (Hogg, 1952). On what basis, then, could we hope that evangelical leaders in our time might enter into deep dialogue (Swidler, 1990) with Muslims to recognize and strengthen an Islamo-Christian civilization?

Evangelical scholars, such as Netland (1991, 2001), Tennent (2002) or Yong (2003, 2005) have addressed the epistemological and pneumatological issues that relate Christian inclusivism or exclusivism to religious dialogue. To compliment these studies, this paper draws from leadership studies to argue that evangelicals should embrace the civic reality of Islamo-Christian civilization, based on hermeneutical and organizational dynamics.

This paper compares two models of leadership: one contemporary and one ancient. The contemporary model is Choi and Mai-Dalton’s (1998, 1999) organizational theory of self-sacrificial leadership. The ancient model is Saint Paul’s kenosis hymn of Christ in Philippians 2:5-11. Both models depend on leaders making sacrifices in view of the incompleteness of their organizational designs. Both models look to their leaders to rebalance their organization following systemic breakdowns with a chaotic environment.

An Ancient Model of Leadership

Philippians 2:5-11 is one of the most well known passages in Saint Paul’s writings. Known as the Kenosis Hymn, it is thought to be an ancient affirmation of faith. Kenosis is from the Greek word ekenosen, “he emptied,” v. 7, referring to the self-sacrifice of Jesus-the-Christ (Bratcher, 2005). Using socio-rhetorical criticism (Robbins, 1996), this section explores the sacred, social and cultural texture of this text to probe its “dynamics across a spectrum of relationships between the human and divine” (p. 5).

This text, portrayed in the sacred story of Jesus’ passion, offered the Christian-Jewish diaspora in Philippi an alternative to the clash of civilizations of their day, the clash between Roman imperialism and Second Temple Judaism, which ended in the destruction of Herodian Jerusalem in C.E. 70 (Mendels, 1997).

There are six constituent elements of the Pauline leadership model: (a) human commitment, (b) holy servant, (c) divine action, (d) divine history, (e) human redemption, and (f) religious community.

Human commitment

Paul opens this passage with a call to commitment (v. 2:5): “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus” (Bible, NRSV, 1991). This emergent faith community faced external pressure (cf. v. 1:28) from teachers motivated by “envy and rivalry” and “selfish ambition” (v. 1:15; 1:17). Longenecker (2000) argues that the apostle’s opponents in Philippi were “Judaizers” or Jewish-Christian believers in Jesus, like those he faced in Galatia and Corinth. Paul wrote the Philippians to warn this community “of the dogs… the evil workers… who mutilate the flesh!” (v. 3:2); Paul’s adversaries were insisting that Gentile believers should be circumcised to uphold the Law of Moses. This message had left “internal division (cf. v. 1:27) in its wake, and possibly divided two local workers (cf. v. 4:2). Therefore, as their leader, Paul calls for human commitment, to stand “firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel” (v. 1:27b).

Holy servant

Central to Paul’s appeal to organizational unity is the holy person of Jesus, the righteous servant. Bratcher claims this messianic hymn follows a “pattern of privilege-servanthood-exaltation” (2005, para. 19). Verse 6 speaks of Jesus’ privilege being in “the form of God.” Next the passage speaks of his servanthood and self-abasement (v. 7-8). Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness,” and in this state, he “humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death.” Verses 9-11 speak of Jesus’ exaltation as vice regent to the divine. Later Paul draws attention to his own example as a holy person, a servant without ambition. He describes how he gave up Pharisaic privilege to follow Christ. He calls the Philippians to sacrifice and suffer at the hands of Judaizers, as he is now suffering through Roman imprisonment (v. 1:29).

Divine action

Speaking of Jesus’ vindication in verse 2:9, Paul writes, “Therefore God also highly exalted him.” This worked “to the glory of God the Father” (v. 11). Immediately following the hymn, Paul writes, “for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (v. 2:13). Unlike contemporary models of leadership, Paul’s model included a divine dynamic. This was not seen as a deterministic force, akin to structuralism in sociology (Wallerstein, 1997), but the intervention of a personal God, in response to human agency.

Divine history

The Pauline model of leadership is based on a larger story of God restoring his people, who find themselves in exile (Wright, 1992). Just as Jesus, the righteous servant, is raised from death, so those who embrace him receive covenantal life upon the collapse of the Herodian temple (cf. Phil. 3:21). Paul, like Jesus, stood over and against the rising militant tide of Jewish temple nationalism, and zealotry against Rome, which ended in civil war and the destruction of Jerusalem. Against this clash of civilizations, Paul saw Jesus offering a post-crisis path for survival (Akenson, 2000; Horsley & Silberman, 1997; Gary, 2008).

Human redemption

Seely (1994) proposes this hymn is a call to redemption. He sees this as a combination of three sacred elements, the Maccabean stories of the Suffering Righteous (Apocrypha, 2 Maccabees 7), the aversion to Greco-Roman worship, and the triumph stories from Isaiah 45. Pressured to reject the ways of their ancestors, the Maccabees chose Yahweh and were tortured as martyrs. They faced death obediently, but were vindicated, as the Jewish nation won political independence. Likewise these believers were to refrain from Emperor worship. Paul reapplies a text from Isaiah (45:23) to Christ, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” This echo in Philippians 2:11 places the early Jesus followers in contrast to the Empire. The follower attribution of charisma to Jesus, instead, is considered a sign of imminent salvation.

Religious community

The context for this vindication and transformation is the faithful religious community. The story of Jesus’ exaltation and resurrection in C.E. 30 pointed to an eschatological community in resurrection. Those who followed the righteous servant would be recognized as good servants once the old economy, the old order collapsed (King, 1987).

Summary

Examining Jesus through Pauline eyes has normally been the domain of sacred theology. Socio-rhetorical criticism, however, allows us to examine the contextual variables that defined this deviant sub-system of Second Temple Judaism, and its aim toward organizational adaptation and transformation. Self-sacrificial leadership, enacted by Jesus, was a call to a third way, standing against the clash of civilizations, over and against imperial Hellenism and its counter opposite, Jewish nationalism. If evangelicals came to view redemption in this historical context, this could offer internal religious justification to resist the contemporary demands of Caesar and Herod, expressed in our day as American empire and Israeli expansionism (Horsley, 2003; Sizer, 2004).

A Contemporary Model of Leadership

Greenleaf’s (1977) premise that leaders must first be servants to their followers has strengthened a number of research traditions in leadership studies (Matteson & Irving, 2005), including transformational leadership (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985, 1996), charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987), and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977; Patterson, 2004). In this context, increased theoretical and empirical attention has been given to leader self-sacrifice in organizational settings (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; Halverson, et al, 2005). These studies have explored the effects of selfless leader behavior on followers and organizational culture.

In organizational settings, self-sacrificial leadership can be defined as “the total/partial abandonment, and/or permanent/temporary postponement of personal interests, privileges, or welfare in the (a) division of labor, (b) distribution of rewards, and/or (c) exercise of power” (Choi and Mai-Dalton, 1998, p. 479). Following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, various airline executives took a cut in personal pay to help their companies survive the airline industry turndown (Halverson et al, 2004). The self-sacrificial theory of leadership is a contingent model of leadership that integrates macro-variables, such as industry environment and situational crisis, with micro variables, such as leader self-sacrifice and follower attribution. It is also concerned about leadership effectiveness and team productivity (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005).

Figure 1: A schematic model of self-sacrificial leadership

Note. From Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998, p. 479).

In Figure 1, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1998) conceptualize leadership as both a macro and micro-level process. The macro level deals with organizational design and leadership discretion. The micro-level process deals with leader-follower interactions at the dyadic or group level. When organizational design is found incomplete, the role of self-sacrifice by leaders comes into play. “Self-sacrifice is seen as such a resolution mechanism, thus, a mechanism of organizational adaptation” (p. 483). The Choi and Mai-Dalton model distinguishes between incremental self-sacrifice to influence organizational culture and radical self-sacrifice to rescue an organization in crisis. Various propositions are offered, including:

1. The greater the environmental uncertainty, the greater the incompleteness of organizational design and the greater the need for leadership.
2. Organizations are sustained when the participants share the understanding that there is a potential for sacrifices in organizational settings which needs to be absorbed.
3. Self-sacrificial leadership will facilitate individual adaptations to incomplete organizational design and organizational adaptations to changing situations.
4. Self-sacrificial leadership will be positively associated with the followers’ perceptions of the leader’s charisma.
5. Self-sacrificial leadership will be positively associated with the followers’ intentions to reciprocate the leader’s self-sacrificial behaviors (p. 485-491).

The Pauline model compares well with the Choi and Mai-Dalton model of self-sacrificial leadership in five ways. First, the macro-level emphasis on environmental uncertainty, or situational crisis, fits the context of the early Jesus movement’s view of an impending collapse of Second Temple Judaism (Phil. 3:18-21). Second, like the Choi and Mai-Dalton model, the early church was voluntarily sustained through leader and follower suffering (v. 1:29-30). Third, self-sacrifice in the early church functioned as an adaptive resolution mechanism to environmental change. The radical sacrifice of Jesus, or altruistic suicide (Durkheim, 1951), was seen as addressing covenantal design flaws in Second Temple Judaism (Phil. 4:21, cf. 2 Corinth. 5:1-5). Fourth, Paul encourages his followers to acknowledge the divine attribution of charisma given to Jesus as vindication for his suffering (v. 2:9-11). Fifth, Paul expected his followers to reciprocate his self-sacrificial behavior, and viewed their financial offerings as “giving and receiving,” in prison sufferings (v. 4:15). In every way, except for the attribution of divine vindication, the Choi and Mai-Dalton model of self-sacrificial leadership corresponds well to the leadership dynamics of the first-century Jesus movement.

America, Jesus and Empire?

In their attempts to excavate Jesus, Crossan and Reed (2001) suggest that the Baptist Movement of John and the Kingdom Movement of Jesus, which appeared in the mid- 20s, was in direct relationship to the grip of economic Romanization sweeping upper Galilee. Drawing parallels from the first-century to globalization today, Crossan asks, “Is America the 21st century Rome?” (Crossan, n.d.).

Horsley (2003) further develops this understanding of Jesus as a resistance leader to Roman imperial domination. He sees a strong resemblance between contemporary Islamic resistance to America’s global capitalist empire and ancient Judean-Galilean resistance against Romanization. Both resistance movements are deeply rooted in keeping tradition and covenant law, whether mediated by the prophet Moses or Muhammad. Horsley also notes the analogy is unsettling. Both ancient Judean resistance and contemporary Islamic resistance employ terrorism, whether through Sicarii assassins then or suicide bombers now.

Jesus and Bin Laden?

Does this put Jesus and Osama Bin Laden in the same ideological camp with regards to martyrdom? Don’t both Islam and Christianity draw upon religious metaphors of altruistic suicide to address situational crisis? Here is where Christianity and Islam must make a distinction. Self-sacrificial leaders like Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. or perhaps today’s Iraqi Shiite Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani  (not ordering attacks in kind on Sunnis) take society’s violence upon themselves; they do not project it outward. Based on the incomplete organizational design of their sub-cultures, they model non-violence to absorb the surrounding state violence. In contrast to absorbing violence, Bin Laden’s insurgency and in particular, his suicide bombers, reflect back state violence (Gano, 2007). This is the antithesis of self-sacrificial leadership.

Wink (1998) argues that the gospel expressed as non-violent resistance is universal and stands against “the Domination system that has oppressed the earth for the past five thousand years.” He continues, “The failure of churches to continue Jesus’ struggle to overcome domination is one of the most damning apostasies in history. With some thrilling exceptions, the churches of the world have never yet decided that domination is wrong” (p. 11).

Wink’s interrogation could easily be turned on Islam or Judaism, for that matter. Yet Christianity cannot be let off the witness stand, given its own history of colonial alliance. This leads us to the 64 million dollar question: Are evangelical leaders ready to subdue their militarist  campaigns, and model self-sacrificial behavior to build an Islamo-Christian civilization? Yes, and pigs might also fly comes the rejoinder!

Yet within the Christian meaning-making world, as Castelli (2004) reminds us, lies the memories of past martyrs in its first 300 years, who inverted and subverted the Empire’s notion of a Pax Romana through non-violence.

Conflict Transformation Project

One encouraging sign in April 2005 was the first joint conference of American Muslims and Christian evangelical participants. The Salaam Institute for Peace and Justice of Washington, D.C. joined hands with Fuller Theological Seminary of Pasadena to launch the Conflict Transformation Project. The project, funded through a grant from the Department of Justice, aims to build mutual understanding between American evangelicals and American Muslims in the aftermath of September 11th and promote joint conflict transformation projects, manuals and scholarship (Salaam, n.d.).

Conclusion

This paper explored evangelical capacity to build the Islamo-Christian civilizations of tomorrow. In this regard, we explored Christian meaning-making capacity to defuse religious violence in its midst. Using social rhetorical criticism we examined the Pauline model of Jesus’ leadership found in the Kenosis Hymn of Philippians. We also considered Choi and Mai-Dalton’s (1998) theory of self-sacrificial leadership, and how its dynamics matched the Pauline situational crisis, the need for organizational adaptation, the leader’s behavior of self-sacrifice, and the call for members to reciprocate sacrificial behavior. Finally we considered alternative understandings of American empire and Islamic resistance.

So what are we to make of Obama’s open hand to Islam or of Muslims gathering to pray at the U.S. Capital? Rather than throw gasoline on the fire, perhaps we should set controlled burnings ahead of the fire to extinguish the flame within our own cultural attics. What would be refined through fire, however, would be ancient and contemporary models of self-sacrificial leadership that are inherently non-violent. Over and against prevailing interpretations of Christ for sectarian and political power, domination-free spirituality must intentionally work to eliminate violence from its margins.

The construct of Islamo-Christian civilization is a viable way to talk about conflict transformation and shared meaning in public contexts. Islamo-Christian civilization is not a threat to the Christian tradition, nor Islam, not Judaism, anymore than Judeo-Christian consensus was.

Pursued with cultural and multilateral diplomacy, Islamo-Christian reconciliation efforts have the possibility to enrich all traditions and make the world safer for our grandchildren. It will require sacrifice, however, to all human constructed ideologies and institutions which feed off of violating the Other. Putting the interest of the other first is what servant leadership is all about. “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:12, NRSV).

Dr. Jay Gary is president of PeakFutures, a Virginia based consulting group. He is dedicated to helping non-profit, public and private enterprises use long-term foresight to transform conflict and create regional innovation. He presently teaches students from the MBA to PhD level and directs the Master of Strategic Foresight at Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

References

Akenson, D. H. (2000). Saint Saul: A skeleton key to the historical Jesus. New York: Oxford University Press.
Al-Faruqi, I. i. R. (1995). Trialogue of the Abrahamic faiths: Papers presented to the Islamic Studies Group of American Academy of Religion (4th ed.). Issues of Islamic thought. Beltsville, MD: Amana.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Bible, Metzger, B. M., & Murphy, R. E., (eds.). (1991). The new Oxford annotated Bible. New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bratcher, D. (2005). The poured-out life: The kenosis hymn in context. Retrieved 22 August 2005, from http://www.cresourcei.org/kenosis.html.
Bulliet, R. W. (2004). The case for Islamo-Christian civilization. New York: Columbia University Press.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bush, G. (2001, September 17). “Islam is peace” says President, Remarks at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 23, 2006 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
Castelli, E. A. (2004). Martyrdom and memory: Early Christian culture making. New York: Columbia University Press.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998, Winter). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 475-501.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 397-421.
Cimino, R. P. (2005, December). ‘No God in common’: American Evangelical discourse on Islam after 9/11. Review of Religious Research, 47(2), 162-174.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987, October). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic Leadership in organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647.
Crossan, J. D. (n.d.) Is America the 21st Century Rome? Interview by Deborah Caldwell. Retrieved March 23, 2006 from http://www.beliefnet.com/story/119/story_11965.html
Crossan, J. D., & Reed, J. L. (2001). Excavating Jesus: Beneath the stones, behind the texts. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Crossan, J. D., & Reed, J. L. (2004). In search of Paul: How Jesus’s apostle opposed Rome’s empire with God’s kingdom. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Dirks, J. (2004). The Abrahamic faiths Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Similarities & contrasts. Beltsville, MD: Amana.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. Glencoe, IL.: Free Press.
Engle, L. (2009, September). Urgent: Nationwide call to prayer. Retrieved from The Call: http://www.thecall.com/.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. Minneapolis/St. Paul: South-Western.
Foster, R. N., & Kaplan, S. (2001). Creative destruction: Why companies that are built to last underperform the market, and how to successfully transform them. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Ganor, B. (2007, 21 March). The rationality of the Islamic radical suicide attack phenomenon. Retrieved from International Institute for Counter-Terrorism: http://ict.org.il/Articles/tabid/66/ArticlsSearch/boaz/Articlsid/243/currentpage/3/Default.aspx
Gary, J. (2008, September). The future according to Jesus: A Galilean model of foresight. Futures, 40(7), 630-642.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Halverson, S. K., Holladay, C. L., Kazama, S. M., & Quiñones, M. A. (2004). Self-sacrificial behavior in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioral and situational factors. Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 263 – 275.
Hocking, W. E. (1940). Living religions and a world faith. London: G. Allen & Unwin ltd.
Hogg, W. R. (1952). Ecumenical foundations: A history of the International Missionary Council and its nineteenth century background. New York: Harper.
Hoover, D. R. (2004, Spring). Is Evangelicalism itching for a civilizational fight?: A media study. The Bradywine Review of Faith and International Affairs, pp. 11-16. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from http://www.globalengage.org/edu/cfia/tbr_archive/spring04-dhoover.pdf
Horsley, R. A. (2003). Jesus and empire: The kingdom of God and the new world disorder. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Horsley, R. A., & Silberman, N. A. (1997). The message and the kingdom: How Jesus and Paul ignited a revolution and transformed the ancient world. New York: Grossett/Putnam.
Huntington, S. P. (1993, Summer). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
King, M. R. (1987). The cross and the parousia of Christ: The two dimensions of one age-changing eschaton. Warren, OH: Parkman Road Church of Christ.
Longenecker, R. N. (2000). ‘What does it matter?’ Priorities and the adiaphora in Paul’s dealing with opponents in his mission. In P. T. O’Brien, P. Bolt & M. Thompson (Eds.), The gospel to the nations: Perspectives on Paul’s mission: In honor of Peter T. O’Brien (pp. 147-160). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Matteson, J. A., & Irving, J. A. (2005, 1-2, August). Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: Commonalities and distinctions of two follower-oriented leadership theories. Presented at the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA: Regent School of Leadership Studies.
Mendels, D. (1997). The rise and fall of Jewish nationalism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Netland, H. A. (1991). Dissonant voices: Religious pluralism and the question of truth. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
Netland, H. A. (2001). Encountering religious pluralism the challenge to Christian faith & mission. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Norwegian Nobel Committee. (2009, 9 October). The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. Retrieved from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html.
Obama, B. (2009, 4 June). Remarks by the President on a new beginning. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/.
Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model (Diss, School of Leadership Studies, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International. 64(02), 570 (UMI No. 3082719).
Pelikan, J. J. (1985). Jesus through the centuries: His place in the history of culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Robbins, V. K. (1996). Exploring the texture of the texts. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Salaam Institute. (n.d.). Conflict Transformation Project: Fuller Seminary. Retrieved March 23, 2006 from http://www.salaminstitute.org/Projects/fuller.htm
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Seeley, D. (1994, Fall). The background of the Philippians hymn (2:6-11). Journal of Higher Criticism, p. 49-72. Retrieved October 11, 2005 from http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/seelyphl.html
Sizer, S. (2004). Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.
Spears, L. C. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. New York: Wiley.
Swidler, L. J. (1990). Death or dialogue? From the age of monologue to the age of dialogue. Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International.
Timothy C. Tennent, Christianity at the Religious Roundtable: Evangelicalism in Conversation with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002).
Tillich, P. (1963). Christianity and the encounter of the world religions. New York: Columbia University Press.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005, February). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25-37.
Wallerstein, I. (1997, March). Social science and the quest for the just society. The American Journal of Sociology, 102(5), 1241-1257.
Wink, W. (1998). When the powers fall: Reconciliation in the healing of nations. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Wisdom, A. F. H. (2003, Summer). Christian-Muslim dialogue: A guide for churches. Faith & Freedom, 22(3), 8-10. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from http://www.ird-renew.org/atf/cf/{8548C466-7ECE-4AF1-B844-49C289CE5165}/Faith_&_Freedom_Summer_03_COMP.pdf
Wright, N. T. (1992). The New Testament and the people of God. (Vol. 1). Christian origins and the question of God). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Yong, A. (2003). Beyond the impasse: Toward a pneumatological theology of religions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Yong, A. (2005). The Spirit poured out on all flesh: Pentecostalism and the possibility of global theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Loading Image

Click anywhere to cancel

Loading Image

Click anywhere to cancel

Loading Image

Click anywhere to cancel

Loading Image

Click anywhere to cancel