I have been rather surprised at times by the push back of some people when phrases like ‘social justice’ and ‘social change’ are used in reference to Christians. Commentators on Fox News have warned against social justice rhetoric, while some noted evangelical leaders warn against deed ministry that seems separate from a ministry of preaching and proclamation. These may be good warnings per se, but let’s not swing from one extreme to another so readily without at least appreciating the Biblical and historical context that has been truly impactful. There is something to be said for outloving your neighbor.

Republicans seem to have no cohesive narrative and this seems obvious. Democrats are losing their cohesive narrative and again, this is almost a no-brainer. To anyone who is watching the news or paying attention to the rhetoric floating over the internet and across television screens, it’s rather difficult to understand what narrative thread will actually unify our country. Let me suggest that it’s because the new narrative thread isn’t one of unity, but one of division.

We must pause, though, prior to jumping into the 21^st century to consider the unifying narratives that have characterized our country and in fact, these narratives have come to form the core values of the United States. We pause to review the overarching stories, not for nostalgia’s sake, but because in a real sense, we’re in danger of losing them.

(this is part 5 of 5 of a series of posts on leadership in an interconnected world)

If you have been keeping up with the previous posts, then you'll note that Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Rosa Parks, Steven Spielberg, and William Shakespeare all contribute something to leadership in an interconnected world. To review, let me simply make 5 brief points.

In an interconnected world, leaders will have to:

1) work with people of clashing ideologies (see Lincoln in Goodwin's book Team of Rivals)
2) focus on something bigger than their job or themselves (to me Lincoln is the example again, but a case could also be made for Wilberforce)
3) utilize words carefully and understand that words do leave a legacy (see Jefferson's example)
4) know when to stay seated on principle and when to move ahead; sometimes staying still is progress (see also Rosa Parks)
5) understand who the storytellers are and how their influence shapes ideas (see how Spielberg and Shakespeare have shaped ideas)

In the last post, I discussed the power of words and the legacy that our words can leave behind. The example being, Thomas Jefferson, whose words have transformed our country and have often been the envy of other nations. In this piece, part of leading in the 21st century will not only be linked to skills, but also to a sense of timing as well as self awareness. And here, the example for me is Rosa Parks because she linked both timing and self awareness.

Parker Palmer in his book Let Your Life Speak speaks of Rosa Parks in the following terms:

(this is part 2 of a 5 part series on leadership and legacy)

In part one of this series, I began with Abraham Lincoln and why some of his leadership traits are not only necessary in the 21st century, but in fact, leaders like Lincoln remain elusive and rare. In this series, I am processing in my own mind, but then also building a case that if leaders are going to be effective in a globalized world, then certain traits will need to be prevalent. In looking at the legacy of Abraham Lincoln two primary traits needed for leadership in today's globalizing world stand out: 1) Lincoln's resolute focus on a higher purpose and his commitment to something greater than himself and 2) Lincoln's amazing ability to work alongside people with 'clashing ideologies' and to get people who disagreed to move in the same direction.

Now, in this installment, I want to focus in on yet another trait necessary for leadership in an interconnected world and one that has considerable relevance for bloggers and readers of blogs. Leaders in an interconnected world (particularly where English is often the primary tongue of global business, technology, and higher education) will still need to learn how to use words effectively. And perhaps, the best wordsmith in American history remains Thomas Jefferson.

Historian Stephen Ambrose, though, doesn't set up Jefferson as a great leader. In fact, he writes,

"Thomas Jefferson did not achieve greatness in his personal life. He had a slave as a mistress. He lied about it. He once tried to bribe a hostile reporter. His war record was not good. He spent much of his life in intellectual pursuits in which he excelled, and not enough in leading his fellow Americans toward great goals by example. Theodore Roosevelt called him our worst President,"
(To America, p.2)

"He ignored the words of his fellow revolutionary John Adams, who said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free...Jefferson left another racial and moral problem for his successors, the treatment of the Native Americans...The author of the Declaration of Independence threw up his hands at the question of women's rights,"
(To America, p. 5)

In the classic Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbons, we find these words in chapter 2: ""The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful." Gibbons, of course, could have written these words yesterday for the New York Times and we would still nod in understanding.

Perhaps, this is why we have seen a veritable rebuilding of Rome in film and in fascination in recent years. We have now moved into a time period in American history where we are not only seeing the global influence of the United States brought into question or doubt, but also the global dominance of the United States brought under greater scrutiny. And so, the influx of films on Rome may simply serve to feed our fascination with a time period that, frankly, is becoming more and more familiar to us. Rome, a great civilization built upon the backs of an incredibly large military force and amazing technological prowess, was also a society in search of stability. The people longed for the glory years and men like Marcus Aurelius, Augustus Caesar, and Marc Antony served as not only images of power, but as examples to men who would follow. Will there ever be another leader like Caesar? Will we see an alliance the likes of Antony and Cleopatra again? How about a philosopher/leader like Aurelius, does our world still have room for men who would be known more for their ideas than for their charisma?

This past weekend, a new series entitled Spartacus premiered to rave reviews on the Starz network. This comes on the heels of the great success in recent years of films like Gladiator and 300. This also follows the acclaimed HBO series Rome, which I confess hooked me rather quickly. And I confess, I am caught up in the resurgence of the Roman Empire. Yet, I wonder how long this will last?

Most of the contemporary versions of Rome, unlike previous takes, are able to push the envelope and actually display graphic violence, sexually explicit material, and a raw spirituality, that was previously intolerable for well meaning people to watch. But, not only are we able to see Rome in all of its power and profanity, but we are also able to experience a Rome that elicits in us a longing for men and women who would rise above the masses and fight for something bigger than themselves. Part of the glory of Rome isn't even real; part of the glory of the Roman empire remains the mystique of it, the mystery of it. Part of the decline of Rome historically and its resurgence cinematically is found not only in the annals of world history, but in the recesses of our own imaginations. And so, I wonder if the mystique of the United States is starting to decline and thus our fascination with Rome is begining to rebuild and rekindle in us a longing for a civilization that is seen not only as great, but truly epic in scope.

Gibbons, in chapter 3 of Decline and Fall adds these words: "The influence of the clergy, in an age of superstition, might be usefully employed to assert the rights of mankind; but so intimate is the connection between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been seen on the side of the people. A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises of an aspiring prince." Perhaps, the rebuilding of Rome would be the thing that also wakes up the church to be 'on the side of the people', one that dares to stand against the principalities and powers that define a world enthralled with itself. Just maybe, this new Rome resurgence will also decline and eventually fall, but then again, such a decline won't happen overnight. Rome was neither built nor rebuilt in a day. 

The school where I'm teaching this week is in the Bavarian region of Germany, a predominantly Catholic part of the country in contrast to the prevalence of Protestantism in the North. Both Protestant and Catholic claim to follow Jesus and declare without hesitation that "Jesus is Lord". The meaning of the declaration, though, was sorely tested between the late 1920's and the end of WWII in 1945, as Hitler rose to power by blending "God Words" with a call to nationalism in order to revive both faith and state. That he rose without substantive resistance in spite of his unabashed disdain for both the God of the Old Testament, and all Jews, is a study in itself, but not the point of this post.