JAC Online

Power in the Church and The Army
by Lieut.-Colonel Janet Munn
"Not so with you" - Matthew 20:26

  

Power.  How is power handled in the Christian church?  Consideration will be given to Jesus’ leadership example relative to use of power, the spiritual and social power of clergy and church leaders, the dangers as well as positive potential therein.  Finally, an examination of power, trust, and transparency will be explored.

Power in the Church – Jesus’ Example

Linda Bond, current international leader of The Salvation Army, in her lectures on spiritual authority, establishes Matthew 20:26 as foundational for the Christian leader regarding the use of power.  These words of Jesus to his disciples, “Not so with you” are set in contrast to the domineering use of power demonstrated by Gentile leaders, who “lord it over” their subordinates (Mt 20:25-26 TNIV).  Further, Bond emphasizes that a truly Christian paradigm relative to use of power never involves exercising power “for one’s own authority but for those under it” (Bond 2011).  Jesus demonstrated this in his foot washing (John 13) and is expressed by Paul in the kenosis hymn (Philippians 2: 5-11).

Bond applies this in the context of The Salvation Army, a Christian organization with a quasi-military structure and a clear hierarchy.  She makes the point that this approach to the use of power transcends any formal structures, roles, or personalities but is rather the appropriation of Jesus Christ’s own nature (Bond 2011).  Referencing Jesus’ example of servant-leadership Hill confirms Bond’s point:  It is true that servant-leader behaviour flows only from servant-leader attitudes, and attitudes are notoriously unamenable to legislation. They have to be caught as well as taught” (Hill 2006, 305). 

Power in Church Leadership – It’s Real

According to Beasley-Murray much of the power held by a “minister” is based on position (Beasley-Murray 1998, 90).  The officer’s commission and ordination, calling, office, and authority to teach and lead in mission all add social power though these would vary greatly by culture.  The author insightfully adds, “in an almost unparalleled manner, ministers are given freedom to enter into people’s homes in the course of pastoral care and to have access into their lives” (Beasley-Murray 1998, 90).

Further reinforcing the reality of clergy power, McIntosh reminds us:  “Leaders have the power to cast either shadow or light by the exercise of their leadership, thus creating the ethos in which others must live” (McIntosh 2007, 47). 

The Power is Real – Some Cautions

Paul A. Rader, retired international leader of The Salvation Army, raises an important point regarding the self-emptying of Philippians 2: 
Rowan Castle comments: "A self-emptying and sacrificial commitment to any task should only be in submission to God himself.  Any leader requiring this level of submission should think seriously about the position in which they place themselves and the level of loyalty they demand.  As spiritual leaders we should be concerned that a 'kenotic' (self-emptying) devotion be directed towards God and God alone" (Holiness Incorporated).  (Rader 2011)
 

Bond, Rader, and Castle address the challenge of a Christlike use of power, servant leadership, and the dangers of a hierarchical religious quasi-military structure such as The Salvation Army has.  Similarly, Salvation Army officer Harold Hill encourages safeguards for leadership in order to prevent abuse of power to which all leaders are vulnerable.  Further, Hill, in referencing Salvation Army context, believes that abuse of power is “especially hard to prevent in a hierarchical system” (Hill 2006, 303).   

What follows was offered as a warning to The Salvation Army when it was still in its infancy (1898) regarding the use of power in a hierarchical Christian organization.  The exhortation is entirely relevant today and came from a Salvation Army senior soldier/member:
Now, autocratic authority, and in military form, is surely a remarkable thing in a religious organization. It seems to me that such authority makes its appeal to fear rather than to love. It tends to summary action and to the suppression of legitimate  opinion. It will not bend to compromise; it dare not admit mistakes. And in the present case, however wise and good our leaders may be, mistakes occur, offences arise, injustice is sometimes done. (Hollins 2010, 48-49) 

Power Can Be Good  - So Use It

Power is real and its use by Christian leaders has influences both divine and human, as well as relevant cautions as outlined above.  It is argued that power in itself is morally neutral, but takes on a moral dimension based on human agency.  Power can be used creatively or destructively, to heal or to damage relationships, to liberate or to oppress, depending on the one exercising it (Beasley-Murray 1998, 144-145).   

However, there is much goodness to be released through godly leadership.  Christian scripture forms and frames the foundational view of power for those in church leadership.  For example, it is from the opening chapters of the bible that we first learn that God purposefully gave power to humankind to exercise responsibly (Gen 1:26).  God’s own power is used for creation and recreation through redemption so powerful even to bring life out of death.  His Spirit in human beings provides that same power (Acts 1:8; Romans 8:11).   

In defiance of secular social science as the model of bases of social power Simons recognizes that spiritual authority is never to be coercive nor reward based, except the reward of the power to live a holy life (Marshall 2008, 114; Beasley-Murray 1998, 150). 

However, the necessity of non-coercion does not at all indicate abdication of one’s divine calling to lead.  Rather than using the intrinsic social power given through ordination for selfish aims, it can be argued that with power comes moral responsibility, and that responsibility is not simply avoidance of actions and activities that harm, but also to refuse to neglect the potential good to be done as empowered Christian leaders.  All the powers of one’s calling to Christian leadership are to be rallied in service to others, a calling to servant-leadership, but a calling to lead nonetheless.  We are reminded that to neglect such an opportunity and responsibility for positive use of power is still a misuse and abuse of power (Beasley-Murray 2008, 149-150).

Whatever the niceties of theological interpretation as far as ordination is concerned, one thing is certain:  if today’s churches are to face up today to the challenges offered by contemporary culture, then it desperately needs leaders who will think through those challenges and who will offer strategies for enabling their churches to fulfill Christ’s mission today.  If such strategies are to be effective, then churches will need leaders who will help enable them to make the necessary changes to their life in order to adopt the necessary strategies. (Beasley-Murray 1998, 146) 

The empowerment of the Lord, His calling upon the lives of those in Christian leadership and the great need of the times require nothing less. 

Power Can Be Dangerous

Coercive use of social power is evident among Christian leaders.  Consider the following:

When spiritual leaders declare categorically what they conceive to be the truth in moral or spiritual matters and allow for no questioning, no inquiry, and no discussion, they are using task authority in a spiritual situation.  And when they classify any contrary views or alternative interpretations as rebellion against anointed authority, they are also misusing task authority. (Marshall 2008, 115) 

There are enough examples of the abuse of power in the church either directly or indirectly as described by Marshall for us to recognize it.  The familiarity of Marshall’s description raises questions.  How is it possible for dedicated, hard-working, Christian leaders to devolve into using the power of their office coercively?   

At a personal level McIntosh notes in that many Christian leaders are:
Leaders who need to have success to validate themselves are driven to acquire these things [rewards] and are willing to pay virtually any price to do so . . . Because ambition is so easily disguised in Christian circles and couches in spiritual language, the dysfunctions that drive Christian leaders often go undetected and unchallenged until it is too late.  (McIntosh 2007, 20-21)
 

The result, while tragic, is predictable, leading to “a loss of spirituality and to loss of touch with one’s own morality” (Schaef and Fassel 1988, 135-136).  

Over one hundred years ago Hollins cautioned those in power in The Salvation Army against these very things stating:
The demands in the Salvation Army, physical and otherwise, are very severe . . . We however, seem to be working up to the extreme limit of our powers of endurance; we leave no margin of strength; we lack some element of calm; we have scarcely a green place for rest and recuperation. (Hollins 2010, 51) 

The implications for personal spirituality and morality are serious as referenced by Schaef, Fassel and McIntosh (Schaef and Fassel 1988, 135-136; McIntosh 2007, 20-21).   

Power, Trust, and Transparency

Trust is defined as belief that those on whom we depend will meet our (positive) expectations of them and it becomes an issue when others have power over something that is important to us (Shaw 1997, 22).  A proliferation of rules indicates an effort to control or exercise power over others (Schaef and Fassel 1988, 164-165).  Even from a managerial viewpoint procedures of a low-trust organization are known to include extensive rules and regulations (power over people), secrecy and non-transparency (information power), and the making of decisions without consultation, communication, or explanation (power in isolation) (Shaw 1997, 123). 

In essence, the abuse of power is about depriving others of their power.  It creates emotional climates where trust is impossible and “conditions for personal growth are severely limited”.  A subtle and damaging abuse of power is to discourage the thinking capacity of others (Beasley-Murray 1998, 10).  In expressing the need for transparency in the early Salvation Army Hollins rightly states, “Bad men and bad institutions rightly fear examination, but the Salvation Army is sound enough and strong enough to profit by an honest exchange of opinion amongst its members in their councils and publications” (Hollins 2010, 46-47).

To conclude this section we turn our attention again to the direct example of Jesus who “shows us the way, leading us as he did by love which respected the other and the decisions they chose to make, some of which must have grieved his heart” (Beasley-Murray 1988, 8). 

Keeping power positive -- Accountability

Power.  Does power corrupt?  Does it have to?  What can be done to safeguard the proper use of power? 

In an effort toward a positive use of power Janeway recommends “a boundary, both to the abuse of power and to our fear of it” (Janeway 1980, 93).  One boundary to the abuse of power is accountability, defined as “the sense that one’s actions are personally identifiable and subject to the evaluation of others” (Keltner 2003, 278).   

Following the sobering abuses of power and of human rights during World War II, the United Nations set forth a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 in which the need for vigilance on the part of national governments was made clear.  “The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfill means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). 

Nearly sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Salvation Army International Social Justice Commission was established in 2007 with comparable intentions -- to impress the urgent needs of powerless people upon world leaders.  One means to this end is through the development of its relationship with the United Nations.  In this relationship:
The Salvation Army engages with those who can effect policies and programmes that will ease the burdens on and enrich the lives of millions around the world . . . The Salvation Army supports and cooperates with efforts to recognize human rights, root out corruption in business and government, promote fair trade, and preserve and protect the environment . . . The Salvation Army seeks to promote economic justice . . . [and] is pledged to use its own power wisely and well in relation to all who receive its services, who belong to it, who work for it or who collaborate in its mission. (The Salvation Army International Position Statement) 

Many questions arise regarding this noble pledge – “to use its power wisely and well in relation to all”.  What are the specific measures in place to ensure that The Salvation Army is living up to this commitment, particularly in relation to the proper use of power by Salvation Army leaders?  In what ways do our structures assess and support the pledge to proper use of power? 

The Power Paradox

Keltner points out the paradox of power.  On the one hand, the skills most important to obtaining power and leading effectively such as empathy, social intelligence, and attentiveness to the needs of others tend to deteriorate once people have power.  He notes that “once people assume positions of power, they’re likely to act more selfishly, impulsively, and aggressively, and they have a harder time seeing the world from other people’s points of view” (Keltner 2007-2008).  Lammers and Stapel give force to Keltner’s view concluding that the possession of power increases dehumanization.  Dehumanization is defined as the process of “denying essential elements of ‘humanness’ in other people and perceiving them as objects or animals” (Lammers and Stapel 2011, 114). 

Hill reminds us that:
Power is the shadow side of servant leadership, and must be recognised, faced up to and incorporated knowingly and with boundaries if it is not to usurp total control.  Without structural safeguards, all talk of servanthood too easily becomes an instrument of spiritual abuse.  (Hill 2006, 304) 

The power paradox requires vigilance from the broader community against the corruptive effects of power and the potential for mistreatment of others thereby.  The results of this social research indicate the increased need for accountability the more empowered a person becomes.   

Accountability – Who Needs It?

Joannides offers a definition of accountability: “the interplay between demanding and giving of reasons for conduct based on common rules for justification” (Joannides 2007, 439).   

In addressing the territorial leadership of The Salvation Army USA Central Territory in June 2011, Paul A. Rader connects the divine and the human aspects of power in the church in contending that Salvation Army power structures assume holiness in its leaders as well as its followers.  He admits that this likely has not been a safe assumption, indicating a point of vulnerability relative to the appropriate use of power within the Army in the relative lack of accountability of empowered persons by those not vulnerable to misuse of power by those same people.  Our safeguards are chiefly in matters of financial management not in matters of personal accountability as to use of power (Rader 2011 and Johannides 2007, 439).   

It seems strange that we are explicit when it comes to financial matters but not when it comes to personal accountability as to the use of power in relation to the treatment of people.   

Marshall honestly observes, “When those who are exercising authority are not themselves living in obedience to a higher authority – what happens?  What comes out is not authority at all, but will-power, emotional pressure, or forceful argument” (Marshall 2008, 107).  Rader urges:
Army leaders, whatever the constraints within which they must operate, will continue to have considerable authority to act independently and sometimes, arbitrarily.  It is all the more critical that we know ourselves accountable to the Highest Authority as Paul did.  "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.  Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).  It is his flock purchased with his blood that we are privileged to shepherd, His Body within which we serve by grace alone.  We must never forget it. (Rader 2011)
 

The contrast between Rader’s warning for accountability to leaders of “the flock” and Barna’s research on the state of the same, is striking (italics added):
We essentially do not have an intelligent and reliable means of holding pastors accountable to perform as leaders of the flock.  Beyond being in the pulpit a specified number of times, conducting himself properly with members of the congregation and managing staff meetings as they occur, few standards exist by which the pastor’s  performance is examined.  (Barna 1993, 146) 

Regarding accountability of church leaders relative to use of power Beasley-Murray bluntly calls pastoral accountability a myth.  In his view, pastors generally have few restrictions put upon them.  “Put crudely, provided they ‘pay the rent’ by conducting . . . services and visiting some key members” they can get away with whatever they wish (Beasley-Murray 1998, 57-58). 

Accountability – Speak Truth to Power

Common sense may dictate that where there is trust there is no need for accountability.  Marshall argues for just the opposite, that trust necessarily creates accountability.  But to who are leaders responsible or accountable for the way they use power?  Marshall pushes for a 360 degree accountability matrix for Christian leaders – with the people who have trusted them -- subordinates, peers and superiors (Marshall 2008, 150).  Speaking from the vantage point of a typical church member Hollins notes, “If a person is given a regulating voice in anything, his interest is deepened, his sense of responsibility quickened, and whatever of wisdom or experience he possesses is placed at the public service” (Hollins 2010, 49-50).  Hill contributes with clarity to the request for such an accountability matrix within The Salvation Army:   

Political systems often incorporate checks and balances to prevent abuse of power . . . It would be helpful if ways could be found of making [accountability] flow both ways, so that those in the hierarchy owed a duty of transparency and accountability to those below them as well as to those above. (Hill 2006, 304) 

One can only imagine the damage prevented and the strengthening of Christian witness by such an approach to accountability in the church and especially among empowered leaders. 

Power Distance – Closing the Gap

In social science research, power has been considered a corrupting force in organizations. However, in a recent study that assumption has been challenged.  Tjosvold et al. have demonstrated that the relationship between high and low power  people can be cooperative not competitive and that high power people can use their power to be of help and support to low power people. This in turn has a positive impact on the views of the high power people toward the low power people, namely that they are capable and appreciative.  This is in contradiction to one aspect of Mulder’s power distance reduction theory, specifically the downward power distance mechanism - that is the tendency of the more powerful “to increase and maintain the distance between themselves and the less powerful” (Extra 1982, 419).  The results of Tjosvold et al. “suggest limitations to traditional organizational power theories that assume a competitive context between the powerful and those subject to power. Cooperative goals appear to be an important basis for developing the positive face of power in organizations” (Tjosvold et al. 2005, 645). 

In other words, even among secular social scientists there is research evidence of both the positive inclination toward downward power distance reduction and of its benefits to the entire community practically and in terms of attitude changes.   

Marshall’s observations from a Christian leadership perspective regarding power distance reduction are analogous to those of Tjosvold et al. (2005).  First, Marshall speaks from the perspective of empowered church leadership as to the dangers of power on the leaders themselves:

The distance that status establishes between leaders and people encourages arrogance by subtly inducing in the leaders, the sense that they somehow belong to an elite superior to other people.  From there it is a short step to believing that they ought not to be challenged or questioned, or that the standards and moral restraints that apply to other people do not apply to them. (Marshall 2008, 89) 

Then, in unity with the findings of Tjosvold  et al. Marshall throws down the gauntlet to church leaders to intentionally “dismantle the status syndrome”.  Marshall gives personal example of his inner dialogue in status dismantling with the questions, “Is this [privilege] intrinsic or extrinsic to my job?” or, “Do I really need this to do my job properly or is it a disposable extra?” (Marshall 2008, 92-93).  If the privilege or perk in question is not intrinsic to the work, Marshall sees the temptation to seduction, vanity, and lust for power.  Thus concluding, “That I would rather be without” (Marshall 2008, 93).   

Checks on Power -- Application

There is much to be said by way of application in response to the preceding study as it relates to safeguarding the appropriate use of power.  At this point a few specific ideas are proposed ranging from individual to organizational. 

Beasley-Murray offers several specific recommendations regarding checks and balances to the Christian ministers’ use of power.  These include: Creation of a detailed pastoral job description agreed between leader and church that will be the point of reference for an annual appraisal by local leaders; commitment to regular spiritual direction; adopting a personal code of ethics to strengthen self-control; and working under supervision such as counsellors do (Beasley-Murray 1998, 150-151, 153, 156,159).  These are all applied on an individual level.  Shaw agrees in concept but goes further and offers some suggestions organizationally. 

First, Shaw recommends such an accountability matrix at all levels of leadership and management (not just for the individual pastor), recognizing that a double standard in such things breeds suspicion and works against trust (Shaw 1997, 159, 161).  Additionally, the culture of an organization (or church) can unwittingly motivate people to misuse power based on what they reward.  This was also indicated by Schaef and Fassel (1988) in their study of addictive organizations.    Where misuse of power is evident by individuals Shaw calls for an organizational audit, as he believes that “rarely are individuals’ actions completely independent of a larger set of cultural norms and practices” (Shaw 1997, 165).  Every level of a given organization would be examined including leadership, structure, performance expectations and organizational rewards (Shaw 1997, 165).    

Conclusions

Perhaps Janeway is of most help in creating a mind-set in response to the content of this study.  For Janeway, one of the most potent “powers of the weak” is that of disbelief.  Namely, “the capacity to imagine alternatives to accepted roles and behaviour” (Janeway 1980, 160). From a Christian framework we disbelieve that human motives cannot be sanctified resulting in positive use of power by leaders in the church. This confronts the social dominance orientation that causes people to accept inequality and the justifications behind them.  It refuses to accept the hierarchy-enhancing myths that legitimize misuse of power (Schmitt 2003, 162-165).  By this means “the weak” begin to create the 360 accountability matrix encouraged by Marshall and Hill (Marshall 2008; Hill 2006).   

We have seen such disbelief demonstrated through social scientists in several ways.  The research of Tjosvold et al. asserts disbelief in the notion that high power people uniformly protect the power distance between them and low power people. Rather, they demonstrate the opposite – that high power people can use their power for the betterment of others, can experience changes of attitude toward low power people, and can intentionally reduce the power distance between them.  If this is true of people in a corporate business context in an atheistic communist culture like China, surely we can disbelieve what is any context and culture, including our own – and even across the gender gap. 

Finally, the work of Chen et al. informs us that motives have a significant impact on behavior, including the way in which power is used.  Importantly, people tend to use power in more socially responsible ways when they are communally oriented.  This presents hope for restoration of positive use of power in collectivist cultures (Triandis 1995) where the challenges of social dominance orientation and large power distance are enormous.  These findings relative to communal commitment and positive use of power also confront the self-serving motivation for power use in individualistic cultures.   

The integral nature of Christian leadership lived out in community is supported by these social research findings as well. 

Nouwen summarizes well these conclusions regarding appropriate use of power in the church:
Therefore, true ministry must be mutual.  When the members of a community of faith cannot truly know and love their shepherd, shepherding quickly becomes a subtle way of exercising power over others and begins to show authoritarian and dictatorial traits . . . The world in which we live -- a world of efficiency and control -- has no models to offer to those who want to be shepherds in the way Jesus was a shepherd.  Even the so-called 'helping professions' have been so thoroughly secularized that mutuality can only be seen as a weakness and a dangerous form of role confusion.  The leadership about which Jesus speaks is of a radically different kind from the leadership offered by the world.  It is a  . . . leadership which is not modeled on the power games of the world, but on the servant-leader, Jesus, who came to give his life for the salvation of many".  (Nouwen 1989. 44-45)

 

 

 

REFERENCES  

Barna, George. 1993. Today’s pastors. Ventura, CA: Regal, 146.  Quoted in Paul Beasley-Murray, Power for God’s sake:  Power and abuse in the local church (Carlisle:  Paternoster Press, 1998).  

Beasley-Murray, Paul. 1998. Power for God’s sake. Power and abuse in the local church. Carlisle: Paternoster Press. 

Bond, Linda. 2011.  Spiritual Authority.  Lecture presented at The Salvation Army International College for Officers and Centre for Spiritual Life Development, August 2, 2011, London, England. 

Cairns, Jan, ed. 2008. Power - use & abuse: Exploring the issue of "power" in the Church and in The Salvation Army.  Vol. 4 of Windows of opportunity.  The Salvation Army Tri-Territorial Theological Forum, Australia Eastern Territory, Australia Southern Territory, and New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga Territory.  

Chen, Serena, Annette Lee-Chai and John Bargh. 2001. Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80 (2): 173-87 http://proxy.ashland.edu:2077/ejc/pdf.cgi/Chen_Serena.pdf?issn=00223514&issue=v80i0002&article=173_roaamoteosp (accessed September 9, 2011). 

Extra, Jan.1982. Book Review of Omgaan met macht: Ons Gedrag Met Elkaar En

Tegen Elkaar, Mauk Mulder, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1977. THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF POWER, Sik Hung Ng, London, Academic Press (European Monographs in Social Psychology 21), 1980. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12: 419–424.

French, John R. P. and Bertram Raven. 1959. The bases of social power. In Studies in Social Power, ed. Dorwin Cartwright, 150-167 Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. http://resource.udallas.edu/132/bases_of_social_power.pdf (accessed June 13, 2011)

Hill, Harold. 2006.  Leadership in The Salvation Army. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster Press.  

Hofstede, Geert. Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival.  New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Hollins, John. 2010. A note of warning. Journal of Aggressive Christianity, 70: 46-53.

Originally published in The Contemporary Review. 1898. 436-445. http://www.armybarmy.com/pdf/JAC_Issue_070.pdf. (accessed June 29, 2011). 

Janeway, Elizabeth. 1980. Powers of the weak. New York: Knopf. 

Joannides, Vassili. 2009. Accountability and ethnicity in a religious setting: The Salvation Army in France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Sweden.  Doctoral dissertation, University of Paris (received by email August 15, 2011). 

Keltner, Dacher.  The Power paradox.  Greater good: the science of a meaningful life.  

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/power_paradox/ (accessed September 1, 2011). 

 Keltner, Dacher, Deborah Gruenfeld and Cameron Anderson. 2003. Power, approach and inhibition. Psychological Review 110 (2): 265-284. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/dacherkeltner/docs/keltner.power.psychreview.2003.pdf (accessed June 12, 2011). 

Lammers, Joris and Diederik A. Stapel. 2011. Power increases dehumanization.  Group Process & Intergroup Relations 14(1) 113–126 2011.  http://gpi.sagepub.com/search/results?fulltext=lammers&submit=yes&journal_set=spgpi&src=selected&andorexactfulltext=and (accessed July 20, 2011). 

Marshall, Tom. 2008. Understanding leadership.  Lancaster, UK: Sovereign World Ltd. 

McIntosh,Gary and Samuel Rima. 2007. Overcoming the dark side of leadership. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.   

Mulder, Mauk,  Peter Veen, Theo Hijzen, and Peggy Jansen.  1973.  On power   equalization:  A behavioural example of power-distance reduction.  Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology  Vol. 26, No. 2, 151-158. 

Nouwen, Henri. 1989. In the name of Jesus. Crossroads, 44-45. Quoted in Paul A. Rader, Follow my example.  Paper presented at the USA central territorial executive council of The Salvation Army (Chicago, Illinois. June 2011). 

Percy, Martyn. 1996. Words, wonders and power: Understanding contemporary Christian fundamentalism and revivalism.  London, UK: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 

Rader, Paul A. 2011.  Follow my example.  Paper presented at the USA central territorial executive council of The Salvation Army, June 2011, Chicago, Illinois.  

The Salvation Army International Positional Statement – The Use of Power. http://www1.salvationarmy.org/IHQ/www_ihq_isjc.nsf/vw-sublinks/73C75C683BCC7AD3802578180079E9D5?openDocument (accessed June 13, 2011). 

Schaef, Anne Wilson and Diane Fassel. 1988. The addictive organization. New York: HarperCollins. 

Schmitt, Michael. 2003. Attitudes toward group-based inequality:

Social dominance or social identity?  British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161–186 http://proxy.ashland.edu:2077/ejc/pdf.cgi/Schmitt_Michael.pdf?issn=01446665&issue=v42i0002&article=161_atgisdosi (accessed June 12, 2011). 

Shaw, Robert Bruce. 1997.  Trust in the balance:  Building successful organizations on results, integrity and concern.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass Inc. 

Tjosvold, Dean, Haifa Sun and Paulina Wan. 2005. An experimental examination of social contexts and the use of power in a Chinese sample. Journal of Social Psychology 145(6): 645-61. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16334512?log$=activity (accessed June 13, 2011). 

Triandis, Harry C. 1995. Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml (accessed June 29, 2011).    

Van der Leeus, Gerhardus van der Leeus, 1967. Religion in Essence and Manifestation, vol. I, Gloucester, Peter Smith Publishers, 191.  Quoted in Martyn Percy, Words, wonders and power: Understanding contemporary Christian fundamentalism and revivalism (London, UK: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996). 

Van Kleef, Gerben A., Christopher Oveis, Ilmo van der Löwe, Aleksandr LuoKogan, Jennifer Goetz and Dacher Keltner. 2008. Power, distress, and compassion: turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Sciene: A Journal of the American Psychological Association 19(12): 1315-22.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

   

 

your shopping is guaranteed safe using SSL

eStore account - Sign Up Now! Contact Us - General. Technical Support. Sales Jesus is amazing!  If you see this image tag you should know that He is THE way... not a way!  Grace!
Home Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sitemap Contact Us
copyright ARMYBARMY
armybarmy