Written by Jason D. Bland |
Friday, November 26, 2021
Building a healthy and productive environment within an organization absolutely requires the influence and impact of a strong leader, i.e., someone who puts the needs of their team members before their own. When a leader serves in an altruistic, loving way, the leader has the opportunity to build stronger relationships with their team members. It’s not about control, rather compassion and engagement.

“Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40, NKJV).
These simple words ignited a counterculture movement that still drives Christians today, more than two millennia since Christ spoke. A catalyst that shapes the Christian’s lifestyle and intrinsic motivation each and every day. Christ taught that believers are to first love the Lord. There is no doubt or debate in meaning here, Christians must put the Lord front and center in their hearts and minds. There is a spiritual primacy here that must be acted upon in the believer’s daily walk. Then Jesus tells His followers to love their neighbor, not themselves or their money, beauty, skills, or own wisdom. No, Jesus commands His followers to love others. These two directives set the foundation for every aspect of the believer’s life, a focus first on the Lord and then on others. Thoughts about one’s self aren’t even mentioned, because selfish thinking is anathema to Christian living.
The verses in Matthew 22:37-40 are indeed a counter-cultural statement, primarily because so much of our culture today, as it was in Biblical times, reinforces narcissistic and self-serving living. It’s also truly evident in today’s post-modern society where people can choose the truth that best serves their own preferences. Also consider the endless stream of social media videos that focus on people’s supposed beauty, dancing skills, the proper use of woke terminology, or simply attacking others for not sharing their views. But this is not how Jesus has called Christians to live. The primacy of self must be confronted and subjugated first to the Lord, and secondly to others.
It’s with this thought in mind that it’s important to consider organizational leadership in churches, business, schools, sports, and even families. Anyone and everyone who is a leader must be cognizant of Jesus’ lesson to love others as a primary function of one’s life. Christians are not called to be dutiful servants to the Lord and ignore others. No, Christians are called to humble themselves and elevate others above themselves.
In one of the most powerful chapters in the New Testament, Paul writes in Romans 12, how Christians are to lead transformed lives. Paul doesn’t exhort the Christian to lift himself on a pedestal as better than others because of their gift of salvation. Quite the opposite. In verse three, Paul tells the believer to consider himself humbly, not to boast. Then in verse sixteen, Paul explains that Christians should associate with the humble, and to be cautious of their own opinion. This requires a person who will continually learn and seek wisdom, never trusting in their own knowledge as the penultimate source. Furthermore, these verses teach both the average Christian, and in the case of this article, the Christian leader, to maintain a humble approach to their walk and ministry in leadership. Not only does it prevent a leader from becoming egotistical, but it ensures that he or she will remain open to the feedback and input of their team. But this is only possible when a leader truly loves others more than self. In other words, leaders must be altruistic in nature.
Following the impetus of Jesus’ command in the book of Matthew and Paul’s exhortation in Romans, Christian leaders must shift their mindset. There must be a radical departure from self-centered leadership decisions and actions. Instead, the Christian leader should take a position serving others through decisions that empower and bless the wellbeing of others. This results in a leader who will be blessed when they love and care for others. Consider Paul’s words of encouragement in Galatians 6:7-10. He reminds believers of the importance of putting others first, to not grow weary, and to understand that their efforts will be blessed. Paul was combatting the same self-centered, aggrandizing, narcissistic culture that modern society faces today. For many people, their lives are geared around how much people like them or follow their social media posts, or how much personal confirmation they receive in their videos, all in an effort to boost their shallow self-worth and self-esteem. How strikingly different then is the Christian who blazes a bold and narrow path away from this lifestyle, discarding the societal push to achieve the proper online presence, beauty standards, or take the correct stance on issues of the day, and instead pursue the Lord first, and their neighbor second.
When this happens, self becomes a very distant third. In fact, it becomes so distant because the entire impetus and drive of a Christian becomes consumed with the thought of serving others: the Lord and other people. This is only possible with a foundation of love which results in altruistic behavior. This heavenly design is further corroborated in the Gospel of Mark, when Jesus tells his disciples “[f]or even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,” (Mark 10:45a).
Through it all, this notion of love and humility is difficult to attain and maintain. It goes against human nature. In fact, Nouwen wrote, especially in light of leadership, that power and authority is an “easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life,” (Nouwen, 1989, p. 77). His succinct words remind the Christian of the challenging task that is the narrow path of faith and service in Christ’s name. Yet, despite the challenge, the Lord is faithful to provide the strength, encouragement, and wisdom to live in this unique, counter-culture way.
The benefit of living and leading in such a drastic way, by being altruistic and leading with love, grace, and wisdom, is that it provides the opportunity to be an example to the unbeliever. J. Oswald Sanders explained that when a “Christian leader full of high ideals lives a holy and joyful life in front of unbelievers, they often want to cultivate a similar experience,” (Sanders, 2007, p. 41).
Ultimately, building a healthy and productive environment within an organization absolutely requires the influence and impact of a strong leader, i.e., someone who puts the needs of their team members before their own. When a leader serves in an altruistic, loving way, the leader has the opportunity to build stronger relationships with their team members. It’s not about control, rather compassion and engagement. Research proves this point. Northouse, a preeminent leadership scholar said “that organizations stand to gain much from having leaders who can create good working relationships. When leaders and followers have good exchanges, they feel better and accomplish more, and the organization prospers” (Northouse, 2019, p. 143).
Not only can leaders today benefit from the wisdom of Christ and the encouraging words of Paul, but also from decades of study and research that further confirm what the Bible has taught for millennia. This notion of loving your neighbor is more than just a platitude, it is a way of life, and by exemplifying this characteristic a leader has the opportunity to make a profound impact on the lives of those they lead. Imagine a world where people actually appreciate their boss, so much more could be accomplished. Imagine a world where Christians exemplified Christ-like love, so many more people would be enticed by a Gospel-driven lifestyle.
It should be clear that Christians leaders need to love. They must love their neighbor, their team members, their own boss. With this in mind they will live an altruistic life, focused on helping and bettering others. This will result in stronger relationships which improves organizational success and effectiveness. Let all Christians remember Paul’s reminder in 1 Corinthians 10:24, “[l]et no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.” This is only possible when believers wholeheartedly live out Jesus’s command to love the Lord and love their neighbor. Without this foundation the Christian’s thoughts and actions would be no different from the world. Instead, Christian leaders need to love.
Jason D. Bland is the founder of Signet Leadership, an organizational leadership consulting and coaching firm. He lives outside Annapolis, Maryland. Jason writes about Christian leadership and its impact on society, as well as providing social and political commentary from a Christ-centered worldview. To connect with Jason he can be reached via email, LinkedIn, or via Twitter.

In his law God has prescribed a state of harmony which ought to prevail in human society; slander breaks this harmony and thereby upsets human society itself, supplanting mutual respect and love with suspicion, hatred, and strife. Where it has occurred, amends are to be made, fault acknowledged and repented, and the proper harmony restored as quickly as possible, with the aid of external assistance or punishment by church or civil authorities if necessary (Matt. 18:16-17).

In its widest sense, slander refers to any speech that harms the reputation of another person. A distinction must be made between how the word is used in law and how it appears in considerations of ethics. In law defamation is the broad category of communications that do reputational harm, with slander and libel being its respective forms that are classified according to the means of defamation. Slander means statements that harm another’s reputation through the transitory medium of audible speech. Libel occurs through a lasting medium such as literature, visual art, or a recorded broadcast.[1]
In ethics slander often has the same meaning as defamation does in law: i.e., it is the generic term for the broad category of reputation-injuring communications. It is also used in narrower senses as well, the strictest of which is to refer to false claims that are willfully intended to harm another’s good name. Several distinctions are in order. Law takes cognizance of the medium in which defamation occurs because courts are obligated to determine not only if defamation has taken place, but also what damages are needed to remedy the offense. It recognizes that certain forms of defamation are likely to produce greater harm because of their longer duration and wider distribution, and thus makes the distinction between libel and slander, as well as between those offenses that are severe enough to merit civil damages and those that are not. It does this because its aim is to provide temporal order and justice in the public affairs of this life, not to morally renovate citizens as private individuals.
God’s law, however, is intended to provide its subjects with a manner of living that is pleasing to him and in accord with Man’s proper moral nature and relations. Aiming to set men in the most intimate relationship with God and to make them like him for all eternity, it has much higher demands and aims than merely human law. Where human law may punish slander lightly, if at all, even where it deems it has occurred, God’s law regards any speech that wrongly disparages another as a grievous offense. “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:22).
Scripture therefore does not distinguish between transient and lasting forms of defamation, and for that reason we may discuss all of it as slander, distinguishing rather between its wider and narrower meanings than between its technical forms. Where human courts are prone to error and severely limited in what they can know and do, God’s perfect knowledge and justice mean that he will punish all sins of slander without partiality and will render them what they are due (Ecc. 12:14; Matt. 12:36; Rom. 2:16). His law does not refuse to admit any claim for lack of evidence, nor make a distinction between claims that are actionable and those that are not.
A word must also be stated about intentions and practical effects. In law speech may be considered defamatory if its actual effect is to defame someone else’s character, even where that was not the publisher’s intention. A distinction is made between what is defamatory per quod and what is defamatory per se. In the former case a statement is defamatory only when considered in light of facts that are external to the statement itself. An example is ‘A just birthed a son’ where it is public knowledge that A is unmarried. If something is defamatory per se it is explicitly, unambiguously harmful, as in the statement ‘A is a forger,’ since the felonious and dishonest activity of forging is always reprehensible.[2]
(It might seem that in the realm of moral behavior, God, knowing the thoughts of our hearts (1 Sam. 16:7; Jer. 17:10), would not be censorious of defamatory speech that was not intended to harm its victim. Yet Christ says, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matt. 12:36), and so in such matters we must take great care that we do not inadvertently slander someone.)
Continuing along ethical lines, slander is committed in the third person: a person is insulted or berated to his face, but he is slandered to other people. It may be direct or indirect, aimed either at its victim (‘Nadine is a liar’) or at her through a condemnation of her behavior (‘Nadine lied at yesterday’s gathering’). It may be precise (‘statement X was false’) or general (‘Nadine lies all the time’), and either explicit or implied.
Key to understanding the nature of slander is a consideration of its relation to the truth and to the circumstances in which it occurs. In its purest form slander involves making false claims about someone that the slanderer knows are false and that are specially calculated to destroy that person’s reputation. It is the malicious, intentional propagation of known falsehoods, or what is otherwise known as calumny. When slander is done surreptitiously it is known as backbiting (comp. Ps. 101:5; Prov. 25:23); when it involves revealing someone’s secrets or is part of a persistent campaign of defamation it is known as talebearing (Heb. rakil; comp. Lev. 19:16; Prov. 11:13; 20:19 in KJV). Yet slander also occurs where there is no good proof of a disparaging claim’s truth or falsity, when a slanderer ought to have known a claim was false and refused to attempt verification, or where true statements are presented in a false light, especially by being divorced from other, clarifying truths. In sum, slander occurs when someone either carelessly or intentionally makes misleading claims about another that expose that person to a lowered reputation.
There are two complications in cases of apparent or alleged slander. One is that humans, being sinners, do commonly engage in misbehavior that merits denunciation. There are false teachers, swindlers, thieves, etc., about, and others have not merely the right but also often the duty to condemn them and their behavior openly in the hope of bringing them to repentance and of warning others against them. It is wrong to bear false witness – but the corollary is that we are obliged to bear true witness (Zech. 8:16; Eph. 4:25); and if someone truly has a bad character that can only be done by acknowledging that bad character where the circumstances require it. The evil of slander is not that it portrays someone in a bad light as such, but that it does so unjustly. There are a great many people who deserve to be exposed (Jer. 29:8-9, 15; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1; 2 Jn. 7-11; Rev. 2:2) and their reputations lowered so that their would-be victims might be spared their depredations.
The second complication in cases of possible slander is that of ambiguity. The same term sometimes means vastly different things to different people and in different circumstances. Consider the term redneck as applied to rural Southerners. There are circumstances in which this would be a real slander worthy of the name. If lawyer A from Donalds, South Carolina (population: approximately 320) applies at a prestigious New York firm and his current employer describes him to the recruiter as a ‘redneck’ – well, that will be the end of that, and poor A will be consigned to continuing his practice in South Carolina. But if one were to go to the local farmhands and day laborers and describe that same man as a redneck they would demur, probably on the grounds that his education and the nature of his employment make such a thing simply unthinkable. Indeed, some of them might be offended at the suggestion that he is worthy of such a term of high praise. In short, the same term will have a different meaning depending on the speaker, audience, and circumstances, and will range from making one an untouchable to being an enviable compliment.
These complications mean that it can be difficult to distinguish slander from just censure. Consider an example. Suppose that A says that B is a liar. There are a few possibilities in such a case:

It may be that A knows B is not a liar and is maliciously trying to destroy his reputation because of rivalry.
It may be that A has no idea whether or not B is a liar and that in his determination to do him harm he is latching on to an effective disparagement without regard for its veracity.
It may be that B was a liar, but that he has repented and made amends, and that A has not mentioned these mitigating factors because he wants to portray him as badly as possible.
It may be that B is a liar, but that this has no relevance to the matter at hand, and that A mentions it simply because he hates B and wants to avail himself of any opportunity to harm him.
It may be that A truly believes B is a liar, but that he has been deceived.
It may be that B is a liar and that A is bearing true testimony to his character that is beneficial to his audience and relevant to the matter at hand.

Scenarios 1 through 4 would be examples of culpable slander, with 5 representing a case of inadvertent slander and 6 being a case of justified denunciation.
In Scripture slander is regarded as a serious offense. The ninth commandment forbids bearing false witness against a neighbor (Ex. 20:16), and Lev. 19:16 forbids slander and connects it with behavior that threatens the neighbor’s very life. Ps. 101:5 says that whoever secretly slanders his neighbor will be destroyed, and slandering the saints is one of the essential activities of the evil one, who is called the devil on that account.[3] Christ states that wrongly disparaging anyone is liable to civil punishment and eternal condemnation (Matt. 5:22). Slander was one of the depravities to which pagans were given up by God (Rom. 1:30), and in some cases slander is even regarded as blasphemy and as a mark of the evils of the last days of difficulty (2 Tim. 3:2) and of false teachers (2 Pet. 2:10-11) – which is unsurprising when we consider that James says that those who speak evil of others thereby speak evil of God’s law and stand in judgment of it (Jas. 4:11-12). One of the prophetic denunciations of Israel was that she was a society in which people would “by a word make a man out to be an offender” (Isa. 29:21) and thereby unjustly destroy the reputations of the righteous. The Pharisees were notable for slandering Jesus (Matt. 9:34; 12:24), as did other Jews (Lk. 7:34; Jn. 8:48-52); it was by the false accusation of blasphemy that the Jewish leaders found a pretext for having Jesus crucified (Matt. 26:59-66).
In his law God has prescribed a state of harmony which ought to prevail in human society; slander breaks this harmony and thereby upsets human society itself, supplanting mutual respect and love with suspicion, hatred, and strife. Where it has occurred, amends are to be made, fault acknowledged and repented, and the proper harmony restored as quickly as possible, with the aid of external assistance or punishment by church or civil authorities if necessary (Matt. 18:16-17). Recognizing the damage it can cause, Scripture enjoins us to “put away . . . all slander” (1 Pet. 2:1; comp. Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8), thus indicating both a better way of conduct and the sad fact that this evil remains a temptation for the redeemed (2 Cor. 12:20). Let us pray that we are all given grace to keep ourselves above such wrongdoing, for in the heightened mood of the present time it is easy to lapse into it, and only God’s grace will suffice to keep us from stumbling so.
Tom Hervey is a member, Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Simpsonville, SC. The statements made in this article are the personal opinions of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of his church or its leadership or other members.

[1] Comp. the South Carolina Court of Appeal’s opinion in Kim Parrish, Appellant, v. Earl Allison, Respondent
[2] Most of the information in this paragraph is reproduced from the South Carolina Supreme Court’s judgment in Holtzscheiter v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc.
[3] The Greek διάβολος, from which our devil is derived, means “a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon).
Related Posts:

What about the standards that define our sexuality? They are not mere restrictions, mere arbitrary deprivations to enforce an other-worldly mindedness. They are meant to cause sexuality to mirror and display our Savior’s faithful, covenantal, lavish, and costly love for us. Do we simplistically give our kids an alternate set of rules about sex we hope they will choose over the world’s views? Or do we show and tell them about something and someone who is worth every ounce of our love and allegiance? So, whichever direction we face—outward to the world or inward toward our own—it isn’t really about sex. It’s about the gospel.

Harvest USA is a ministry focused on issues of sexuality and gender. It’s not surprising, then, that people often ask us for advice on how to respond to our current culture. How do I get beyond complaints and diatribes about non-Christian ideas in the world around us? Should I engage in political action? What must I do when my neighbors and colleagues push non-Christian views? How do I raise kids in this environment? How do we keep the Church from capitulating in the area of sexuality?
These are urgent and complicated questions. I believe the beginning of an answer to them is one of perspective: It’s not really about sex.
How We Address Those Outside the Church
Throughout the Bible, concern for sexual morality is directed inward, to God’s people, not outward to the world. It is most often associated with expressing holiness, by which is meant being set apart to belong to the LORD. It is always assumed that the people and cultures of the world will be sexually immoral, and, even when that fact is mentioned, it is usually in the context of calling Christians to self-consciously differentiate themselves in that respect. So, for instance, the lists of sexuality rules in Leviticus are framed by, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes” (Leviticus 18:3). Sexuality was one significant area of application of the principal of having been set apart to belong to God: “You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Leviticus 20:26).
This is exactly the way sexual morality is framed in the New Testament as well, but with the added expectation that even while our beliefs and practices will be radically different from those outside the Church, we will be living and working in close association with them every day. Paul writes, “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…since then you would need to go out of the world” (1 Corinthians 5:9, 10). Peter also says, “For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry” (1 Peter 4:3). Significantly, the Church is not told to go out and scold the world, or even to try to reform their practices. Instead, we are to focus on being distinctly different.
One implication of this is that we need to be soberly realistic about the sexual practices and views of the non-Christian world we live in. I suspect that we have spent too much time and emotional energy processing shock and disappointment at every major step of cultural decline into sexual license, but this should never surprise us. In fact, in the Scriptures, the reaction of surprise is expected from the other direction: “With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you” (1 Peter 4:4). It is the world that should be shocked at what we don’t do! If moral decline in the culture around us seems like our biggest concern, we need to ask ourselves what it is we are really hoping for—a world outside the Church that approximates godliness just enough that we can comfortably and respectably partake in its benefits? That is never promised to us by our Lord; it is a counterfeit gospel.
Am I suggesting that God’s rules for sex don’t apply to unbelievers? Of course not. But God has not given us the job of being his morality enforcers. “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside” (1 Corinthians 5:12). And listen to how Peter continues: “…but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead” (1 Peter 4:5).
Read More