Reflections on Personal Leadership Development Based on

Dr. J. Robert Clinton's The Making of a Leader

Introduction:

As I come to the end of my program here at North Park Theological

Seminary, I face now the prospect of moving into a position of pastoral
leadership in a local congregation. According to Clinton, such a move constitutes
a boundary event and signals a transition from one developmental phase to
another (Clinton 1988, 49). The purpose of this project is to take seriously the
responsibilities that come with this transition as spelled out in Clinton’s definition
of leadership:
A leader... is a person
 1. with God-given capacity and
 2. with God-give responsibility to influence
 3. a specific group of God’s people
 4. toward God’s purposes for the group.
(Clinton, 202)

Clinton further cites three challenges facing church leadership today.

Briefly stated they are: 1) recognize the need and responsibility to continue
developing throughout my lifetime; 2) identify those whom God is calling and
raising up for leadership and work with God’s process in their lives; 3)
development of a ministry philosophy is key to a whole lifetime of ministry
fruitfulness (Clinton, 196).
This project is a beginning response to these challenges. My title,
“Toward a Philosophy of Ministry,” reflects that this is a work in progress. It is not
my intention to develop a fully integrated philosophy since I do not believe that at
this time I have the experiential depth to do so. However, my goal is threefold: 1)
I will attempt to delineate the elements of my present explicit philosophy and
begin to critically examine the sources of these elements; 2) I will examine my life
to this point in light of the patterns of leadership development identified by Dr.
Clinton and; 3) I will seek to lay out the ground work for a leadership philosophy
that will in turn become the basis for the development of ministry at First Mission
Covenant Church in Fresno, California.

1
I. A Critical Examination of My Present Philosophy
As a starting point, the first element that informs my present philosophy
can be tersely stated as “Life happens.” There are several levels to what I mean
by this. First, I have generally had the sense, sometimes greater and sometimes
lesser, throughout most of my life that we have very little control over many of the
events that act upon us and affect how we perceive ourselves. A problem with
such a conception is that it lends itself to a certain fatalism. If we have little or no
control over how our lives go then there is little use in planning or leading.
Pastoral care becomes a matter sympathy and can only bring a message of
“Hang in there.” or “What will be will be.” Another tendency resulting from this
aspect is a sense of helplessness to a greater or lesser degree. Progress or
advancement becomes dependent on circumstances and other people.
This first element finds legitimacy in all those circumstances that are
indeed out of our control because of natural forces (i.e., flood, hurricane,
earthquake, etc.), human error (i.e., auto and industrial accidents), or disease.
However, it is also true that we are able to modify and or prevent many of the
effects of these “accidents of life” and thus, we do not live in a world in which we
have no control. To the contrary, we have gained control over many elements of
the world in which we live and are not only able to live successfully in the face of
these elements but we can actually plan ahead and, through design, prevent,
avoid, or lessen the affects of the world on ourselves.
A second element that influences my personal philosophy is a natural bent
toward spontaneity. It is possible that the idea of spontaneity is a means of
coping with the previous element. As a person of spontaneity, I find it difficult to
define specific goals with specific steps laid out for the accomplishment of those
goals. In making this observation, I am not making a value judgment on the
appropriateness of spontaneity verses a well planned life. Both have there place
and those who function out of one can and perhaps should learn from the other.
As for the spontaneous, whatever plans are made, they can be changed in a
moment without notice.
In reflecting on this element, it seems that two key observations can be
made. First, one might say that the tyranny of the moment can keep one from
making regular progress in personal development. The less pressing at the
moment becomes subordinated to the more pressing even if the less pressing, in
the long run, is more critical. On the other hand, there is a flexibility that allows
one to adjust the plans of the moment even to the point of setting them aside for
demands, needs, or unexpected interruptions that actually are more important at
a given moment. The outcome for a philosophy of leadership however, is that if
unbalanced by some other force, it limits the ability of the leader to influence a
group to progress in its God given purposes.

2
 A third element that modifies both of the above is a sense of self-
determination or personal freedom. I have already alluded to this in my
discussion of the uncontrollable events of the world around us. This element has
the effect of modifying the deterministic fatalism of the “life happens” element.
On the other hand, this element must also be held in the context of a critical self-
knowledge that takes into account the forces that are at work both internally and
externally that shape how we perceive ourselves.
This matrix becomes more complex as it is located in a theological context
that introduces a sovereign God who is at work both to will and to do his good
pleasure. But, it is precisely at this point that this project takes on its importance.
How is God at work in my life? How have I cooperated or resisted his purposes
and/or his activity in my life? To what extent am I a partner with God for the
accomplishment of his purposes both for my own life and, as a leader in the
church, in the lives of others?
In this section, I have attempted to identify, state and reflect briefly on
certain elements that make up the presupositions of my philosophy of life which
also informs my philosophy of leadership and affects how I have functioned in or
shied away from leadership. I have become increasingly convinced of the need
to be more self-aware through intentional reflection on who I am and the forces
that have been at work in my life to shape me, that is, my history in family,
church, and society.

II. A Personal Time-Line

Clinton proposes a “generalized time line” based on his study of the lives
of many recognized Biblical, historical and contemporary leaders. He identifies
six distinct phases but he is careful to explain that “the details of the generalized
pattern will differ greatly from individual to individual and not all leaders will go
through the stages (Clinton 1988, 54).” Keeping this in mind, I now turn to an
exercise of examining my time-line.
May 1975-Sept. 1983:
Premature move into a ministry
position. Progress in ministry
Sovereign Inner-life Ministry
maturing thwarted.
foundations growth Maturing
August 1993:
Begin Studies at
December NPTS. In a sense
1952 1996: 1966 1971 April 1991: Afir- 1996
mation of God’s love a complete circle to
Profound what was started in
experience of and calling at the Sept.1983-Sept.
end of a 1.5 yrs 1973.
1993: period of
God’s love and
calling. period of testing. rebuilding, renewing
and recovering inner
growth and ministry
maturing processes.

3
1952-1966: Sovereign Foundations
An underlying theme during this period is stability. I grew up in a secure
home in a stable neighborhood. A second mark of this community is
homogeneity- in the neighborhood, in the school, and in the church. The school
and neighborhood included some Hispanic families but were predominantly white
middle class. However, this period was also filled with events which challenged
and disrupted the period. First was my mother’s death. The ramifications of this
event have echoed down through the years as I came to terms with this deep
loss and pain.
A second memory that is of significance from this period is the
confrontation of my childhood faith by the secular notion of evolution as
presented in school. It was at this point that I realized not all the world believed
as I had been taught at home and at school. I had to begin to choose Christ.
The underlying stability of my early years was shaken again by the death of my
paternal grandfather. My paternal grandparents had come from Kansas after the
death of my mom and had lived with us and helped care for us for about three
years. His death, grandma’s return to Kansas and my father’s remarriage
followed in short order.
In section one, the first element discussed was the idea that “life happens”
and that we have little control over the events that affect and shape us. As I
reflect back on this period I recognize that there was a lot of crying out that went
on as things happened to me over which I had no control and, as far as I could
tell, no one else did either. The crises of this period developed in intensity during
the last two years of this period as I wrestled with God over what it meant to be
saved, and whether or not I would be a disciple of Christ (“discipleship” was not a
popular term used in those days, but in retrospect that was exactly the issue that
was coming to the surface as this phase came to a close and I moved into the
next phase.)
The boundary event that brought about the shift began with a “testimony”
given in youth group in which I stated that I did not know whether or not I was
saved- a statement that clearly declared that I was in crises. The shift into the
second phase of inner-life growth came as a result of a profound experience of
God’s love and presence. This took place during a trip to Mexico in December of
1966.

1967-1971/1973: Inner-Life Growth

To the extent that this phase is characterized by a seeking “to know God
in a more personal and intimate way,” then this phase could be said to have
begun in my own life over that last two years of the first phase. However, I have
chosen to set the boundary of transition at the climax of that period because the

4
Mexico experience was a watershed and it clearly marks the beginning point of
inner-life growth processes. It was after this experience that the quality of my
prayer life began to deepen and improve. It was after this event that I
consciously began a programmatic reading of Scripture. It was also at this time
that I became committed to living out my faith at home and at school in a way
that I had not before. It was at this point that my choice to be a disciple became
solidified. As a result I began to grow in my personal relationship with the Lord
as I began to experience and practice various spiritual gifts. This period was also
characterized by involvement in several mission trips including Mexico (twice
more), ministry in San Francisco, Costa Mesa, as well as various towns in New
Jersey, Virginia, and Canadian Province of Quebec.
During this period I chose of carry my Bible with me at all times and to
maintain a clear witness for Christ. As part of this I chose not to compromise in
areas of “holiness” (piety)- no alcohol, no drugs, wholesome language, sexual
purity (this last was the area of greatest struggle as I wrestled with my thought
life). Areas of testing included depression, personal thought life, “spiritual
warfare,” use of spiritual gifts, and continuing faithfulness to the Lord’s calling to
discipleship irregardless of the emotional ups and downs of those teen years.
The greatest time of testing came in the fall of 1969 and lasted through the
spring of 1971. The best way for me to describe this period for our purposes
here is that during this time God hid his face from me (Psalm 104:29a). The
outcome of this was to ground my life and calling in a faith that was rooted in
God’s faithfulness instead of my own whimsicalness. The climax of this period
was an experience in which the Lord reaffirmed his love and calling in my life. I
can identify this as the boundary event that marks a shift into the next
development phase based on several identifying elements: 1) the unusual
experience just recounted, 2) an increased sense of divine guidance culminating
three months latter in a confirming event that lead, 3) to a geographical move as I
entered Active military service.
Upon reflection there are several insights that I can draw from this critical
period of my development. First, an extremely important insight I see here is the
complex interaction between God as sovereign, myself as a free moral creature,
and the “uncontrollable” world of my earlier years. It is not possible to fully
explore the implications of this last statement here. However, it is incredible to
witness the extensive interaction taking place between God and myself as I
reacted to my life circumstances, the call of Christ in my life through the church
and ultimately in two intimate encounters. God worked sovereignly in the midst
of these circumstances while respecting my freedom to choose how I would
respond. It seems that it is here that the third and fourth elements that inform my
philosophy find their rootage.

5
1971-1996 and beyond: Ministry Maturing
The events of this period are many and complex, therefore I will highlight
the main flow with some reflection on how I have understood God to be working
throughout this period both to will and to accomplish his good pleasure in my life.
From August 1971 through August 1973, I was in active military service.
There are three pertinent observations that come out of this period. First, it is
obvious that as I entered into this period, I was no longer on the “receiving” end
of ministry as was characteristic of my faith development to this point. In the
military I was one of a few Christians and was quickly identified by those few as a
resource for encouragement and teaching. It is interesting to note that I was
stationed close enough to home that I could and did chose to go home on
weekends for the first six months. However, it became clear to me during these
months that God wanted me to invest myself in ministry on base and so I
became involved with the base chapel and left off returning home.
The second observation has of do with a revelation of the Spirit from
scripture that established in me a model for the church from Ephesians 4. The
concept of pastoral ministry and body life as it is spelled out in this portion of
Ephesians was new to me. I had never heard any teaching on this text and this
was prior to the development of “body life ministry” as many have come to
understand it in the past 20 years.
The third observation is that I missed developing a mentor or discipleship
relationship with a mature Christian that could have assigned tasks that could be
completed and evaluated. According to Clinton, this is a crucial element during
the early ministry phases. There was such a person as I look back on the initial
two years of this phase. However, seeds of “spiritual pride” (an oxymoron?) kept
me from fully entering into such a relationship with this person. As a result of this
missed opportunity, pride and it’s strange bedfellow, insecurity and lack of self-
confidence, remained unchecked. The repercussions of this become apparent in
the following years.
Upon release from active duty, I began formal training at a bible college in
northern California. It is during this time that the missed period of ministry task
led to further missteps that would cost myself, and now my wife, a number of
years as we turned aside form the path the Lord had opened up for us to receive
formal training. I remained in school for two years, but at the end of the second
year I made the decision to leave school and join a ministry in my wife’s home
town as a co-pastor. I made this decision in the face of several warnings from
friends and in spite of my own internal disquiet. Here I was faced with a
guidance factor. Up to this point I had been growing in my ability to discern
guidance and it is important to note that as a result of this decision, the

6
development of discernment was greatly hampered and it took a number of years
to rebuild my ability to discern guidance issues with any measure of confidence.
There is a great deal that could be said about what took place during this
time, but what is pertinent in my mind for this project is how God responded to
this decision. First, once again I can see the complex relationship between the
Creator and the creature he created in his own image. Throughout the next eight
years (May 1975- September 1983) the Spirit “confronted” me and warned me
about getting more and more involved in this aberrant group. The Lord was at
work wooing me and chiding me and at crucial points openly confronting me in
various ways about this on going choice. A second observation is how pride kept
me going while at the same time self-confidence and the competency that had
developed in previous years was steadily eroded and finally striped away
altogether. Third, God never coerced me, but at the end, when I had nothing left
spiritually or emotionally, He was there waiting, ready to help us pick up the
pieces and begin the long process of ministry maturing once more.
A principle that became the sole anchor of hope during the years of
rebuilding from September 1983 through August 1993, comes from 2 Timothy
2:13 “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for he cannot deny Himself.” This
period (1983-1993) was characterized by many if not all the processes described
by Clinton for this phase. Finally, in August 1993, I returned to a period of formal
training which is now almost complete and I have received a call to the pastorate
of First Mission Covenant Church in Fresno.
At this point in my analysis, it seems that the transition I now face is a shift
into stage 3 of the Ministry Maturing Phase. My sense is that I am moving
through the Middle ministry sub-phase and that I am on the verge of moving into
the third stage of Relational learning. As I examine the process items Clinton
lists under the various stages, I feel very comfortable with having developed
successfully through those under stages 1 and 2 (Clinton, 80).
To close this section, I want to reiterate what Clinton says about his own
work. This is a generalized scheme. His own case studies in chapter 2
demonstrate that each individual moves through leadership development
differently. I have chosen to use the generalized scheme for two reasons. First,
I have not become familiar enough with Clinton’s complex analysis to try and
analyze my progress in its uniqueness, and second, the general pattern seems to
work well for me in that I do not have to force the fit.
It is of further interest to me that I have found this tool to be extremely
helpful as a means of grasping how the Lord who created, redeemed and called
me has been at work in my life. At this point then, I will turn to some concluding
remarks on how this analysis can help me toward a philosophy of ministry.

7
III. Toward A Philosophy of Ministry
By attempting to understand the thought processes of my innate
philosophical presuppositions, it has become clear to me how my history and my
interpretation of that history has impacted my ability to respond to God as he has
worked in my life. I have already made some observations about how I came to
integrate the elements that I described in section I. However, at this point I want
to express some shifts that I see to be pertinent for ongoing progress. The most
important is a reordering of the elements. I believe the order in which I listed
these elements above reflects in some way a hidden order of how I have
perceived the order of influence. Now, however, I must work to reverse the order
so that I put God’s influence at the first position followed in close order with my
freedom of choice.
The complexity of that relationship is evident throughout my life and by
raising this to the foremost position it releases me from the tyranny of the
“uncontrollable world” which is now shifted to the last position. In this position
the world instead of being a shaping force, becomes the arena in which the Lord
works to bring about development and growth in my life. This then becomes a
foundational principle as I seek to discern how the Lord is at work in the lives of
others whom he is calling to leadership.
A second observation is that while my bent toward spontaneity is more a
personality trait than an element of my philosophical under-girding, this factor
must be taken into account as I re-examine how I can do ministry in an effective
Christ centered and Spirit led manner. If leadership is in effect what Clinton has
defined (see above, p.1), then my spontaneity must serve the cause of my calling
to be a leader and not become a force that detracts form that calling. I believe
this can be done by consciously entering into the process of God in my life and
by developing those relationships with mature leaders that can help me grow
forward in ministry and the development of a philosophy of ministry that fits who I
am in Christ.
This last statement is a crucial point for me. In a general sense I know
that the Lord has been intimately involved with my life. However, I have found
that the positioning of the “life happens” idea has had a strong influence on how I
have understood the meaning of this. Because of who I am by the fact of
creation, I have more control of the destiny of my life then I have often supposed.
I believe that at this point I must shift even more consciously into this
understanding and together with the Lord, work out my salvation (my
development as a leader) for God is at work in me both to will and to do his good
pleasure.

8
Conclusion
As I conclude this project, I am aware that the need for evaluation is
critical for my progress. It appears that the tool provided by Clinton can be a
useful framework for further reflection. Here I have just sketched out the initial
results of beginning this process. It has been a helpful way to understand more
clearly the interaction in my life between myself the Lord and the world. We are
truly fearfully and wonderfully made.