"Headship", Leadership, and Spiritual Influence

One of the truths of life is that an organization generally reflects the character, mentality, and motivations of its leadership. This is true in governments, businesses, and churches. Why this is the case is uncertain and the subject of debate among psychologists, theologians, and those who study organizational leadership, but practical experience nevertheless bears this truth out. A probable explanation may be found in the Hebrew conception of the individual. The ancient Hebrew’s believed a person’s personality could extend throughout his household and have subtle and indirect influence upon it. A strong solidarity then could exist through the household so that it could be conceived as a psychical whole. Therefore, an oscillation existed between individuals and the whole. This concept of corporate solidarity and oscillation could extend beyond the individual and household to institutions, nations, and the world itself. Biblical examples of this would be the penal solidarity that existed between Achan and his household (Josh 7:16-26), the similar solidarity that existed between King David and his people (2 Sam 24), and that which exists between Jesus as Christ and his Church (1 Cor 6:13-20; 10:14-22; 11:17-34; 12:12-27; Eph 1:22-23; 2:4-16; 3:6; 4:4, 11-16; 5:23, 30; Col 1:1, 24; 2:16-19; 3:15; Rom 12:3-8). But such representation and corporate solidarity is not irrespective of the behavior of the individual. While God may visit the sins of the parents upon the children (Exod 20:5; 34:7; Num 14:18; and Deut 5:9), the children (or the parents) are never punished because of another’s sins (Deut 5:9; 24:16, Ezek 18:20). This isn’t a discrepancy. Rather, it is evidence of the spiritual influence the head of a household has upon shaping the mentality and behavior of that household, both for the good and the bad.^[1] This is why the Bible stresses the importance of raising a child in the ways of the Lord.^[2] Indeed, the shaping effect can be profound. Both consciously and unconsciously we pick up the habits, temperament, and even the sins of our parents. Those born in a swamp, raised in a swamp, and live their whole lives never leaving a swamp, often never learn there is something better than living in a swamp. The influence of leading a household can transfer to general leadership in leading a church or other institution. This is one reason the pastorals see good household management as a prerequisite for church leadership (1 Tim 3:4-5; Titus 1:6). Nevertheless, the influence of the leadership is not absolutely determinate for the behavior of the followers. These are generalities that can allow for particulars. Good parents can have bad children, and bad parents can have good children. We are all judged based on our own behavior. Even in Christ, while we are justified by faith in the present, future justification is based upon our Spirit-enabled works (Rom 2:13, 15-16, 26-29; 14:10-12; Phil 1:10-11; 2:12; 3:12-16; 1 Cor 3:15; 4:4-5; 5:5; 2 Cor 5:10; Eph 6:8; 2 Thes 1:11; Ps 62:12; Jas 1:22-25; 2:20; Matt 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23). It is the Spirit’s influence that is working through our freedom, sanctifying us in Christ (Phil 1:6, 2:13; 4:13; 1 Cor 15:10; Col 1:10, 29; Rom 8:2-27; Gal 5:22-23; 6:8; 2 Cor 3; Deut 30; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Jas 1:21; Matt 19:23-30; Mark 10:23-31; Luke 18:24-30).^[3]

We can think of headship in terms influence, having either positive or negative effect upon followers and the general environment. The head influences the body. If Christ is head of the Church (his body), then those in him are influenced by him and his Spirit. Thus, Paul can make the comparison between those in Christ and those who are in Adam (Rom 5:12-21) in which the latter figure’s sin caused a ripple effect throughout humanity, influencing others to sin and gradually multiplying and deepening the problem throughout history. More and more individuals becoming fallen heads and spiritually influencing others into sinful depravity. Leaders and influencers from parents, to pastors, to bosses, to politicians, all influencing and defining the character, mentality, and motivations of the organizations and institutions under them. Whether it is from family, culture, nation, work environment, or church, we continually adopt the thinking of our surroundings and being influenced into particular behavior. We unconsciously breathe in the air of the spirit of our age (see chapter 16). Headship of such collective bodies then becomes a determining factor in the psychology, culture, and Zeitgeist of the institution. An Achan or an Eli will corrupt his family. A David or a Solomon will corrupt the nation. A Josiah might have a positive effect, but an Ahab is more common. A Sam Cathy would bless; a Miranda Priestly would curse. You might get a Billy Graham, or you might get a Pat Peterson. Regardless, because everyone sins, everyone is a negative influence, though some are obviously worse than others. Nevertheless, a little bit leavens the whole lump (1 Cor 5).

Importantly, headship and leadership are not synonymous, but they frequently overlap because leaders generally have significant influence. A notable exception would be the Christian wife of an unbelieving husband (1 Cor 7:13-16). She as a Spirit-filled believer has spiritual influence upon the household, sanctifying the unbelieving husband and children. Such sanctification does not mean salvation upon unbelieving family members; it simply means that she has a positive influence upon them to the point where it influences their behavior in a positive direction. Similarly, while individual Christians may or may not be in positions of direct leadership, we are nevertheless called to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth, and vessels of the Spirit of God’s sanctifying influence upon creation. Because we are the body of Christ, in Christ, and his Spirit influences and sanctifies us, conforming us to his image, we are to be his positive influence in the world through love, forgiveness, peace, and truth, in engaging the Powers by Kingdom methods. Our behavior influences those around us, both positively and negatively. When we behave in a Christlike manner - his Spirit working in us and through us - we become headship sources of sanctifying influence in this world, extending beyond our personalities, into our families, businesses, churches, governments, and cultures. In this way, we are the Spirit-directed tools of Christ, sanctifying the world into obedient corporate solidarity with the King of Kings, so that God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:28; Rom 8; Hab 2:14; Num 14:20-21).

---

[1] There is difficulty in identifying what the spirit or the spiritual is. The Biblical imagery is that of breath or wind, but it seems to be the connection between the biological/physical (Gen 2:7; 7:22; 1 Sam 30:12; Job 12:10; Psa 104:29; Mark 9:17-25; Luke 8:55; 23:46; John 6:63; Acts 7:59; 1 Cor 14:14; 15:45; Jas 2:26; Rev 11:11), the psychological/mental (Num 5:14, 30; Deut 2:30; 1 Sam 16:23; 18:10; 19:9; Job 7:11; Psa 77:6; Mark 9:17-25; John 11:33; Acts 17:16; 2 Cor 7:13), the social (Matt 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39; Rom 8:16; 1 Cor 2:12; 5:3; 6:17; 2 Cor 4:13; 12:18; Col 2:5), and undefinable or ineffable. While the subject is beyond the scope of this book, this connection would explain the reach and nature of its influence.

[2] See the Proverbs, particularly 22:6.

[3] Note: This is not earning salvation through a Pelagian-based merit system but seeking it through a patient, Spirit-enabled living, freeing us to do the good works for which we were created (Rom 2:6-7, 10).

The Sin of Sodom

In Genesis chapters 18-19 we read the story of Yahweh’s destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain. The popular, traditional interpretation of this story is that Yahweh brought judgment down on the wickedness of these ancient cities, primarily due to their involvement in homosexual practice as exemplified in 19:4-5. However, with both advancements in serious Scriptural study and the relatively recent cultural changes in attitudes regarding homosexual behavior, it behooves the Christian to reexamine the Biblical teaching regarding the sin of Sodom so that we can better align ourselves with the will of God and the furthering of his kingdom.

The narrator states that the men of Sodom “were exceedingly wicked sinners against the Lord” (Genesis 13:13). But what was it that made their sin so exceeding that it required such absolute destruction? In Genesis 18:20-21, Yahweh tells Abraham what is about to befall the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah:

“The outcry [za`aq] concerning Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry [tsa`aqah], which has come to me; and if not, I will know.”

When the men who are sent by Yahweh to rescue Lot and his family make known their purpose, they state, “For we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry [tsa`aqah] has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it” (Genesis 19:13). The word “outcry” here is from the root za`aq and usually indicates the anguished cry of the oppressed victims, crying out for aid from injustice. The word tsa`aqah is used to describe the cries of the children Israel to God as they suffered under the slavery of Egypt (Exodus 3:7, 9). Yahweh warns Israel that he will hear the cries of afflicted widows and orphans (Exodus 22:22-23). Yahweh hears the cry of his people when they are persecuted by the Philistines (1 Samuel 9:16). God hears the cry of the poor and the afflicted (Job 34:28). For the prophet Isaiah, an “outcry” is the exact opposite of what God considers to be justice and righteousness: “He looked for justice, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold an outcry” (Isaiah 5:7). This puts the sin of Sodom within the social context of one people oppressing another (see also Jeremiah 20:8, Habakkuk 1:2; Job 19:7). As Nahum Sarna puts it, “The ‘outcry’ of Sodom, then, applies, above all, heinous moral and social corruption, an arrogant disregard of elementary human rights, a cynical insensitivity to the suffering of others” (Understanding Genesis, p. 145).

Sodom and Gomorrah became examples of God’s destruction upon oppressive people (including his own) and a warning that such continued, rebellious, unrepentant behavior would lead to permanent destruction (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40; Lamentation 4:6; Isaiah 1:9-10; 3:9; Ezekiel 16:46-56; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 1:7). Jesus himself used Sodom for the judgment coming to Israel (Matthew 10:15; 11:23-24; Luke 10:12; 17:29). It is only in Jude 1:7 that explicitly states that Sodom was punished for the sexual nature of their sins. “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them … they in the same way indulged in gross immorality [ekporneuō] and went after strange flesh”.

In Genesis, the form of oppressive injustice that Sodom and the others cities engaged in is left mostly in general terms, though there is a hint that it could involve slavery (Genesis 14:21).[1] Indeed, it is the general nature of the “outcry” that suggests that the oppression took various forms, a notion that should not surprise us if we think of this story in real world terms. The oppression a particular society or regime administers upon others usually comes multi-formed, expressing itself in various ways throughout the life and culture of the afflicted victims (see Babylon, Assyria, Rome, the Aztec Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Reign of Terror France, Revolutionary Mexico, Soviet Russia, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Vietnam, Cambodia, Communist China, Mosaddegh’s and Ayatollah’s Iran, Allende’s Chile, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Communist Cuba, Hussein’s Iraq, 1990s Rwanda, Taliban Afghanistan, modern Sudan, Chavista Venezuela, and ISIS).

However, it is in Genesis 19 that the reader gets an example of Sodom’s “exceeding wickedness [ra` in 13:13]” and oppression. The story is well known. The men of Sodom surround Lot’s house asking for the visitors who Yahweh had sent to rescue Lot’s family. “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them.” (v. 5) Lot replies by imploring them, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly (ra`a`)” and then, horrifically, offering his own daughters up as substitutes to the men. The men of Sodom scoff at Lot and tell him that they will do to him even worse (ra`a`) than what they will do to his two guests. If the Biblical writer was using this story to exemplify the social oppression of Sodom that led to its destruction, then the example of sin and wickedness he chose to use was its aggressive homosexual behavior which culminates in gay gang rape. A very shocking wickedness and the worse sort of sexual offense for a culture such as Israel’s which saw both homosexual behavior (Lev. 18:22; 20:13) and rape (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) as contrary to God’s will for humanity and examples of social oppression. This was the very antithesis of the hospitality and justice shown by Abraham in the previous chapter.

Such was this scene’s infamy that the author of Judges actually shapes a story in his narrative to echo that of Sodom. When reading through the book of Judges, one realizes that each story is getting progressively worse and the Judges themselves have ever-increasing character flaws. This culminates in Judges 19 with the story of a Levite traveling with his concubine. They stop over in the Israelite city of Gibeah (of the tribe of Benjamin) for the night and struggle to find lodging among its people. Finally finding room and board for the night with an old man, the subsequent meal is interrupted when men of the city surround the house asking for the Levite, saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have sex with him.” The old man goes out to the men of the city and says to them, “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly (ra`a`)”. He then offers both his virgin daughter and the concubine as substitutes. Incensed, the men of the city rape and humiliate the concubine all night long until she is left for dead. This incident leads to a minor civil war within Israel between all the other tribes and that of Benjamin who refuses to give up the men of Gibeah for punishment. The tribe of Benjamin was almost completely annihilated.

The scenario is similar: outrageous sexual violence and gross injustice leading to destruction for a group of people. The message is clear: the wicked tendencies of the pagan Gentiles are present in God’s chosen people, the bene Israel. Indeed, the sin of Sodom is endemic to all humanity. The results of that sin are inclusive. Woe to those who oppress. Woe to those who commit injustice. God hears the cries of the afflicted.[2]

---

[1] Outside of Genesis, there appears to be no uniform tradition about the nature of the oppression. Isaiah references a lack of justice (1:10; 3:9), Jeremiah cites moral and ethical laxity (23:14), and Ezekiel speaks of a disregard of the needy (16:49).

[2] The problem with the traditional interpretation of the story of Sodom’s destruction is that it reduces homosexual behavior to merely a sin of sexual abnormality. The biblical teaching goes far deeper, seeing homosexual behavior as a power of societal injustice and oppression that blinds and enslaves its practitioners. While all sins blind and oppress, some do so in a far greater and deeper manner than others. Sexual sins fall into this greater category. Such sins can warp mind and soul in profound ways, both of those who willing engage in it and those who have it thrust upon them. See, for example, the psychological results of those who have been sexually abused. In this way, homosexual behavior exemplifies the fallen nature of humanity enslaved through deceit and sin to idolatrous powers. This is why Paul mentions it at length in Romans 1:18-32. Indeed, the mention of angels in Genesis 18-19 indicate heavy “warfare” is going on behind the scenes among the Powers, and all we get is a glimpse like of that in Daniel 10 and throughout Revelation. See my article on "Principalities and Powers".