Communication That Gives Life to Leadership: An Exegetical Analysis of John 1:1–18

Abstract

The definitive demonstration of effective leadership is the ability to communicate with purpose in such a way that gives life to ideas and accomplishes organizational objectives. God’s message of grace to humanity was the Word, his Son Jesus Christ. God’s mode of communication is an example to us. As “The Word became flesh”—a living reality testifying of God’s grace—so must our communication have purpose and fulfillment. Because of its emphasis on building relationships through the communication process, leader–member exchange (LMX) theory provides a valid framework that describes how God demonstrated leadership and facilitated reconciliation with humanity through the Word. An exegetical analysis of John 1:1–18 considering LMX theory offered seven principles of effective communication.

1. Introduction

Scholars universally acknowledge that the Gospel of John is both accessible yet theologically deep (Borchert 1996; Carson 1991; Fredrikson 1985; Morris 1995; Osborne 2007). According to Morris (1995), “I like the comparison of John’s Gospel to a pool in which a child may wade and an elephant can swim. It is both simple and profound” (p. 3). Truly, what makes the Gospel of John so remarkable is that the author could communicate profound theology of the highest order with childlike simplicity. Perhaps Fredrikson (1985) captured best the intimidating task of expounding on the lofty prologue to the Gospel: “After brooding over the meaning of these short verses for months, I am more reluctant than ever to put my thoughts on paper. Yet, strangely, I am eager and compelled to do so” (p. 25). Anyone who feels up to the task of exploring the depths of the Gospel either overestimates their abilities or underestimates the task—or both! However, the seductive simplicity that clothes its profound theology offers an irresistible invitation to any willing soul courageous enough to try. In fact, the Divine Author did not give this book for it to remain a sealed mystery but instead presented it as an open book to all. It provides many practical lessons, not only related to theology but to other fields of endeavor as well. With that in mind, it has much to offer regarding organizational leadership and effective communication.

2. Background of John’s Gospel

Further contributing to the enigmatic quality of the Gospel is the mystique that surrounds its origins (Beasley-Murray 1999). It stands apart from the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in theme, content, and spiritual tone (Beasley-Murray 1999; Carson 1991). However, it retains a magnetic appeal to people from all backgrounds throughout every generation (Carson 1991).

2.1. Author of the Gospel

The consensus of the early church elders held to the traditional view that John, the son of Zebedee, one of the original twelve apostles, was the author of the Fourth Gospel (Beasley-Murray 1999; Borchert 1996; Carson 1991; Kruse 2017; Lenski 1943; Osborne 2007). According to early Christian tradition, John spent his later years in Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and distributed it to churches in the province of Asia (Borchert 1996; Kruse 2017; Roberts et al. 1885). Considerable external evidence supports the view that the Apostle authored the Fourth Gospel. Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of the Apostle John, identified him as the author of the Gospel (Roberts et al. 1885). Likewise, the church historian Eusebius ([324AD] 1953), who had access to sources that have since been lost, also cited Irenaeus, as well as several other ancient witnesses, including the Bishop of Ephesus Polycrates, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, to name a few. The Muratorian Canon (c. 180 C.E.) also reported that John was urged by others to record his Gospel (Beasley-Murray 1999). These are just some ancient witnesses that provide substantial external evidence for the Apostle’s authorship.

However, many contemporary scholars question Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, usually based on their interpretation of the internal evidence (Carson 1991). Pate (2011) summarized the nontraditional views as falling into two basic categories: the proposal that the Gospel was written by someone other than the son of Zebedee (such as John the Presbyter, Lazarus, or an ideal figure rather than a historical person) or that the Gospel was written by the collective efforts of a group—a Johannine school or community, for example (Brown 1966; Culpepper 1998). However, other scholars find support in the internal evidence for the traditional view (Blum 1983; Carson 1991; Lenski 1943; Morris 1995; Westcott 1896).

Westcott (1896) proposed five points of internal evidence that narrowed down to the Apostle: the author was (a) a Jew, (b) was from Palestine, (c) was an eyewitness, (d) was an apostle, and (e) was, indeed, the Apostle John. Carson (1991) explained that the first two points are beyond debate. However, the last three depend upon the beloved disciple’s identity (Jn. 13:23–27; 19:26–27; 20:2; 21:7, 20–22). When considering that the beloved disciple had to be (a) one of the twelve apostles present at the last supper (Jn. 13:23–24), (b) one of the seven disciples present in a post-resurrection appearance of Christ (Jn. 21:20), (c) was with Peter at the garden tomb following the resurrection (Jn. 20:2-9), and (d) was a member of Christ’s inner circle who was often linked with Peter (Mk. 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Acts 3:1–4:23; 8:15–25; Gal. 2:9), the likely person that emerges is the Apostle John (Blum 1983; Carson 1991). As Carson (1991) noted, “The internal evidence is very strong, though not beyond dispute, that the beloved disciple is John the apostle, the son of Zebedee” (p. 75).

In the end, alternate theories notwithstanding, a sizeable number of scholars support the traditional view that the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel, among them Borchert (1996), Burge (2000), Carson (1991), Fredrikson (1985), Keener (2003), Kruse (2017), Lenski (1943), Morris (1995), Osborne (2007), Pate (2011), and Westcott (1896). To summarize the issue, Carson (1991) expressed it best:

It is a matter, then, of accepting that solution which best accounts for the facts and which has the fewest difficulties in its way. It is for this reason that I accept the view that John the Apostle was the author of this Gospel.

(p. 24)

Ultimately, even though opinions may differ regarding the identity of the Gospel author, such disagreements do not diminish the impact and inestimable value of the Gospel itself (Beasley-Murray 1999).

2.2. Audience of the Gospel

Although, as will be explained later, the Gospel had a larger, more expansive evangelistic purpose, it also likely served as a significant source of encouragement to Jewish Christians toward the end of the first century (Keener 1993; Martyn 2003). Jewish people in the Roman Empire were exempt from emperor worship (Martyn 2003). However, following the war of 70 C.E., Jews actively rejected association with any sects that made messianic claims (Keener 1993) and therefore removed them from their synagogues, leaving them with no protection under the emperor worship exemption (Fredrikson 1985; Keener 1993; Martyn 2003). John wrote to these Jewish believers to affirm the Jewish roots of their faith in Jesus and to point out the error of Jewish leaders who rejected Christ (Keener 1993; Kruse 2017). Kruse (2017) added that the Gospel was also written to convince unbelieving Jews (especially those who spoke Greek) that Jesus was the Messiah.

2.3. Purpose of the Gospel

John stated plainly his purpose for writing the Gospel: “But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Jn. 20:31). Some believe John intended to inspire faith in unbelieving Jews to embrace Jesus (Carson 1991; Morris 1995), while others propose John’s purpose was to strengthen the faith of existing believers (Brown 1966; Ridderbos 1992). However, it is entirely plausible that the Gospel was intended for both groups (Borchert 1996; Kruse 2017; Osborne 2007). Furthermore, John may have intended to offer his Gospel as an argument against early forms of Gnosticism and/or Docetism, as well as antagonistic Judaism (Morris 1995). According to Eusebius ([324AD] 1953), John was asked to write his Gospel to account for times and events not mentioned in the Synoptics. Citing Clement of Alexandria, he wrote, “But John, the last, being conscious that external facts had been exhibited in the Gospels, on the urging of his disciples and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel” (Eusebius of Caesarea [324AD] 1955, 29:27). If nothing else, the distinctly spiritual character of the Gospel and its emphasis on the deity of Christ set it apart from the Synoptic Gospels (Morris 1995).

2.4. Date of the Gospel

Although papyrus fragments of John’s Gospel suggest 110–120 C.E. as the latest possible dates (Osborne 2007), most favor a sooner date. A few support a very early date before 70 C.E., since no mention is made about the temple’s destruction in Jerusalem (Burge 2000; Morris 1995; Robinson 1985). However, Irenaeus proposed that John wrote his Gospel while living in Ephesus, where he lived until the time of Emperor Trajan (Roberts et al. 1885). Likewise, as mentioned earlier, Clement of Alexandria considered John’s Gospel the last of the four to be written (Eusebius of Caesarea [324AD] 1955). Most authors seem to favor a date sometime toward the end of the first century in the 80s or 90s, which is in keeping with the traditional view (Blum 1983; Borchert 1996; Carson 1991; Keener 1993; Osborne 2007).

3. Exegetical Analysis of John 1:1–18

“In the beginning was the Word”: God’s message of grace to humanity was the Word, his Son Jesus Christ. God’s mode of communication is an example to us. Just as God’s word had an impact that reverberated throughout creation, it testifies to the importance of the communication process in facilitating transformation. Likewise, through the eternal Word, God initiated reconciliation with humanity, some of whom receive the message and enter fellowship, while others remain distant. And as “The Word became flesh,” meaning that as Jesus became a living reality testifying of the divine desire for reconciliation between God and humanity, so must our communication have purpose and fulfillment. God took the initiative to reconcile a fallen humanity to himself by sending his Son in human form, thereby providing an example of responsible leadership that follows up intention with action. This is a principle that has universal application in any organizational context. Empty words do not accomplish anything. Only that which is communicated with the intent to follow through accomplishes kingdom objectives.

3.1. The Word as Agent of Transformation (1:1–5)

According to Barrett (1978), each Gospel author intended to trace the origin of Christ. Whereas the other evangelists focus on Christ’s earthly beginnings, John hearkens back to Christ’s involvement in creation. In this way, John gives his account of the eternal character of Christ, and he does so by giving his recontextualization of creation. Whereas Genesis gives the account of God creating the earth, John tells of Christ’s role in the creation process. In so doing, he is communicating the nature of Christ (in his deity) and how God works in people’s lives through Christ.

For example, Genesis states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Gen. 1:1). The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the deep, waiting for the Father to release his creative genius. And then the Father spoke, and through his word, he created the heavens and the earth. In fact, the text says, “Then God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Genesis 1:3).

When reading this passage with Genesis 1:1–2 in mind, we see the Trinity present at the creation, acting (as always) in perfect unity. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. John 1:1–2 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God”. Genesis 1:2 says, “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters”. This describes Christ with the Father at creation accompanied by the Holy Spirit. Each had his function.

The Holy Spirit was preparing the earth for God to act, the Father created when he spoke the Word, and Christ was the Word that God declared, specifically, the light that God spoke into existence. As John observed, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Jn. 1:4). He was intimately involved in every creative act, for God spoke all things into existence. Christ, in essence, was the Word spoken by God. Because he himself is God, he is life itself. His life lights the way for all humankind. He is the source of light and life. Just as all things were made through him, all things have their being in him, whether they acknowledge it or not.

John said in verse 1 that in the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God (present with the Father and the Spirit at creation), and the Word was God (also eternally pre-existent, distinct yet equal in deity, and in perfect unity with the Father and the Spirit). So, according to John, “All things were made through him (as God spoke the Word), and without him nothing was made that was made (for God spoke all things into being)” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Jn. 1:3).

John also said that in him was life, and the light was the light of men. So God, who said, “Let there be light” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Gen. 1:3), was speaking life through Christ, and his life is the light for humanity. And in this way, God still works through Christ in people’s lives. Christ is the tangible expression of God who ministers life to humanity, and in this way, Christ still works in individuals, even unto eternal life.

Still, the light shines in our darkness, and God saw that the light was good. His light stands in stark contrast to the darkness, making clear the separation between the two, as it says in Genesis 1:4 that God saw that the light was good, and he divided the light from the darkness. In so doing, he created this visible, discernible contrast between the two. God saw the light—Christ—that he was good, and he is the very antithesis of darkness, that which is evil, corrupt, and separated from God.

3.2. The Witness of John (1:6–8)

The text says that God sent John (the Baptist) to testify about Christ. He came from God, so that means he was on divine assignment. In fact, his specific mission was that he should testify of the Light. He himself was not the Light, though he functioned like a luminary reflecting the true source of the Light. In this way, he benefitted from having a clear understanding of his mission. Because he knew who he was and what God called him to do, he also knew who he was not and what lay outside of his calling, recognizing his limitations.

As such, he was able to direct attention where it belonged: on the true Light that enlightens or gives guidance to every person. John was a witness whose job was to testify about Christ. The result of his faithful adherence to his mission was “that all might believe through him” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Jn. 1:7c). So his obedience led to others finding faith in Christ. The text makes clear that God sent John to baptize, and yet the religious leaders did not (or could not) acknowledge that (Matt. 21:25–27). God sent John to bear witness to the Light (Christ), yet they rejected God’s chosen messenger. It should come as no surprise that they would later reject God’s Anointed One also (Jn. 1:10–11).

3.3. The Distinction Between Believers and Unbelievers (1:9–13)

John presents here the supreme irony: the creation does not recognize its Creator. Those who should have recognized him and embraced him as one of their own rejected him. Why? Because the old paradigms were not suited to spiritual revelation. Recognition of deeds and accomplishments, along with natural human affinities, could not facilitate spiritual understanding. The old order of relationships was not able to recognize this kind of fellowship with God.

Those who should have readily recognized him and received him ended up rejecting him. As the Lord lamented through Isaiah, “‘I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against Me; The ox knows its owner And the donkey its master’s crib; But Israel does not know, My people do not consider’” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Is. 1:2c-3). However, those who did receive him were given place in his family, even though they were not originally part of God’s covenant people (Is. 65:1). Those who receive Christ by faith, God receives as sons and daughters.

As Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Jn. 3:6). To receive Christ as divinity, one must receive spiritual revelation (Matt. 16:17). Likewise, those who become children of God do so, not because of human effort or affiliation but because they have been born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:5, 8).

3.4. The Word Fulfilled Through Christ (1:14-18)

John wrote, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Jn. 1:14). As Barrett (1978, 153) observed, “it is precisely John’s assertion that the timeless (ἐν ἀρχῇ) Word became an event (σὰρξ ἐγένετο)”. God’s expression—his divine communication of love for humanity and his message of reconciliation—appeared in the world as a human being (Col. 1:15). He was more than just an abstract concept. The divine Word made his appearance on earth in the form of a person. Because of his divinity, God’s glory was inherent in him and radiated from him. The glory that he displayed was exactly like that of the Father, with its defining characteristics of grace and truth.

This stands in contrast to the glory that God’s people came to associate with God. It was impressive, august, majestic, and fearful, as displayed on Mount Sinai (Ex. 19:18–19). It inspired fear and caused people to avoid God (Ex. 20:18–19; Heb. 12:18–21). Yet the glory displayed by Christ attracted people to him because through Jesus they saw God’s glory as revealed in grace and truth, not law and wrath. In his testimony, John bore witness to the eternal nature of Christ, who existed not only before him personally but as the Word through whom God created the world.

Out of God’s divine abundance, God blessed humanity with an overflow of grace. He demonstrated grace on an order that had not been conceived before. His grace surpasses all other expressions of grace, for it flows from his divine, infinite nature. Moses gave the law, but human tendency stripped it of the balance of divine grace. The law became an instrument of distorted human legalistic reasoning instead of an expression of God’s holy character. Christ appeared to restore the grace that should accompany truth so that the heart of God may be more fully revealed.

This was revealed by Christ, “the only begotten of the Father” (The Holy Bible, New King James Version 1982, Jn. 1:14c). Though no one had seen God at any time, through Christ, all humanity can behold the glory of God. He has made known to all people the greatness and the accessibility of the glory of God. Christ—the Word—is God’s message to humanity.

A review of John’s prologue supports the idea that reconciliation was a part of God’s plan, from creation (and even before, as Paul asserted in Eph. 1:4) through the earthly appearance of Christ. God took the initiative to create a way to reach out to an estranged humanity, communicate his love, and facilitate a means of connecting with them, thereby developing intimate fellowship with them. Because of its focus on relationships and the role communication plays in building, leader–member exchange (LMX) theory provides a valuable leadership theoretical construct for exploration in light of this Scripture text.

4. Leader–Member Exchange Theory

Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, which was developed from the vertical dyad linkage model (VDL), proposes that vertical relational dyads lie at the heart of the leadership process, and through each vertical dyad, a leader pursues organizational objectives (Dansereau et al. 1975; Graen and Cashman 1975). LMX theory acknowledges that the quality of relationships that leaders have with their subordinates varies, and the quality of the relational dyads generally falls into two categories: in-group members and out-group members (Dienesch and Liden 1986; Graen and Cashman 1975; Graen and Schiemann 1978; Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021). While the relationship shared with in-group members is characterized by a greater amount of trust, mutual respect, and increased reciprocity, the relationship with out-group members is more formal and contractual, rarely going beyond the job description (Dansereau et al. 1975; Graen and Cashman 1975; Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021). Consequently, in-group members are more likely to demonstrate higher motivation levels and receive positive outcomes (Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021).

LMX theory developed further with the idea that, rather than assume followers (out-group members in particular) remain in a fixed dyadic relationship, leaders have an obligation to expand their circle and build high-quality relationships with all followers, a process described as leadership-making (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1991). According to Graen and Uhl-Bien, the process of leadership-making progresses over time through the following phases: (a) phase 1 is the stranger phase, which is formal and transactional, largely governed by rules; (b) phase 2 is the acquaintance phase, which advances to an increase in sharing resources and career development; and (c) phase 3, the mature partnership, which is a high-quality trust relationship.

The most recent development of LMX theory expands to the group and network level (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). According to Graen and Uhl-Bien, this phase “adopts a systems level perspective and pursues the question of how differentiated dyadic relationships combine together to form larger systems of network assemblies” (p. 233). The strength of LMX theory as it relates to this study is its emphasis on relationships in the leadership process and the priority of communication as a key element of those relationships (Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021), as leadership principles have universal application.

5. Application of Themes from Exegetical Analysis

Because of its emphasis on building relationships through communication, leader–member exchange (LMX) theory provides a valid framework that describes how God facilitated reconciliation with humanity through the Word. Each of the relationships highlighted in John 1:1–18 demonstrates the principles of LMX theory. Not only do the relational dyads figure prominently in the advancement of God’s divine purposes, but God’s ultimate goal in reaching all of humanity reveals his efforts at leadership-making with humanity. Just as leadership-making builds stronger relational bonds through the leader’s initiative by moving followers through its relational phases, God took the initiative to move potential followers into more intimate fellowship through reconciliation facilitated by sending his Son (2 Cor. 5:18–19). Furthermore, one could describe the Church as the larger system of networks that developed from the combined dyadic relationships with God and his followers through Christ. Also, because leadership principles have universal application, those listed here are relevant and appropriate for any organizational context and are not limited to religious organizations. The following principles are extracted from the exegetical study of John 1:1–18, combined with LMX theory, to present practical principles applicable for effective organizational communication.

5.1. Principle # 1: An Effective Leader Takes the Initiative to Establish Proactive Communication That Inspires Action and Accomplishes Organizational Objectives

Creation was the ultimate example of proactive behavior, and the spoken word was the medium by which God took the initiative to display his creative genius (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). In this way, Christ—the Word—was an active executor of God’s creative design. The result was the establishment of a material realm that provided a reflection of God’s glory through divine order. Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory provides a valid construct that describes the relational aspect of God’s divine activity. LMX theory places emphasis on the relationship between leaders and followers and views these relational dyads as the focal point of the leadership process (Dansereau et al. 1975; Graen and Cashman 1975; Liden and Graen 1980). The Father–Son relational dyad served as the medium through which God’s creative activity flowed. This provided a model for the further establishment of productive, interactive relational connections that accomplish key objectives (Dienesch and Liden 1986). In an organizational context, strong relational dyads remain the vehicles that facilitate organizational progress.

5.2. Principle # 2: An Effective Leader’s Communication Emphasizes Truth That Provides Clarity and Direction

As God brought order into the world when he created light and separated it from the darkness (Gen. 1:3–5), so the divine life in Christ became a source of clarity for humanity, drawing people to God as the true source of life’s guiding principles and truth (Jn. 1:4–5; 8:32; 14:6). Because of its emphasis on relationships, LMX theory prioritizes communication as the primary means of building relationships and strengthening the relational ties that lead to positive organizational outcomes (Bakar and Omilion-Hodges 2018; Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021; Yrie et al. 2002). Through Christ, God communicated truth that offers humanity spiritual guidance and moral clarity, while supplying the necessary support for life and fellowship. Likewise, providing support and clarity and cultivating trust through integrity are important ways that leaders can build positive, productive relationships with followers (Nahrgang and Seo 2016).

5.3. Principle # 3: A Credible Leader’s Communication Is Amplified Through Trusted Relationships

The text states, “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Jn. 1:6). This suggests that John the Baptist was a trusted figure who had a strong connection with God. A high-quality LMX connection flows from a strong relationship based on trust, respect, and qualities of good will (T. N. Bauer and Green 1996; Dienesch and Liden 1986). Communication is a key factor contributing to this positive relational dynamic (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995; Waldron 1991; Yrie et al. 2002). John’s relationship with God represents a strong dyadic relationship that had great potential to advance the message of God’s kingdom. Such connections in any organization are essential elements that foster positive communication, leading to productive outcomes (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995).

5.4. Principle # 4: An Influential Leader’s Relationships Established Through Clear Communication Have the Potential to Inspire New Relational Connections That Advance the Corporate Mission

John was a powerful spiritual influence who led many people to make their own connection with God. God’s strong relationship with John demonstrated the potential to multiply influence and impact through building new relationships and teams. A leader is responsible for creating the relational dynamics that lead to positive outcomes and also for extending organizational influence through teambuilding (Bakar and Omilion-Hodges 2018; Rahimić and Kovačević 2009). This demonstrates the potential for a positive dyadic relationship to have an exponential impact by building trust and extending influence to other followers (Anand et al. 2016).

Just as the intimate relational dyad between Father and Son provided the impetus for a connection with John the Baptist, John’s relationship afforded the means by which others can also enter a relationship with God through his credible and convincing communication. Although it focuses primarily on dyadic relationships between leader and follower, LMX theory also allows for the expansion of relationships into multiple dyads and teams (Anand et al. 2016; Bakar and Omilion-Hodges 2018; Graen and Uhl-Bien 1991; Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021; Rahimić and Kovačević 2009), thereby creating exponential influence through cascading communication.

5.5. Principle # 5: A Wise Leader Understands and Accepts That Not All Recipients Will Embrace the Message and Transition to the In-Group

Although the Gospel’s message clearly communicates that God made provision for all people to enter intimate fellowship with God through Christ’s atonement (Jn. 1:12; 3:16), not all people respond accordingly. Some refuse to believe and receive access to a relationship with God, even though he made abundant provision through Christ for all to receive such favor. LMX theory recognizes the reality that not all members of an organization will belong to the in-group in dyadic relationships with leadership (Dansereau et al. 1975; Graen and Cashman 1975; Liden and Graen 1980; Liden and Maslyn 1998). Although LMX theory has expanded to include leadership-making, a process by which leaders provide an opportunity for all followers to become in-group members, not all members choose to do so (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1991; Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021).

God saw the need of all humanity and provided the means through which all people could receive reconciliation with him (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 5:8). However, not all people choose to accept the provision God has made through Christ. Likewise, although leaders may work to provide a path for all followers to have in-group access, some opt to remain in more formal, out-group relationships with leaders (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1991; Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021).

5.6. Principle # 6: A Compelling Leader’s Communication Has a Positive, Inspirational (Redemptive) Quality

Christ, God’s revelation of his glory in human form, communicated God’s divine nature in terms of truth balanced with abundant grace (Jn. 1:14, 16). This stood in stark contrast to the wrath and judgment associated with God’s revelation on Mount Sinai at the giving of the Mosaic Law (Ex. 19:16–20; Heb. 12:18–21). God communicated his love and grace through his Son to invite humanity to embrace reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18–19). LMX theory proposes that leaders are responsible for creating relationships that lead to positive organizational outcomes (S. Bauer and Lim 2019; Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995; Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021). Through positive, motivational communication that inspires followers, mature relationships form with the potential for various organizational benefits (S. Bauer and Lim 2019; Liden and Graen 1980; Power 2013). In contrast to the limited ability of the Mosaic Law to bring about reconciliation of humankind to God, the Gospel of Christ represents an inviting message of love that better facilitates that reconciliation. In the same way, leaders who seek to build positive, constructive partnerships with subordinates can motivate them to achieve more significant results (Power 2013; Schermuly et al. 2013).

5.7. Principle # 7: A Resolute Leader Follows Through on Communicated Objectives

God’s ultimate message of grace became a reality with the appearance of the Son, Jesus Christ, in human form. In this way, the Father provided, in a very real, tangible way, his commitment to the reconciliation of humanity to himself (Jn. 1:14, 18). The definitive demonstration of effective leadership is giving life to a vision and accomplishing its stated organizational objectives. For leaders, a critical part of this involves developing people through mature relationships, who can then advance and fulfill the organization’s purpose (Bakar et al. 2009; Graen and Uhl-Bien 1991). Although certain aspects of God’s character had been revealed at certain times, Jesus Christ appeared and presented the fullest revelation of the many facets of God’s glory (Jn. 1:18). Through him, God was able to implement his plan of reconciliation with humanity (Jn. 1:12, 17). Regarding organizational leadership, the truest demonstration of effectiveness is the eventual fulfillment of the organization’s objectives.

5.8. Principle # 8: To Be Effective, Communication Must Be Incarnational

A key element in LMX theory is its recognition of the necessity for quality of communication to take place in relational dyads (Omilion-Hodges and Ptacek 2021). However, although communication plays a critical role in building and developing relationships, it can only go so far. The strength of the relationships lies in incarnational communication. It is communication that gives life to action. According to Proverbs, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits” (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version [2001] 2016, Prov. 18:21). Ultimately, the Word would not have had the same impact if it had not come to life in the form of Jesus. Likewise, meaningful dyadic relationships are the result of moving beyond communication to action. In this way, the biblical text enhances our understanding of LMX theory and its possibilities in the leadership-making process. Therefore, an added emphasis in LMX theory should be to move beyond words to meaningful action—incarnational communication.

6. Suggestions for Future Research

This article utilizes the Gospel of John as a valuable text that illustrates observable principles of leadership theory. Specifically, John’s prologue provides an example of how LMX theory can be observed in the text. Furthermore, it demonstrates how valid leadership theoretical principles ultimately have a basis in biblical truth. However, this effort merely represents a starting point. One suggestion for future research is to study additional instances of LMX theory in this Gospel or other leadership theoretical principles observed in John’s Gospel. Another suggestion is to expand a study of LMX theory demonstrated in the Synoptic Gospels and other biblical texts.

7. Summary

The simple yet profound wisdom of the Gospel of John provides a canvas on which truth of all kinds, spiritual and practical, can be displayed. In the Gospel’s prologue, a model of effective organizational communication appears as the various relationships are analyzed for their contributions to advancing their shared goals and objectives. LMX theory, with its emphasis on vertical dyadic relationships, provides a theoretical leadership framework that characterizes these relationships in an organizational context. In this way, the timeless truths of Scripture can inform effective organizational practices.

Through exegetical analysis of John 1:1-18, combined with an examination of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, eight principles of effective communication emerged: (1) An effective leader takes the initiative to establish proactive communication that inspires action and accomplishes organizational objectives. (2) An effective leader’s communication emphasizes truth that provides clarity and direction. (3) A credible leader’s communication is amplified through trusted relationships. (4) An influential leader’s relationships established through clear communication have the potential to inspire new relational connections that advance the corporate mission. (5) A wise leader understands and accepts that not all recipients will embrace the message and transition to the in-group. (6) A compelling leader’s communication has a positive, inspirational (redemptive) quality. (7) A resolute leader follows through on communicated objectives. (8) To be effective, communication must be incarnational.