Stan Pelkey
November 15, 2025
Christian identity and leadership are grounded on two mutually informing foundations. First, God created human beings in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27). Second, we are called to become more like or imitate our Lord Jesus Christ. These foundations should shape how we grow, lead, and treat others. I unpack each in turn in this blog, and I argue that the most critical conclusion one can draw about Christian identity, development, and leadership is that we are called to move away from the “transactional” to the “fruitful,” and from the “fruitful” to the “faithful.”
God’s people have long emphasized the significance of being made in God’s image, but they have understood its meaning in different ways. Beth Felker Jones notes that theologians have tended to focus on either “substantial” ways we are like God through shared qualities with God’s nature (such as rationality), “functional” ways, such as how we are to relate to the rest of creation, or “relational” ways via how we interact with other people (and thus reflect the fundamental relational character of the Trinity). [1]
Prior to attending seminary, I had mostly heard the “substantial” view of the “image of God”: humans were thinking creatures, set apart from animals by divinity-reflecting mental capacities. Seminary coursework, however, has widened my perspective, with meaningful implication for leadership. J. Richard Middleton seems to argue that all three understandings of the “image of God” should operate in our theology. God gave humanity a mission in the Garden of Eden (to care for creation); this supports a “functional” perspective. [2] But creation care, which elevates us to be “a little lower than God,” requires the same wisdom, understanding, and knowledge evident in God’s creative work. [3] This is a more “substantive” perspective. Finally, God’s people are to be the “mediation of God’s presence on earth” and so fill the universe with God’s glory. [4] This is a “relational” quality. All three ways of thinking about the “image of God” have value for thinking about personal development, identity, and leadership.
The “functional” conception of the “image of God” effectively links with ideas about Christian vocation. For Steven Garber, vocation is embedded in God’s mission. [5] Furthermore, “a common grace for a common good” is the reason, aim, and end of vocation. [6] The common good “lights up” the “relational” aspect of the “image of God” and suggests, again, that when Christians holistically consider Scripture and God’s image, the substantial, functional, and relational cannot be separated easily. Thus, Garber repeatedly returns his discussion of vocation and the common good to the principle that “knowledge,” gained through education and experience in the world, requires “responsibility” from us. [7] Garber repeatedly asks, “What will you do with what you know?” [8] To live vocationally is to know the world and still love it. [9]
The Church has understood that our state of spiritual rebellion has damaged the image of God within us. Various traditions, however, interpret differently the extent of that damage. In the West, Augustine’s deeply pessimistic view has tended to dominate. Thus, Luther, for example, argued that sin has essentially obliterated our rationality and ability to understand truth. Contrarily, John and Charles Wesley taught that the image has been damaged, but prevenient grace is a check on that damage, and justification begins a process of restoration, as Carder and Warner remind us as they quote from John Wesley’s important sermon, “The Scripture Way of Salvation.” [10] Grace “prevents the total destruction of the divine image in us”; grace justifies us; and grace sanctifies us and begins to restore the image of God within us. [11] This is God’s gift to us; it is our goal, and it should provide leaders with a sense of all of us being God’s children. [12] Wesleyans understand all of this to be the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work in us. Restoration and infusion of love do not stop with imputed righteousness; a further imparting of divine grace occurs, empowering Christian disciples to become enfleshed channels by which God continues to work in the world. [13] John Wesley framed the positive influence of discipleship on the world through the idea of the individual Christian being the salt of the earth. [14] “Acts of mercy,” about which he consistently taught, help us to embody this “saltiness.”
The second foundation for Christian discipleship and leadership is the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Paul points to this when urging us to develop the “mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:5). Building on the devotional history of the Church, we can broaden this idea to “imitating” Christ, which is also grounded in Paul’s letters (e.g., II Corinthians 3:18, Ephesians 5:1), and from there, we can move toward a full-blown theological anthropology. [15] Beth Felker Jones stresses that theological anthropology—that is, a theological understanding of what it means to be human—should start with the Incarnation (i.e., rather than the Fall). Jesus, in perfect communion “with the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit,” became the perfect—the prototypical—human being. [16] Thus, “If we want to know what true humanity looks like, we should look … to Jesus.” [17] Doing so should “challenge” our “self-absorption.” [18] A robust Christian theological anthropology—and thus discussion of Christian identity—takes account of the doctrine of Creation (the “image of God”) and the Incarnation.
When we think of Jesus’ qualities that we should emulate and how those might shape leadership in our homes, communities, workplaces, and churches, we would do well to remember that, as Sondra Wheeler states, Jesus did not come as a “conquering hero.” Rather, he emptied himself and became a Suffering Servant. [19] Jesus models self-giving love and graciousness. [20] These characteristics have meaning for how we should treat others in our homes and workplaces. Furthermore, when considering Christ-likeness, identity, and leadership, we should remember that Jesus our role model invites us to model discipleship for others. [21]
Hopefully, one can begin to see why I suggest that the “image of God” and the “imitation of Christ” are mutually informing foundations for identity (including personal development and Christian discipleship) and leadership. I want to push more forcefully, however, toward what I see as deep implications for these realities. Writers I have referenced so far offer us big ideas, such as care for other, love, and graciousness. It would not be difficult to add a string of prohibited behaviors based on the Scriptural record. For example, as image bearers and Christ followers, we should take seriously biblical warnings against lying [22] and admonitions to tame the tongue. [23]
This is all good and true. But to be truly Christian and truly human, we must open ourselves to radical transformation by the Spirit into more perfect reflections of the Father. We learn to be fully human—and better leaders—by considering the very character of God presented by Jesus himself. Matthew 11:28–30 offers a foundational text. In the beginning of the chapter, Jesus discusses the history of violence against God’s prophets and pronounces woes against cities filled with people with hard hearts. Then, he turns suddenly, affirms that he reflects the Father, and reveals important divine qualities through assertions about himself: he is an inviting Lord; he is rest-giving; he teaches; he is gentle and humble; his yoke is easy. Given the implications of Christian Trinitarianism, Jesus is also teaching us that God is gentle, humble, rest-giving. If we are to become more and more like Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, then we, too, should be gentle, humble, and rest-giving. In my experience, however, most of us find it easier to avoid lying or cursing than to be gentle and humble.
Here’s the broader point I want to make: as Christ followers, we also must be open to the possibility that what we take for granted today as “imitating Christ” may need refinement in light of deeper familiarity with and understanding of Scripture and Christian tradition.
Finally, many Christians and Christian leaders continue to wrestle with sin manifested as willful human orientation toward ambition, greed, and power or allegiance to worldly lusts. In the workplace, especially, we often crave achievement and affirmation. Yet, as David Wright reminds us, “Human achievement, no matter how great, always brings a fleeting assurance.” [24] In contrast, Jesus offers salvation, but he also models a radical reorientation for living: the Holy Spirit is born within us and begins to transform and sanctify us into the very character of God. As women and men remodeled in God’s image and following the example of Christ, we must move toward becoming gentle, humble, and rest-giving. [25]
During the past few years, my Scriptural study, theological coursework, and grief counseling in the wake of my first wife’s death have converged, and I have come to see the journey of human formation toward a full, Christ-like identify as moving, step-by-step, from selfishness to transactional interactions, and from transactional interactions to a more loving, freely given fruitfulness, and finally from fruitfulness (which may still have an eye on “reputation”) to faithfulness (which focuses primarily on pleasing God). All of this plays out in leadership in our homes, communities, work environments, and churches. I think this journey can be summarized as moving toward becoming gifted gift-givers.
I ground my idea of gifted gift-givers on my reading of Jesus as he calls would-be followers and disciples to be fruitful. The New Testament defines this in multiple ways. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus repeatedly stresses that God’s people should bear good fruit (Matthew 7:16–20), do God’s will (Matt. 7:21), and act on Christ’s words (Matt. 7:24). In Mark 4, Jesus also addresses fruitfulness: he calls disciples to bear the fruit of light for others (Mark 4:21), measure-upon-measure of generous giving (Mark 4:25), and safe nesting for the well-being of others (Mark 4:32). In Paul’s letters, fruitfulness is constructed as “fruit of the Spirit” (which opposes “acts of the flesh”) (Galatians 5:22–25), as loving self-sacrifice and service (Romans 12; I Corinthians 13), and as “gifts of the Spirit” (I Corinthians 12). Although the “fruit of the Spirit” might be read as primarily about one’s own attitudes and behaviors, these gifts are said to be given for the good of the whole. Finally, in his sermon in Lystra, Paul notes that God has always left a witness for people by giving rain and “fruitful seasons” (Acts 14:16–17). This is a foundational statement about general / natural revelation, but it is also a foundational statement regarding the necessity of our fruitfulness as disciples: if we are to mirror Christ, who is the incarnate mirror of the Godhead, then fruitfulness / blessing others should sit at the core of our Christian identity, because God is a fruitful Lord.
John Wesley’s understanding of sanctification encompasses elements of all these ways of thinking about love and leadership as movement toward greater fruitfulness. Thus, I agree with Carder and Warner: as we lean into the idea of the divine image, our behavior and leadership will be shaped by “dignity, value, potential, purpose, and communion.” [26] But I see fruitfulness as having a more active and self-giving orientation. Nevertheless, I agree whole-heartedly with them: “The telos, or ultimate end, of leadership within the Christian community is the reign of God, the increase in love of God and neighbor, and the transformation of individuals, communities, and the entire cosmos.” [27] From a Wesleyan perspective, such (perfect) love is sanctification.
Leadership formation in the image of God and with the imitation of Christ in mind is, as Carder and Warner stress, character formation and personal formation. [28] Formation and leadership are at least in part about becoming more fruitful for the good of others. But, again, formation may require that we strip away received ideas about what is at stake. I spent many years just wanting God in my life to “clear the decks” for me in exchange for my “being (mostly) good.” I have come to see how idolatrous such a stance is. I am much more open to the reality that God is calling me to something very different as one seeking to imitate Christ. Thus, I appreciate Colón-Emeric for reminding us that Jesus, whom we follow and whose image we bear, exhibited a “radical openness and surrender to God” and “solidarity with the marginalized.” [29] This should suggest that there is some aspect to following Christ that moves us away from exclusion and toward inclusion and leads us away from the contemporary, Western, individualistic understanding of a “successful life,” which links such a life to “competition [and] excelling at the expense of others.” [30] Instead, the image of God leads us to respond to grace by addressing “[our] neighbor as a whole person, in both body and soul,” as disciples feed the hungry, visit the sick, and minister to those in prison. [31]
I will give Charles Wesley the final word. In a poem on Luke 3:11, he denies that works (our “fruitfulness”) are meritorious for salvation but emphasizes that they are acts of obedience:
Alms cannot alone, we know, / Cannot grace from God procure,
Yet at his command we show / Mercy to the helpless poor;
When our sins we truly leave, / We our neighbour’s wants supply,
Till to us the Saviour give / Food and raiment from the sky. [32]
As I read the Wesleys, our whole lives, including personal development, vocation, ministry, and leadership, must have dimensions that actively attend to the well-being of others.
Notes:
1. Beth Felker Jones, Practicing Christian Doctrine: An Introduction to Thinking and Living Theologically (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2014), 104–107.
2. J. Richard Middleton, “Image of God,” in Joel B. Green, ed. Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2011), 394.
3. Middleton, “Image of God,” 395.
4. Middleton, “Image of God,” 395.
5. Steven Garber, Visions of Vocation: Common Grace for the Common Good (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), 155.
6. Garber, Visions of Vocation, 18, 142, 156.
7. Garber, Visions of Vocation, 18, 86, 97.
8, Garber, Visions of Vocation, 53, 55, 77, 79, 82, 86, 142.
9. Garber, Visions of Vocation, 29, 139.
10. Kenneth L. Carder and Laceye C. Warner, Grace to Lead: Practicing Leadership in the Wesleyan Tradition (Nashville General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, 2016), 12.
11. Carder and Warner, Grace to Lead, 15.
12. Carder and Warner, Grace to Lead, 47.
13. Edgardo Colón-Emeric, The People Called Metodista: Renewing Doctrine, Worship, and Mission
from the Margins (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2022), 55.
14. John Wesley, “Upon Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount” No. 4, in John Wesley’s Fifty-Three Sermons, edited by Edward H. Sugden (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983), (I.7) (280).
15. F. Scott Spencer notes that “imitation of Christ” has been more strongly emphasized by “popular piety” than by church doctrine. He argues that, while “imitation” is grounded in language such as found in Philippians 2:5, the Gospels emphasize Christ’s call of “follow me” (398). As a result, for Spencer, “wholehearted” discipleship seems more scripturally sanctioned than “adherence to a set of characteristics or rules of conduct” (399). See F. Scott Spencer, “Imitation of Christ,” in Joel B. Green, ed. Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2011). Spencer describes Thomas à Kempis’s “classic” devotional, The Imitation of Christ, as “especially influential.” Spencer, “Imitation of Christ,” 398. Even there, Kempis quickly and implicitly interchanges “follow,” “model,” and “fashion [our lives on].” See Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, trans. Ronald Knox and Michael Oakley (Providence, Rhode Island: Cluny, 2024), ch. 1 (3). See also “follow in Christ’s footsteps,” Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, ch. 18 (8).
16. Jones, Practicing Christian Doctrine, 98.
17. Jones, Practicing Christian Doctrine, 114.
18. Jones, Practicing Christian Doctrine, 98.
19. Sondra Wheeler, Sustaining Ministry: Foundations and Practices for Serving Faithfully (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 3.
20. Wheeler, Sustaining Ministry, 10, 34–35.
21. Wheeler, Sustaining Ministry, 67.
22. See, for example, Exodus 20:16; Psalm 5:6; Psalm 12:2; Psalm 27:12; Psalm 31:18; Psalm 34:13; Psalm 58:3; Psalm 101:7; Proverbs 12:22; Proverbs 13:5; Hosea 7:13, 16; Micah 2:13; Micah 6:12; Revelation 22:15.
23. See, for example, Proverbs 12:18; James 1:26, 3:1–12.
24. David Wright, How God Makes the World a Better Place: A Wesleyan Primer on Faith, Work, and Economic Transformation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian’s Library Press, 2012), 29.
25. I appreciate that Carder and Warner touch upon issues of “title,” “function,” and “ambition” as risks to our identities (and effectiveness) as leaders in Grace to Lead, 48.
26. Carder and Warner, Grace to Lead, xv.
27. Carder and Warner, Grace to Lead, xv.
28. Carder and Warner, Grace to Lead, 34.
29. Colón-Emeric, The People Called Metodista, 58.
30. Colón-Emeric, The People Called Metodista, 43.
31. Colón-Emeric, The People Called Metodista, 45.
32. Charles Wesley, poem, quoted in S. T. Kimbrough and Oliver A. Beckerlegge, eds., The Unpublished
Poetry of Charles Wesley, Vol. 2 (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1990), 87.
