Original Research

A study of Matthew 20:20–28 in relation to Pentecostal churches leadership in Nigeria

Daniel C. Unachukwu

Received: 24 Feb. 2024; Accepted: 10 Apr. 2024; Published: 10 May 2024

Copyright: © 2024. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Matthew 20:20–28 contains Jesus’ teaching on a leadership model that is anchored on selflessness, love, and servanthood. Today, when this teaching is juxtaposed with some Pentecostal churches’ leadership situation in Nigeria, it is apparent that the opposite is the case. Some Pentecostal church leaders in Nigeria have demonstrated a leadership mentality that is focused on selfishness, materialism, and abuse of power.

Objectives: The study provides a re-reading of Matthew 20:20–28 to reveal its implications for Pentecostal churches leadership in Nigeria.

Method: This study is a qualitative research conducted through a triangulation of a historical-critical method and in-depth interview (IDI). The historical-critical approach was used to study the pericope, while IDI served as a means of data collection from respondents.

Results: Matthew 20:20–28 paints a picture of servant leadership, which entails placing others above self, divine approval above human commendation, responsibility above position, contribution above recognition, and care above ownership.

Conclusion: The pericope pierces deeply into the heart of the leadership problems in some Pentecostal churches in Nigeria, and calls for imitation of Jesus’ leadership model.

Contribution: Drawing from the pericope, this study unfolds a biblical model of leadership that is crucial to lessening the current leadership problems in Pentecostal churches in Nigeria.

Keywords: Matthew 20:20–28; leadership style; servant leadership; Pentecostal churches; Nigeria.

Introduction

Matthew 20:20–28 focuses on Jesus’ teaching about a leadership model that is anchored on servanthood, humility, and service. This teaching was prompted by the ambitious request of his two disciples, James and John, with their mother (Salome) as their mouthpiece for chief positions in the messianic kingdom. The request, coupled with the subsequent indignation of the other disciples, apparently exposed their lack of understanding of servant leadership. Kapolyo (2006:1179) toes this line of thought when he posits that ‘their minds were focused on the prospect of seniority, authority, and perhaps importance and wealth’. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 20:20–28 deals with this problem and proposes that such a worldly leadership mentality should not be permitted among his disciples. The pericope teaches that a servant leader places the interests of others above self, and also calls for imitation of Jesus’ exemplary leadership style.

Such an understanding of Matthew 20:20–28 is relevant to some contemporary Pentecostal churches in Nigeria, where there are surging cases of ‘leadership tussles and egocentrism’ (Ngele & Unachukwu 2020:331). It is glaring that one of the myriads of intractable problems facing Pentecostal churches in Nigeria today, as put forward by Awojobi (2003:46) is intra-church conflicts and these are mainly caused by the attitudes of church leaders towards leadership. More so, research carried out by Martins (2015) revealed that in some communities, the Pentecostal churches have a bad reputation because of incessant leadership problems. Insights from in-depth interviews (IDIs) unpack some of the current leadership problems associated with some Pentecostal churches in Nigeria, such as love for money, ethnicity, and so on. Today, the continuous rise in leadership problems in some Pentecostal churches in Nigeria shows that some church leaders in Pentecostal churches in Nigeria do not understand the biblical concept of leadership. This study, therefore, attempts a contextual re-reading of Matthew 20:20–28, to reveal its implications for Pentecostal churches leadership in Nigeria.

This study is a qualitative research performed through a triangulation of a historical-critical method and IDI. According to Gorman (2006:15), the historical-critical method of exegesis ‘focuses on the origin and development of a text, employing methods designed to uncover these aspects of it.’ This approach provides a clear understanding of the text. On the other hand, IDI was adopted to gain a better perception of the problems associated with the present style of leadership in some Pentecostal churches in Nigeria. The study sampled four Pentecostal churches, which are represented as Church A, Church B, Church C, and Church D. These churches were purposefully selected because they have either experienced or are still experiencing internal leadership problems.

A total of seven respondents were selected from these churches and interviewed to generate data for the study. These participants consist of church leaders who cut across genders. Furthermore, the interview questions are semi-structured to allow the researcher to probe related questions arising from the responses of the interviewees. As all the respondents are literate, the language used during the interview was English, and all interviews were audio-recorded with permission of respondents. Some non-verbal cues and other relevant information were observed and documented in the field notes. Pseudonyms are employed to maintain the anonymity of both the respondents and the selected Pentecostal churches because the narratives cast a negative impression on the institution. Each interview was designed to last for a maximum of 30 min to avoid fatigue. All data generated from the aforementioned sources are presented descriptively in the study.

The sociocultural context of Matthew 20:20–28

To fully understand the action of Salome with her two sons, the reaction of the other disciples, and the revolutionary nature of Jesus’ teaching on servanthood as a linchpin for servant leadership in Matthew 20:20–28, it is necessary to investigate the socio-cultural background of the Jewish and Greco-Roman world of that time. In the 1st century, Jews, Greeks, and Romans all highly valued honour, and likewise, the avoidance of shame was crucial. To launch this argument, Pitt-Rivers offers her readers a thorough assessment of the concept of honour and shame in the ancient world. One area that Pitt-Rivers’s work looked at is the issue of honour in relation to the physical body. On this issue, Pitt-Rivers (1966) writes:

In the ancient world, honour was tied to the physical body, which was understood as a microcosm of the larger social context. The head and face were the most honourable parts of the body, and a person was thereby honoured by being crowned. In contrast, to slap someone in the face or spit on someone’s face brought shame. The less honourable parts of the body, such as genitals and buttocks, must be clothed if one’s honour is to be preserved. (pp. 116–117)

In a larger social context of 1st-century society, honour was usually attached to one’s birth, family name, appointment to an important office, physical prowess, or military success. It is in this context that Malina defines honour as the positive recognition of someone in the public (Malina 1981:29). More elaborately, Moxnes (1993) argues thus:

Honour is fundamentally the public recognition of one’s social standing. It comes in one of two ways. One’s basic honour level, usually termed ascribed honour, is inherited from the family at birth. Each child takes on the general honour status that the family possesses in the eyes of the larger group, and therefore ascribed honour comes directly from family membership. It is not based on something the individual has done. By contrast, honour conferred on the basis of virtuous deeds is called acquired honour. By its very nature, acquired honour may be either gained or lost in the perpetual struggle for public recognition. (p. 20)

From the aforementioned, it can be deduced that honour, just like wealth, can be ascribed or acquired. When wealth is ascribed, it means you did nothing to acquire it. For instance, one can be wealthy by being born into a wealthy family. Also, if a stranger gives you a billion dollars, that would be ascribed wealth. This analogy applies to ascribed honour. Being born into an honourable family makes one honourable. A notable person of authority can also ascribe honour to someone. Acquired honour, on the other hand, is a socially recognised claim to worth that someone gains by excelling over others in what Malina (1981:33) calls ‘challenge and response’.

The antithesis of honour, shame, has also been given scholarly attention. Neyrey (1998) and Tennent (2007) see shame from the optic of 1st-century Mediterranean society as a loss of respect or reputation and usually involves some kind of public censure. Bechtel (1994:80)’s argument, which has an affinity with the thesis of Neyrey and Tennent, suggests that shame stimulates fear of psychological or physical rejection (a lack of belonging), abandonment, expulsion, or loss of social position and relies predominantly on external pressure from an individual or group. From the ongoing discussion, it can be deduced that the idea of honour and shame are intrinsically inseparable from the 1st-century world. This relates to Hellerman (2001:37)’s position that ‘to remove honour and honour-seeking from the heart of the analysis of the ancient world would therefore be to render impossible a nuanced understanding of Roman social life’. In line with Hellerman, Jewett (2003:555) argues that Emperor Augustus’ leadership style in the Roman Empire ‘served to stimulate emulation in others in the quest for honour, which was thought to be supremely virtuous’.

From the ongoing discussion, one can conclude that the culture of the 1st-century Mediterranean world was built on the foundational social values of honour and shame. These social values, according to Hutchison (2009:67), were primarily expressed in ‘family structure (kinship); which extends to the public and private favours that patrons or benefactors bestowed on recipients in society’. DeSilva (2022:158) pushes this idea further by observing that ‘Greeks and Romans receive a basic identity from their larger family … This is even more pronounced in Jewish culture’. From these lines of thought, it can be deduced that the concept of kinship, honour, and shame, in the 1st-century world, is very relevant in understanding the pericope, especially with regard to the leadership challenge faced by the disciples of Jesus.

To start with, the audacity of Salome and her two sons, James and John, in their approach and request, can be linked to the concept of kinship prevalent in 1st-century society. It has already been established in the study that during that time, kinship identity carried a lot of weight and influence. Hence, comparative anatomy of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament reveals that Salome and her two sons were not just faithful followers and travel companions of Jesus, but may likely have been Jesus’ kins (cf. Mt 27:56; 28:1–8, Mk 15:40–41; 16:1–2, Lk 24:1–12, Jn 19:25; 20:1–10). So, Salome may have acted based on her familial relationship with Jesus’ mother. Thus, in Kapolyo (2006)’s words:

Mary may have reasoned that if Jesus was the Messiah, he would surely take the throne of his father David in Jerusalem. His claim to the throne would be accepted by the custodians of the promise of God, and he would rid Palestine of the Romans. (pp. 1178–1179)

Therefore, it can be deduced from the above line of thought that the idea of ‘it is not what you know but who you know that matters’ appears to be playing here. Salome’s role itself may not have been completely unwarranted. This is because in the Palestinian society of the 1st century, as grimly captured by Hellerman (2001:33), ‘the primary role of a woman in such a Patrilineal Kinship Group (PKG) society is to provide for male offspring in her husband’s family’. Hellerman (2001:34–35) advances this notion by citing two examples. Firstly, from a Jewish background (in the person of Rebekah), and secondly, from the Roman society during the time of Jesus (in the person of Livia, who was the wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius). In these examples, Hellerman extensively illustrates mothers’ direct involvement in the promotion of their sons to positions of honour and blessing. In his contribution, Henry (2007:1717) contends that ‘when Adonijah had a reasonable request to make to Solomon, he put Bethsheba on to speak for him’. Therefore, the concept of kinship may have been the basis for the ambitious petition by Salome.

Furthermore, in a culture that valued honour so much and sought at all costs to avoid shame, it is most likely that after hearing Jesus’ manifesto in Matthew 19:28, James and John, were determined to secure the most honourable positions for themselves by all means. To accomplish this, and probably to save themselves from possible embarrassment and shame, they decided to take the help of their aged mother, Salome. James and John may have as well reasoned that as Jewish culture accorded special respect (honour) to elderly women, it is most likely that Jesus would favour their petition through their mother (cf. DeSilva 2022).

Reading the text closely

Verses 20–24: The request for chief positions in the kingdom

Verse 20 begins with the word Τότε [then], which probably suggests continuity after Jesus’ prediction in vv. 17–19. It may also imply that it was an inappropriate time for the mother of Zebedee and her two sons to approach Jesus with the ambitious petition, bearing in mind that he (Jesus) has just announced his death (Barnes 1956). To circumvent the other 10 disciples and probably to appear innocent, James and John employed their mother to make the petition on their behalf. The word προσῆλθεν [came] is a third-person singular aorist active indicative verb derived from the root word προσέρχομαι [to approach, to draw near] (Thayer 2015). It suggests that Salome was in the process of approaching Jesus. Matthew also describes the manner of her approach: προσκυνοῦσα [kneeling], which according to Meyer (1884:76) is a sure sign of profound veneration, probably with a view of gaining goodwill from her Lord. Interestingly, she did not disclose her request immediately but first created an enabling atmosphere for the soft landing of her petition.

More so, in verse 21, it is important to notice that the verb Εἰπὲ is used in the imperative mood to connote a command. Hence, the proper translation of the verb Εἰπὲ should probably be ‘grant’ or ‘declare’ instead of ‘say’. For Meyer (1884:76), it is used to indicate that the matter at hand is very urgent and non-negotiable. In other words, Jesus must ‘grant’ or ‘declare’ her two sons, James and John, the rightful occupants of the two highest positions—‘at’ his right hand and the left—in the kingdom.

In addition, the ‘drinking of His cup’ (v.22) and the ‘sitting at His right hand’ (v.23) appear to be antithetical and diametrically opposite. The granting of one results in the refusal of the other. Jesus’ response may have shocked the very beings of the two disciples. This is because their master, whom they have believed would reign as the King and Messiah, suddenly says that he does not have the prerogative to grant positions of leadership in his kingdom. Nevertheless, it seems difficult to understand the meaning of the phrase ‘οὐκ ἔστινἐμὸν τοῦ τοδοῦναι’ [is not mine to grant] without connecting it with the following words οἷςἡτοίμασται ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρόςμου [but to those for whom my Father has prepared them]. To explain this, Macevilly (2020) succinctly posits that Jesus did not say:

I lack the power to give out these two positions’. No. What He is saying, in essence, is that it is not His responsibility as God the Son to determine who occupies such positions but His Father’s [Godhead]. (n.p.)

This implies that Jesus is still the grantor, but only under the conditions set by his Father.

The expression in v. 24: καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱδέκα ἠγανάκτησαν περὶτῶνδύοἀδελφῶν [‘And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers’], suggests that their meeting with Jesus was secret and the other 10 disciples were unaware of this. It is pertinent to observe that the indignations of the other 10 betrayed their selfish aspirations. Hutchison (2009) pinpoints that:

[T]heir disdain did not stem from their innocence, however. The Gospels list other occasions when the disciples discussed authority and greatness, and even argued which of them might be the greatest, (cf. Mt 18:1–5; Mk 9:33–34; Lk 9:46; 22:23–27). (p. 59)

The study concurs with Hutchison because one of such occasions was in the upper room where the disciples’ competitive desire to hold a chief position in the messianic kingdom was hushed by Jesus’ humility.

Verses 25–28 Jesus’ response and teaching on the servant leadership model

In vv. 25–28, Jesus called all the 12 disciples together and addressed their misconceptions about leadership and greatness. Verse 25 opens with Jesus’ description of the leadership style prevalent in the secular world. The word ἄρχοντεςτῶνἐθνῶν [rulers of the Gentiles] has been translated by different Bible versions as ‘rulers of this world’ (New Living Translation), ‘rulers of the heathen’ (Good News Bible), ‘rulers of the unbelievers’ (International Standard Version), etc., to show that the leadership style Jesus is describing in this verse is not acceptable by God. While furthering his discourse in v.25, Jesus explains that the Gentile rulers ‘lord it over them’ and ‘exercise authority’ over their subjects. Carson (1984:432) renders this translation more succinctly as ‘exercise lordship over them’, in line with the next phrase, which he (Carson) also translated as ‘their high officials exercise authority over them’. This confirms the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Jesus probably uses the leaders of the Gentile as a negative example because it is already well known among the Jews that the rulers of their neighbouring nations often display abuse of power. Taylor (2004:2) succinctly adumbrates that ‘the Gentile model of authority was based on arrogance and overbearing dominance’. Their leaders quested after power by all means and relished exercising authority over their followers in a domineering way. So, reminding his disciples about the Gentile way of leadership was tantamount to telling them that they should not imitate them. In other words, Jesus admonished them not to emulate the Gentile leaders who place self above others, and position over responsibility.

In vv 26–27, Jesus introduces a new model of leadership that is completely against the traditional understanding of the 1st-century socio-cultural concept of leadership. In verse 26, the two terms μέγας and διάκονος are nearly opposites. The word μέγας [great], according to Wiersbe (1992:145), is not used in this context to mean the same thing as the adjective μέγιστος [maximum] but to suggest a high and distinguished position. By implication, Jesus is saying, ‘Whoever wants to occupy a high and distinguished position among you …’ While explaining the second term, διάκονος, Thayer (2015:138) argues that the term is a derivative of two Greek words: ‘διά’—a preposition denoting the channel of an act—and κόνις [dust], which implies to raise dust by hastening. When joined together, it can mean a servant, a deacon, or a waiter. Hess (1986:544) lends credence to the term by asserting that διάκονος is used to ‘express the varieties of personal helps to others (i.e., serve, support, assist)’. He stated further that διάκονος is strongly rooted in voluntary and humble service to others. Hence, such a form of faithful service and help presupposes humility in the one who serves. Taylor (2004:5) pushes this idea further by asserting that διάκονος was later used by Jesus for himself in verse 28 as ‘an expression of his humiliation and giving up of himself for others through suffering and death’. This implies that the meaning of διάκονος goes beyond its dictionary meaning to signify Jesus’ humility and selfless sacrifices for others which ultimately becomes the standard of living for his disciples.

Conclusion of exegesis

Matthew 20:20–28 deals with the carnal and inordinate ambition in the hearts of the disciples as a result of ignorance and misconception of godly leadership. While addressing this leadership misconception, Jesus gathered his disciples together and gave them a lesson on a radical style of leadership that is based on servanthood, humility, and sacrifice. His teaching on this servant leadership model reached its climax when he used himself as an example of a servant leader and then called on his disciples to emulate him (v.28). This teaching on servant leadership provided his disciples with a new understanding of servant leadership.

Leadership problem in some Pentecostal churches in contemporary Nigeria

Findings by Aworinde (1993), Awojobi (2003), Peter, Oladunjoye and Funmilola (2011), Onyima (2013), Akinloye (2019), Ngele and Unachukwu (2020) and Adewale and Oyekan (2021), have already shown that leadership situations in some Pentecostal churches in Nigeria over the last few years were bedevilled with internal conflicts. Going over them again would amount to unnecessary rehearsal. What is in view here is to explore the reasons why it is still prevalent in the Pentecostal churches today. In an interview with interviewee 1 (pers. comm., 14 March 2023) it was discovered that one of the reasons why leadership conflict is still prevalent in some Pentecostal churches today is the lack of a clear succession plan. Substantiating this view, interviewee 1 bemoaned thus:

‘The leadership fracas between Rev. Chidi and Rev. Emeka over who would succeed as the General Superintendent nearly destroyed my home church, Church A. Church members were divided into three sects. One sect is loyal to Chidi, another to Emeka. The third sect was neutral. We, not only became a laughingstock to other churches, but also nearly lost all our members. All these dramas could have been avoided if there had been a clearly laid down succession plan for the would-be General Overseer.’

Similarly, interviewee 2 (pers. comm., 21 March 2023) argued along this line of thought to show that the question of who succeeds the General Overseer or founders of some Pentecostal churches in Nigeria often degenerates into serious conflict if there are no laid down procedures for succession. According to interviewee 2:

‘Generally, leadership succession in some Pentecostal churches often raises challenges. It is even more pronounced if the church is an indigenous church. For instance, in my Church, Church B there was a bitter feud after the death of the founder, Elder Ayo, over who would be the successor. Barely four months after his burial the church leadership was plunged into leadership limbo involving his wife and some of the church elders. As you can tell, the matter is currently in court. I think that this whole drama would have been avoided if Elder Ayo anointed a successor or drafted a constitution or by-laws that contained comprehensive guidelines on the qualifications and criteria for succession.’

From the ongoing point of view, it can be deduced that the issue of succession into a leadership position in some Pentecostal churches in Nigeria today often degenerates into conflict as a result of a lack of a well-defined succession plan.

Furthermore, some current leadership conflicts in the Pentecostal churches in Nigeria are often caused by ethnic predilection. Nigeria is a multi-ethnic entity, and some churches in Nigeria are made up of people from different ethnic backgrounds. This diversity often triggers conflict especially during the election into a leadership position. To sustain this line of thought, interviewee 3 (pers. comm., 15 March 2023) in an interview with the researcher argues that the leadership of her church, Church D, allegedly threatened to break recently, while ordering all the church leaders of South-East extraction in the Northern region to relocate to their respective states. This, according to interviewee 3, was a result of continued harassment of their son and the leader of the church, by the South East province.

Similarly, interviewee 4 (pers. comm., 12 April 2023) lamented the high level of localised ethnicity manifesting in his church. According to interviewee 4:

‘I have been a pastor in the Church C for more than 8 years now. I can boldly say that the internal conflict facing our church today has taken an ethnic dimension … despite our General overseer’s claim that Church C is not a Yoruba church but God’s Church. As you can see, every major project of the church is located in their [Yorubaland] place. For example, the annual convention is always in their place, the church’s university is in their place, the headquarters is in their place, and the board of trustees are 95% Yorubas. Even the overseer of my Province here in Southeast is a Yoruba man, the leader of the choir, financial secretary, and Youth leader in my Province are all Yorubas. Can you now see the root of the problem in my church? How do you expect my people [Igbo people] to take the church seriously? You can now see why the church is not prospering in my area.’

From the above scenario, it is clear that some leadership conflicts in some Pentecostal churches in today’s Nigeria are fuelled by ethnicity.

Another factor responsible for the current prevalence of leadership conflict in some Pentecostal churches is the love of money. It seems that one of the means of living in flamboyant affluence in Nigeria is to hold a church leadership position, especially in the Pentecostal churches. Interviewee 5 (pers. comm., 11 February 2023) lends credence to this during an interview with the researcher. For interviewee 5, today the leadership conflict occurs in some Pentecostal churches because people have their eyes on money and other material things. In furthering this concern, she submits that the resident pastor of her church in Church D was recently in ‘big trouble’ over embezzlement of funds meant for the church development.

Additionally, a lack of understanding of servant leadership has been identified as another major reason why leadership conflict is prevalent in contemporary Pentecostal churches in Nigeria. On this problem, interviewee 6 (pers. comm., 29 March 2023) observes that a lack of understanding was the basis of leadership conflict that nearly disintegrated her church, Church A. For interviewee 6, servant leadership consumes a lot of time, energy and resources and as such not what to fight or die for. If Rev. Chidi and Rev. Emeka in Church A truly understood servant leadership, there would not have been any succession issues.

A similar thought to the aforementioned is expressed by interviewee 7 (pers. comm., 23 February 2023), a dedicated youth leader in Church D. On his impression of the leadership conflict rocking the church today, interviewee 7 submitted:

‘You see, I can tell you that some of those church leaders are not ready to serve … they just want to be seen as the head without knowing that you do not have to be the head to serve God. For the Church D and other Pentecostal churches in Nigeria where you see leadership conflict, what I noticed is a lack of knowledge of servant leadership. Otherwise, nobody would want to be a leader because leadership involves giving out oneself so that other people can be comfortable and happy. It involves pain and sacrifices. The mentality of “if it is not me, it must not be him” is what is obtainable in these churches today, and it is devilish.’

From the aforementioned, it is clear that lack of a clear succession plan, ethnic predilection, love of money, and poor understanding of servant leadership are some of the identified factors responsible for leadership conflicts in the contemporary Pentecostal churches in Nigeria.

The implications of Matthew 20:20–28 for Pentecostal churches leadership in Nigeria

From the exegesis, the researcher can identify three major implications of Matthew 20:20–28 for the Pentecostal churches’ leadership in present-day Nigeria.

Servant leadership comes through the path of suffering and self-emptying

As seen in the exegesis, Matthew 20:20–28 paints a grim picture of a pathway to servant leadership, which entails suffering and self-emptying on the part of the leader. While Jesus was teaching his disciples, he referred to the ‘cup of suffering’ and ‘laying down of life’ which are core features of servant leadership. When this teaching is juxtaposed with the Pentecostal churches’ leadership situation in contemporary Nigeria, it is apparent that the opposite is the case; not only do some Pentecostal church leaders focus on their selfish interest but they also exhibit a leadership style that causes suffering and spiritual laxity among their followers. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 20:20–28 goes to the heart of those leaders and would-be leaders in Pentecostal churches in Nigeria who see leadership as an avenue for amassing wealth and exercising authority over others and teaches them that servant leadership entails self-emptying and suffering for the sake of others.

Servant leadership can only be granted by God

Matthew 20:20–28 has a very didactic message for Christians struggling for the position of power and authority. In the exegesis of Matthew 20:20–28, it is evident that Jesus’ revolutionary teaching pierced deeply into the hearts of the disciples who were earlier struggling for chief positions in the messianic kingdom, and provided them with a new understanding that it is only by Divine Providence that one can become a leader. Such an understanding seems to be lacking in some Pentecostal churches in Nigeria today because their leaders, in some cases, fight for positions of authority. Matthew 20:20–28 teaches these church leaders that it is God who determines who becomes a leader; hence they should always seek his face before venturing into leadership and also be willing to accept whoever God chooses.

Servant leadership is demonstrated through servanthood, humility, and sacrifices for others

As stated in the exegesis of Matthew 20:20–28, Jesus exemplified the core qualities of a servant leader. Although he is God and the Messiah, he humbled himself to the lowly and demeaning position of a slave to serve and save humankind. He not only discourages them from behaving the way worldly leaders behave but also encourages them to imitate him by focusing on serving others in humility and sacrificing their gain for the benefit of others. Such a positive understanding and view on leadership is lacking in some present-day Pentecostal churches. On the contrary, some Pentecostal church leaders have demonstrated a leadership mentality that is anchored on selfishness, materialism, and abuse of power. Instead of viewing leadership from such a negative angle, Matthew 20:20–28 not only pictures leadership as sacrifices and commitment to others but also as an unassuming posture and burning desire for service which should be embraced by all Christians.

Conclusion

Having evaluated Matthew 20:20–28 in the context of selected Pentecostal churches leadership in Nigeria, it has been established in the course of the discourse that the teachings of Matthew 20:20–28 hold promise for the Pentecostal churches leadership in contemporary Nigeria. In the pericope, Jesus teaches his disciples the qualities of servant leadership, which are directly contradictory to the worldly conception and practice of leadership. From the hermeneutics of the study, it was discovered that such a leadership style is lacking in some Pentecostal churches in Nigeria. Matthew 20:20–28 goes to the heart of this leadership problem. What is needed, as seen in the study, is for the Pentecostal church leaders in Nigeria to emulate and imitate Jesus’ leadership style, which is anchored on servanthood, humility, and sacrifice.

Acknowledgements

The researcher specially acknowledges all those who participated in the in-depth interview despite their tight schedules.

The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.

D.C.U. is the sole author of this original research article.

This research submitted on the above topic has been duly reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee, Department of Religion and Cultural Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. The Research Ethics Committee waived ethical considerations because this study is determined to be a non-human subject research, hence does not pose any risk to human beings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, D.C.U., on request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References