For Plato the greater good is defined as justice. This is not a theoretical statement. He holds that justice should be shown and understood simply by the consequences of its presence. In order to illuminate the reality of the goodness inherent in justice, Plato creates an illustration of the kind of social justice required of the city in order to better see the smaller reality of justice playing out in the lives of individuals.
At the beginning of this argument, Plato highlights Socrates’s crucial statement regarding the division of labor that is necessary for life in a city. A city begins because individual life is not self-sufficient. The rural farmer or herdsman must become a jack-of-all-trades and fulfill every need individually, which is time-consuming and requires multiple skills. Conversely, in urban life a natural division of labor and services developed that provided a means by which individuals could act together to share and trade their talents for the common welfare. Socrates suggests that a flourishing life is not possible if one is forced to focus entirely on individual needs. Instead, specialization of effort allows for greater effectiveness and efficiency, since, as individuals are “freed from other work to do the one thing [they are] naturally fit for at the right time, more work gets done easier and better.”13
Once cities are formed, city-states follow. We can say that the “public” is composed of the communal group of individuals who are affected by the consequences of certain actions and events to the degree that it becomes necessary and good for the potential results of those actions and events to be tended, watched over, and cared for. Since it is often the case that those who are directly impacted by these actions and events are not those in close proximity to their origin, it becomes necessary for certain individuals to be designated or elected as representatives. These persons are specifically tasked to ensure, to the best of their ability, that the “public’s” interests are preserved and protected. Here the position of a “leading official” is a natural outcome of the division of labor, and one is specifically tasked to oversee the functions that concern the general prosperity and well-being of those they represent.
Philosophers who probed the nature of the four basic human problems mentioned earlier, who contemplated their various twists and turns, also knew that the impact of these questions is not limited to individual lives. Nearly every potential answer also carries significant implications for societies as well. Our social arrangements—how individuals relate to one another in their spheres of life—need to be taken into account when discerning human well-being and acquiring the knowledge to act appropriately. This is especially true in what is termed an “open” society, which includes our modern versions of a liberal democracy. In “open” societies, people are allowed to choose and cherish choice in these matters. In “closed” societies the ability to discern the common good and to gain access to knowledge itself are often severely limited. Therefore, in an “open” system the important questions become: Who chooses and how are choices made?
The origin of public leadership, in all its various forms, is simply a historical development resulting from the recognition of the need to divide our labors in the pursuit of good and beneficial ways of attaining flourishing communities. Officials in government, law, medicine, business, education, clergy, and so on are leaders, spokespersons, and guides whose job is to preserve and protect the public’s best interest in their specific arena of community life. These leaders serve within a wide range of occupational fields that necessitate expertise, specific knowledge, and skill, also known as recondite knowledge.14
Our contemporary societies, cultures, and economies are as complicated and broad-scoped as our individual lives, because, in fact, we live in and either thrive or suffer through living social systems. As a result, a particularly vital issue that arises for modern democratic societies becomes who has knowledge, who has the expertise, who has the character, who can teach succeeding generations, who can protect, who can guide, and who can lead our public organizations in ways that position our society to achieve success? Where do we find these kinds of people?
WHO WILL LEAD US?
Some of the following questions are related: Do Christian leaders, professionals, and spokespersons have a responsibility (or even a right) to address social, economic, and political issues that concern the larger societal whole? Or is that none of their “business”? Are our institutions of higher learning, including Christian education in general, specifically undertaking to prepare those who administer in various ways—not just in those serving in pulpits, but those in classrooms, cubicles, boardrooms, courtrooms, at the front counter or the bedside, or on the congressional floor—that benefit the public welfare? Are our universities consistently or inconsistently producing men and women who are capable of speaking, writing, and leading with incisive depth, character, and wisdom in our society at large? Whom do we follow? Whom do we trust to lead and guide us, and why?
But these questions involve yet deeper and more difficult issues. In general, do spokespersons or leaders for Christ possess and bring unique and indispensable knowledge to the human world at large? Or are they merely advocates of certain traditional opinions or beliefs—dare we say dogmas and doctrines—in an attempt to motivate people to adopt a certain religious perspective? In particular, do Christian leaders bring moral knowledge and truth to bear on human life, and are such moral positions and attitudes (whether they amount to knowledge or not) even relevant to social, political, and economic understanding and the adoption of social practices?
Fortunately, the gospel, or the “good message” of Jesus the Nazarene, was specifically tailored to discuss and illuminate these very subjects. He not only focused on pursuing good; he also engaged the essential philosophical questions of his day, which centered on these quandaries.
In summary, we will argue here that the ethics and ethos found in the living reality of the kingdom of God are precisely what most, but not all, human beings want in the depths of their souls. Of course many may not be fully aware of their true desires. Individuals can in fact know something without being aware of their knowledge. They can know they desire to be loved and full of joy and not know that these very realities are indistinguishable from the character of God. They can want love and simultaneously not realize that God is love. Thus, the solution to Bono’s lament is to discover what we are looking for in the everlasting and beautiful reality of God and his kingdom. God’s original plan for Israel was to provide an example of what humanity was looking for. This is what Jesus’s teachings pointed to and manifested as well. This is what the entirety of the scriptures encourages and bears witness to. This is what the church in its more focused and intentional eras has pursued and produced, and thus it remains the primary challenge we engage here. Christlike leaders must continually recast the vision of what God’s kingdom is and can do in our lives and societies today, now, right where we are. We can leave the issue of perfection for later.
Many Christians today claim they have found, and are finding, what they are looking for. It should then be a natural consequence that those in close proximity to these individuals would be receiving the benefits and blessings of love, truth, and beauty that flow from the abundant life these Christians experience and share. Such a life is what Jesus described as an artesian well that spills over and nourishes anyone close enough to feel its spray (John 7:38). Such blessed people would gather, share, grow, invest, build, create, support, and enrich one another’s lives in every aspect. As a result there would be flourishing, common goodness, and peace for all concerned.
Through time and eternity this has always been the mission of God for humanity. This remains the overarching goal of any people called by his name. What we must promote are discussions of what such a reality must look like for leaders and shepherds pursuing it in every aspect of contemporary life. We must consider in fairly concrete terms what the kingdom of God looks like in our families, communities, neighborhoods, corporations, and institutions, which together form the kingdoms of our world. Discussions on these matters are now taking place with greater regularity and to good effect. The Missional