Here is a fictional response representing a furious reaction to the pastor’s letter from some of the younger women in the Ephesian church, using GLOBE cultural and leadership dimensions to critique the elder’s letter.
It is not designed to criticise anyone, it is written to illustrate how leaders can sometimes be perceived and received differently across cultural and generational divides.
Here we imagine some of the young women of the church in Ephesus criticising the elder’s letter to the church through the lens of GLOBE cultural and leadership dimensions.
Leadership approaches that seem appropriate to one group can create frustration and disconnection with others, particularly across generational and gender lines.
The young women’s critique focuses on several key aspects:
- Power Distance: They challenge the hierarchical approach and lack of inclusive dialogue in interpreting Christ’s message.
- Uncertainty Avoidance: They criticise the elder’s reliance on past practices rather than exploring innovative approaches to witness.
- Collectivism: They highlight the tension between the church’s inward focus versus meaningful engagement with the broader community.
- Gender Egalitarianism: They point out the absence of women’s perspectives and leadership opportunities in the church’s response strategy.
- Assertiveness: They criticise the diplomatic language that avoids direct accountability.
- Future Orientation: They challenge the backward-looking focus on returning to past practices rather than developing a forward-looking vision.
- Performance Orientation: They question the lack of clear outcomes and impact measurements.
- Humane Orientation: They note the failure to acknowledge diverse experiences within the congregation.
- Charismatic Leadership: They highlight the absence of inspirational vision that connects hearts to greater purposes.
Each critique includes “when you do/don’t do this… it makes us feel… it makes us think… because…” language to illustrate how leadership behaviours are interpreted through cultural preferences.
When you have read the letter from the young women, how would you pray for this congregation, for those who lead, and for the different groups within it?
Show attribution
wikicommonsElder Tychicus’s Letter to the Church
Esteemed Elder Tychicus,
We, the younger women of the congregation, feel compelled to express our deep concerns regarding your recent letter to the church. While we acknowledge the seriousness of Christ’s message to our fellowship, we find your approach to leadership and proposed solutions profoundly disconnected from our needs and perspectives. We offer this critique based on leadership dimensions that matter greatly to us:
1. Power Distance
Your letter maintains traditional hierarchical structures that silence our voices. When you present predetermined meeting agendas and speak as the sole authoritative interpreter of Christ’s message, it makes us feel invisible and undervalued. It makes us think our perspectives are considered irrelevant to church leadership because you’ve already decided what “forsaking our first love” means without inclusive dialogue.
Our preference: We desire lower power distance where authority is shared and collective wisdom is valued. When you fail to explicitly invite diverse voices into the interpretation process, it reinforces the perception that power rests exclusively with older male elders.
2. Uncertainty Avoidance
Your letter presents overly structured solutions and focuses on maintaining established practices. When you frame the solution as simply returning to “first works” without exploring new approaches relevant to our changing city, it makes us feel constrained by outdated methods. It makes us think you fear innovation and are unwilling to embrace the uncertainty of new ministry expressions because you value stability over effectiveness.
Our preference: We embrace moderate uncertainty avoidance that balances tradition with innovation. We seek space for creative approaches to witness that resonate with our generation and contemporary Ephesian culture.
3. Institutional Collectivism vs. In-Group Collectivism
Your letter emphasises our church as a closed community distinct from the broader society. When you focus on internal church concerns without addressing how we might genuinely connect with our neighbours as equals, it makes us feel isolated from the very people we should be reaching. It makes us think you value our religious identity over meaningful relationships with outsiders because you fear contamination from secular influence.
Our preference: We desire stronger institutional collectivism that sees our church as part of the broader Ephesian community with shared concerns and aspirations, while reducing excessive in-group focus that creates barriers to authentic engagement.
4. Gender Egalitarianism
Your letter completely overlooks the role of women in restoring the church’s witness. When you speak of “brothers and sisters” but mention only male examples and fail to acknowledge women’s perspectives, it makes us feel marginalised in the church’s mission. It makes us think our contributions are secondary or supportive rather than essential because you view leadership through a predominantly male lens.
Our preference: We strongly value gender egalitarianism where women’s leadership gifts, insights, and ministry approaches are equally valued and integrated into the church’s strategy.
5. Assertiveness
Your letter employs overly diplomatic and indirect language that obscures accountability. When you speak vaguely about “we” having failed without naming specific failures of leadership, it makes us feel frustrated by the lack of transparency. It makes us think leaders are unwilling to accept personal responsibility because you fear losing authority if weaknesses are acknowledged directly.
Our preference: We value moderate assertiveness where truth is spoken clearly while maintaining respect. We need direct acknowledgment of how leadership decisions have contributed to our current state.
6. Future Orientation
Your letter emphasises returning to past practices rather than developing a forward-looking vision. When you focus on recovering what was rather than reimagining what could be, it makes us feel trapped in nostalgia rather than inspired by possibility. It makes us think church leadership lacks vision for how the gospel might uniquely flourish in present-day Ephesus because you’re more comfortable with familiar patterns than emerging opportunities.
Our preference: We strongly value future orientation that honours our heritage while embracing innovative expressions of witness relevant to contemporary Ephesus.
7. Performance Orientation
Your letter focuses on spiritual activities without clear outcomes or measures of impact. When you propose meetings without specific goals for tangible community engagement, it makes us feel that we’re prioritizing internal religious exercises over meaningful service. It makes us think you value maintaining religious institutions over demonstrable transformation in our city because activity is mistaken for effectiveness.
Our preference: We value performance orientation that establishes clear objectives for our witness and measures our impact beyond church attendance and doctrinal conformity.
8. Humane Orientation
Your letter acknowledges the need for servant leadership but fails to demonstrate genuine empathy for the struggles of different groups within our church. When you speak of perseverance without recognizing the unique challenges faced by women, the poor, and other marginalized groups, it makes us feel that our specific burdens are invisible to leadership. It makes us think you view discipleship as a one-size-fits-all journey because you primarily understand faith through the experience of privileged male elders.
Our preference: We deeply value humane orientation that demonstrates compassion for diverse experiences and creates space for authentic community across social barriers.
9. Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership
Your letter lacks inspirational vision that connects our hearts to God’s greater purposes. When you reduce our “first love” to evangelistic activities without painting a compelling picture of transformed lives and communities, it makes us feel motivated by duty rather than passion. It makes us think you view witness as a religious obligation rather than a joyful participation in God’s redemptive work because you focus more on what we should do than why it matters.
Our preference: We respond to charismatic leadership that inspires through powerful vision and authentic passion, connecting our daily witness to God’s grand narrative of redemption.
Our Appeal
Elder Tychicus, we do not write this to dishonour you or undermine the seriousness of Christ’s message. Rather, we believe that recovering our “first love” requires the full participation of all members, including younger women whose perspectives have too often been overlooked.
Before we gather as a church, we request that you meet with representatives from all segments of our congregation—including us—to hear diverse perspectives on Christ’s letter and collaborate on an approach that honours all voices. Only then can we truly embody the servant leadership of Christ Himself, who listened to and valued those whom society and religious establishments overlooked.
With respect and hope for genuine dialogue,
The Young Women of the Ephesian Church