It comes as no surprise that their study showed that serial entrepreneurs
display more leadership abilities than the average person.
Not exact matches
What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female
leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male
leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries
more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to
display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.
In this day of declining incomes, loss of jobs, and people working two or three partime jobs just to make ends meet, you would think that pastors would
display a little
more sensativity and
leadership to their congregants.
If our communities, education
leadership and policy makers
displayed more trust in our teachers, how would they respond?
I also argue that we need to think of informal
leadership as a practice ground for future
leadership work, whether that future be as a designated leader or someone who
displays leadership practice when interacting with colleagues on a formal and perhaps
more sporadic basis.
Schools where teachers perceived strong collaborative
leadership also
displayed more positive perceptions of school climate, and
more collaboration in both professional development and the delivery of reading instruction.
As a result, they tend to spend
more time onlooking (watching other children without joining) and hovering on the edge of social groups.8, 11 There is some evidence to suggest that young depressive children also experience social impairment.12 For example, children who
display greater depressive symptoms are
more likely to be rejected by peers.10 Moreover, deficits in social skills (e.g., social participation,
leadership) and peer victimization predict depressive symptoms in childhood.13, 14 There is also substantial longitudinal evidence linking social withdrawal in childhood with the later development of
more significant internalizing problems.15, 16,17 For example, Katz and colleagues18 followed over 700 children from early childhood to young adulthood and described a pathway linking social withdrawal at age 5 years — to social difficulties with peers at age 15 years — to diagnoses of depression at age 20 years.