Musings on Leadership (9)
Publicly appointed representative leaders
67. There are leaders who are publicly ordained as “corporate” leaders and those who are recognized but not yet publicly appointed. These two categories shade into each other but there is a definite distinction between them. Publicly appointed leaders are those who have already been recognized as people of quality and character. (We see this with particular clarity in Acts 6:1-7 since the whole company was to choose out seven who were already recognized as having noble leadership qualities.) It’s obvious that if John and Harry are having a dispute they will not call on a very young person or a novice to act as judge between them. They would appeal to someone they both feel is qualified to advise and is impartial. The one they choose to arbitrate would have to be known to them already as one who has the necessary qualities for the job. Their choice of the man or woman results from their prior knowledge of them but a formal willingness to have them as arbitrators is an additional step. That's how it is with the choice of congregational leaders.
68. A leader leads as a consequence of character and inner moral power rather than as the result of an external mandate giving him authority to be a decision-maker. A person who has no depth of character or inner moral power may be (by some means) appointed to a place of leadership but central biblical concerns are dismissed when such a thing happens. There may be occasions when such an ordination can and should be tolerated but it should never be understood as the biblical norm or what we should ordinarily settle for. The authority of a good person is the authority of what we highly esteem embodied in that good person.
69. If we esteem Truth as a paramount reality, we esteem a man who is truthful and enables to us to develop a deeper love for and appreciation of Truth. We gladly allow him to lead us into the possession of more vital, warm truths. Since we esteem Justice as a foundation for right living, we exalt a man whose intelligent and passionate and costly pursuit of justice inspires us to be like that. So we ordain corporate (publicly appointed and representative) leaders because they embody the principles to which we all subscribe. They do it more consistently, more wisely and more conscientiously than we do ourselves. We reject a person as a leader who esteems and/or practices those things or views which violate our fundamental convictions of what is honourable and right. We follow a man who, to a marked degree, exhibits the characteristics we esteem most highly. We make (acknowledge him to be) our leader. [In the case of Christians all this comes down to a question of Christlikeness rather than conformity to some abstract moral standard.]
70. [We experience mixed feelings about leaders for these very reasons. Leaders may have our approval in some respects but violate our convictions in others. If that violation is too flagrant (perhaps his public character is too far below the status granted to him as a representative leader) or on too jugular an issue (maybe a doctrinal issue that we judge to be fundamental), we reject the proposed leader. We may canvass to have him rejected or removed. We just might take ourselves from that community in which he leads or is to lead.]
71. As there must be principles and objectives which regulate a community’s life there must be those who keep these principles and objectives before the minds of the people who make up that community. The community needs men and women who are chosen by the community, in accordance with the community’s purpose and principles and who embody those principles to a ‘better than average’ degree. (If they don’t do this to a “better than average” degree we don’t regard them as “leaders”. We think they're just like the rest of us with no special leadership qualities.) If they are better than average, when conflicts and disputes arise within the community, we judge them capable and trustworthy to see that the under-girding principles are wisely, fairly and compassionately applied. This is why “invisible” leaders are publicly chosen and given authority over certain matters. Their “visibility” is important—it stresses congregational acceptance of the leaders. (Be sure to see Exodus 18:13-27.)
72. Even leaders gifted and exercising authority in the same area vary in degrees of ability. Exodus 18:13-27 assures us that many men were chosen to do the same kind of service for the people. However, some were made to exercise authority over thousands while others served only hundred and tens. (Part of this may have been due to population concentration.) All these leaders were said to be able, God-fearing and trustworthy men. But some men are more able, God-fearing and trustworthy than others. This only confirms biblically what we see with our own eyes. It isn’t necessary, then, to expect every leader to be the equal of another though there would have to be a ‘lower limit’ by which we could indeed recognize an able and God-fearing man. We all know teachers who are competent and teachers who are much more than that. We all know leaders who are very wise and those who are like an oracle of God (see 2 Sam 16-23 and 17:1-14).
73. Within a "corporate leadership" group the lesser experienced and able men will pay special attention to the more capable men. We should expect this. It makes no sense to believe that leaders are all the equal of each other in every department. So that what is true in relation to the leaders and the community in general is true within the leadership group itself. The community at large defers to the leaders because they are more capable or more devoted. The less able leaders defer to the more capable leaders for the very same reason.
74. This pattern of allowing oneself to be persuaded by the wiser or more gifted person is written into fabric of societies. It’s true that under a democratic system of government each person is allowed to cast only one vote but it’s also true that some men and women affect the way thousands of people vote. A wise, compassionate, courageous and fair newspaper editor may vote ten thousand times as a result of his influence over his readers. Not only is that perfectly legitimate, it is one of the finer aspects of human society. No one is coerced into taking the editor’s view and so the reader’s vote is his/her own. Just the same, the reader exercises sufficient humility and sensitivity to allow himself to be persuaded in a given direction by the editor’s wise and noble counsel. Thank God that this truth is true within groups of corporate leaders in religious communities. The pursuit of truth was never really an issue of simply "counting votes" was it? (That evil men have been able to persuade people to commit evil is sad but true. Still, it changes nothing we’ve said about the influence of good men and women over others.)
75. Leaders differ in areas of giftedness and ability. Since leadership is related to one’s ability or giftedness, we should not expect all leaders to exercise the same weight of authority in all areas. In their deliberations those especially gifted in the areas under discussion are given a more careful hearing. If a doctrine is being examined to determine if it is heretical or healthy, the gifted teacher will be given a special hearing. If the matter under discussion is the pain of some disciple and how it can best be attended to, the leader especially endowed with practical wisdom or counselling ability will be given his place. There is nothing at all strange in this. This same principle is being acted on outside the group of leaders when the community chooses its leaders because they recognize their greater giftedness or experience or devotion to the community’s welfare.
76. We shouldn’t conclude because a leader is capable in organization that he is equally capable ‘in showing mercy’. The deeply compassionate man may be too impulsive (partly because of his great depth of feeling) and for this reason wouldn’t function well where an honourable diplomacy is required. It is no crime to confess that you are equipped by God in some areas and inadequate in others. This is precisely what Paul urged disciples to recognize in Rom 12. Before telling them to recognize the areas in which God had given to them their ‘measure of faith’ (i.e., their giftedness and role), he told them to recognize where God had not gifted them. See Romans 12:3-8; 1 Peter 4:10-11 and 1 Corinthians 12.
77. Since the Christian community has more than one need, it has need of more than one gifted person. And it needs more than many persons gifted in the same area. No one leader is able to meet all the needs of a community so where leaders are publicly appointed as representative leaders there should be multiple leaders and variously gifted leaders. See Deut 1:9-18 and Exod 18:13-27. (No doubt there are times and places where a single leader might have to ‘wear all the leadership hats’. In a tiny assembly, for example. Still, we would need to know that that really is what the situation requires. As soon as the situation changed, attention should be given to a change in the leadership structure.)
78. There is a clear pattern in the biblical way of appointing representative (or corporate) leaders. The biblical “pattern” is not an “exhaustive blueprint” where all the details—without exception—are laid down for us. There is so much common sense in the Bible’s leadership instruction that religious and non-religious communities make a practice of the biblical guidelines.
79. The Bible has numerous kinds of literature and one of them is called Wisdom literature. This literature wrestles with major questions thrust at us in life and offers advice on how to get along, how to prosper and go with the flow of things, how to understand a world built by a wise God and so, sharing his wisdom, we're able to get the most out of life. The wisdom offered in this literature is not of the “special revelation” kind where God puts his very words in the minds of the prophets or audibly speaks (as in the experience of Moses on Mount Sinai). Nevertheless, it is the teaching of God. Though it is God’s teaching it is learned in the school of life. Perhaps a few texts from Proverbs will make this clear. In 1:7-8 we hear: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching...” Then 4:1-5 offers this: “Listen, my sons, to a father’s instruction; pay attention and gain understanding. I give you sound learning, so do not forsake my teaching. When I was a boy in my father’s house...he taught me and said, ‘Lay hold of my words with all your heart; keep my commands and you will live. Get wisdom, get understanding; do not forget my words or swerve from them.” This ‘wisdom’ strain permeates the OT. As Jesus himself learned through the things he suffered (Heb 5:8, and see Luke 2:40,52) so God has taught people down the ages and that kind of wisdom has been passed on from parents to children. Should we think the world of business and diplomacy is totally bereft of people who have been taught wisdom by God in this fashion? The principles of good leadership are known to mankind at large. They are as often ignored by believers as by non-believers because non-believers have no monopoly on foolishness.
80. Leaders are appointed because the occasion requires it. In the beginning of any venture, religious or secular, leaders arise by appointment or self appointment. In cases like Moses (appointed by God) or NT apostles (appointed by Christ) there isn’t much to be said. Roles such as these are not taken on without appointment (Heb 5:4 illustrates the principle). Business ventures are different. The man or woman with the drive and the money exercise the position of leader because it’s their venture—they are self-elected. In addition to these obvious truths here's another: biblical leaders are appointed because they’re needed. So are additional leaders. Sometimes the job becomes too great for one person or for only a few. The existing leaders may lack expertise in areas demanding attention or they might judge that they must not be deflected from their prime mission— so they delegate. We see all this illustrated in Acts 6:1-6.
81. Exodus 18:13-26 sets all this before us with grand simplicity. Moses’ father-in- law, Jethro, watches him sit all day dealing with the problems of the people. The demand is beyond meeting and Jethro rebukes Moses for wearing out both himself and the people. He makes the common sense suggestion that Moses delegate authority to others; allowing them to deal with the ‘soluble’ and ‘bite sized’ problems. Jethro isn’t slow to urge Moses to lay this suggestion before God for approval (19,23). Moses looks back on this occasion in Deut 1:9-18 and admits what Jethro had convicted him of: the needs of the Community were too great for any single person to handle. In view of this, he urged the people to “choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you” (1:13).
82. Numbers 11:10-30 contributes to this picture. Deut 1 and Exod 18 both appear to deal with the incident during Jethro’s visit; Num 11 is a distinct occasion. The first two passages suggest that a much larger number than 70 were chosen while in Num 11 seventy leaders are chosen. Further, the choice of leaders in the first two passages seems to be immediately related to the application of the will of God (see Exod 18:16,20) to concrete matters of social justice in dispute. In Num 11 the leaders are chosen to act along with Moses in teaching the will of God which was to be the basis on which the judges were to settle disputed matters. This would agree with the fact that the leaders in this text received God’s Spirit and ‘prophesied’ (which marked out their area of service). This would further lighten the burden on Moses who (since advised in Exodus 18) was relieved of universal judgeship. Now there were other spiritual leaders who would share the burden of making known the will of the Lord which the judges would apply. The seventy men chosen were to be “known to you as leaders and officials among the people” (11:16).
83. Leaders are chosen by the community they serve. It was the people who were to be served and not Moses (though Moses benefited greatly by it). Because Moses wasn’t omniscient, it was left to the people to choose their servant-leaders. They knew who the wise, understanding and respected men were who would lead them best. You can be sure that the tribe of Simeon didn’t choose the leaders for Isachaar. The Benjamites would choose for Benjamin and Danites would choose for Dan. Those who know their people are in a better position to make sounder judgements in regard to their welfare. The common sense and wisdom behind this appeals to everyone. It makes sense and breeds contentment for a score of reasons. A church in Leeds can’t choose leaders for a church in Glasgow, a congregation in St. Louis can't choose leaders for one in Moscow. As a rule, leaders aren’t foisted on unwilling people. Where leaders are appointed contrary to the wishes of the people either an emergency situation has arisen or human rights are being violated. Apart from extraordinary circumstances or the violation of human rights, leaders are chosen by the people they wish to serve. That’s how it should be and it’s those people who will live with their choice.
84. It should be clear, however, to Bible believers at least, that when God himself makes an immediate choice of a leader (as, say, in the case of Moses), there is no room for (nor should there be a desire for) negotiation. If it suits God’s purpose to choose his leader without negotiations, that’s the end of the matter. In the business world, a man or woman who has the money to begin a business calls the shots (at least initially). Later, he/she might acknowledge inadequacy and hand over more and more authority to an employee but that would still be an act of authority on the part of the owner. (The ethical question about the owner’s right to irresponsibly manage affairs so as to create hardship for the employees and their families is another question for another time.) Apart from some qualifiers like this, the previous paragraph surely is correct: leaders are chosen by the community they are to serve.
85. Leaders exercise authority over their own flock. In Deut 19:1-13 Moses gives instruction about ‘refuge cities’. If one man causes the death of another he is allowed to flee to a ‘refuge city’ until a court case is held to see if the killing was murder or involuntary manslaughter. Though the text doesn’t spell this out, the slayer must have reported to the elders of the refuge city because he is given the right to stay there under their protection until the court case. When the case is to be heard, it isn’t heard by the leaders of the refuge city, it is handled by the elders of the home-town of the slayer (19:12). Numbers 35:9-34 gives additional information on this which indicates that the home-town congregation is involved in the judgement (35:24ff). They would act under the guidance of the elders (Deut 19:12). The thing to be noticed is that the judgement is to be carried out by the people who knew him best, who would be in a position to know of the slayer’s past record, his relationship to the slain and things like that. Justice is better served in that way.
86. The elders of the refuge cities don’t interfere in the deliberations of the home-town elders because the home-town people know not only the brute facts, they know the community’s tone and feelings; they know what would count for ‘evidence’, what would count for strong or weak testimony. They are able to interpret tones, inflections and glances so as to build up an accurate picture of things. It’s commonplace to observe that husbands or wives or parents can tell their children or spouses are losing a health battle even when highly qualified physicians can find nothing organically wrong. Intimacy enables one to see things others don’t see, to note changes in energy levels, sleeping patterns, interpersonal responses; to note a faint odour in the breath or a breathing deterioration which would mean nothing when compared with people in general but accumulate to significance when compared with this loved one’s well established patterns. To say all of this is to repeat the obvious but it’s the ‘obvious’ that often eludes us when we wish to make fundamentally serious decisions for people with whom we have no intimacy. Note Acts 20:28 and 1 Pet 5:2. (There’s got to be some kind of message here for 20th century church leaders.)
Still, refusing to call on known wise men or women outside our own locality for advice and guidance has to be a losing policy.
87. Existing leadership helps the community to choose its leaders. The important word in that sentence is “helps”. In the OT incident we just looked at and in the Acts 6:1-7 affair, existing leadership gave the community guidelines within which to work. In both these cases, the existing leadership urged that certain people be excluded from leadership—those who were lacking in wisdom, understanding or whose reputation wasn’t established. It was to the community’s advantage to seek out the right kind of person, of course, but they were reminded that persons other than described should not be appointed. It is experienced and wise people who are able to distinguish the wise and devoted people from the opportunistic and self-serving.
88. Leaders have been recognized and formally adopted by the assembly because of their devotion to God and the assembly and it’s for this reason that they are allowed to have serious input in the selection of additional leaders. It hardly makes sense to adopt as leaders men who have wisdom and then forbid them to exercise that wisdom in the choosing out of additional leaders. If these men are sufficiently wise and caring to be chosen to lead they must surely be sufficiently wise to give guidance in the selection of additional guides.
89. This would be a good place to ask: In a religious community, should corporate leaders be voted in? The answer should be a barely qualified No! The consistent biblical testimony is that the Community is to be guided by the gifted, experienced, wise and devoted citizens. The very idea that an inexperienced boy should have voting power equal to that of an experienced and devoted disciple is nonsense. The view that a disciple, well known for his lack of judgement, should have voting power equal to that of a disciple known for his wisdom, makes no sense at all. The notion that a member of an assembly who rarely involves himself, only occasionally attends assemblies, avoids the ‘business meetings’ and shows an all-round lack of interest in congregational affairs and aims— the notion that he should have the power to veto the voice of one who is unlike him in all the ways mentioned is totally unacceptable to common sense much less biblical instruction. So the appointment of representative leaders should never be a matter of simply voting. The people must be allowed to have a voice about their representative leaders and there are numerous ways to allow that voice to be heard without there being a simple “voting system”. There may be uncommon occasions when some form of ‘voting system’ would be used but these would be exceptional and should not offset the ‘rule’. On the occasion when a simple counting of votes would settle an issue, it would be wisdom which would decide ahead of time that voting was right for that particular occasion.
90. Nevertheless, while existing leaders help the assembly to choose additional leaders, the assembly must be allowed its voice. The very idea that elected “officials” (trustees, elders, politicians, or the like) should be self-perpetuating and exclude the people whom they profess to serve from any kind of voice in the ongoing selection process is autocracy. We expect this kind of thing in totalitarian governments or in religious cults but it is expressly condemned by the Christ in Matt 22. The centralizing of power in the hands of a few was a central aspect of the evil in requesting a monarchy in 1 Sam 8. The temptation to hog power is strong and the ‘good reasons’ which are given to keep the people voiceless come easily to those hogging the power. In a recent exhibition of power hogging I heard remarks like: “Who is there but ourselves?” And: “The only one who dreams ‘dreams’ in our assembly is myself.” In a discussion which was to look at the possibility of broadening the base of “decision making” and “power sharing” not one person in the whole Community was thought fit to participate in the process. Amazing! Keeping the people uninformed and powerless is often blind arrogance. The “leaders” feel they “know what’s best” for the people, don’t you see. Nevertheless, we must allow the people a voice and that is what we read in both Testaments!
91. The leaders appointed are given authority over others. Once the choice has been made, in keeping with the instructions given by God, the leaders have the power to make decisions and call for cooperation and submission to their wise dealing with the matters falling within the province of their appointment. If a community does not have someone ‘in charge’ it goes about its business with the precision of a road accident. There is a need for a community of people to know that someone is in charge then they should be held accountable. But if they are to be held accountable they must be permitted to be in charge. That need varies in intensity depending on the size and complexity of the community. (We see this with particular clarity when we compare Acts 6:1-6 with Exodus 18:13-27.)
92. Moses appointed wise men “over” the people and “to have authority over” them (Deut 1:13,15) and he urges them not to be “afraid of any man” (1:17) but to do their job as God’s men. The advice given by Jethro worked so well that it was embodied as a piece of permanent legislation (Deut 16:18-20). These leaders “judged the people” (16:18). They were given authority over people. In Acts 6:3 the power to decide in the matter of a just food distribution was placed in the hands of the seven. They were appointed “over” the business (see the KJV or ASV). It’s abundantly clear that, since the community gladly chose these men and they were given charge of it that there would be no referendum every time a decision was handed down. Timothy was an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5) but he was also a special envoy of the apostle Paul (1 Tim 1:3; 3:14-15) and Paul urges him to exercise the authority given to him as such an envoy. (Because Timothy was a special envoy of Paul as well as an ‘evangelist’, we can’t assume that everything Paul commits to Timothy comes under the job description of an evangelist.) Titus, another close companion of Paul, was probably an evangelist but he too was certainly a special envoy of the apostle (at Corinth and Crete, for example). Titus is called to exercise ‘command’ (authority—Titus 2:15). In an age when individualism is almost regarded as a synonym for freedom people don’t like the idea of people having authority over them. But the Bible is completely forthright about the fact that God not only approves of it, he calls for it!
93. Here is one of the tragic side-effects of “lording it over” people. It isn’t only evil in itself for it undermines wise, lawful and loving authority. It gives those who are inclined to gripe, ammunition to war against godly power. It makes people gun-shy and takes their eyes of the healthy exercise of authority and rivets them on tyranny calling itself leadership. Anarchy and fragmentation are the fruits of this. (You need only to look at what has and what’s happening in eastern Europe to see this illustrated. An understandable reaction to years of imposed rule and harsh treatment has been the rush to establish independence. In the mad scramble for independence, fragmentation is occurring and brings with it much suffering. And you need look no farther than your religious newspaper to see it can happen in churches.)
94. To discuss this “power over others” concept without placing it (where it belongs) in the context of the qualities of the leaders and the community’s glad choice er them. But the Bible is completely forthright about the fact that God not only approves of it, he calls for it!
93. Here is one of the tragic side-effects of “lording it over” people. It isn’t only evil in itself for it undermines wise, lawful and loving authority. It gives those who are inclined to gripe, ammunition to war against godly power. It makes people gun-shy and takes their eyes of the healthy exercise of authority and rivets them on tyranny calling itself leadership. Anarchy and fragmentation are the fruits of this. (You need only to look at what has and what’s happening in eastern Europe to see this illustrated. An understandable reaction to years of imposed rule and harsh treatment has been the rush to establish independence. In the mad scramble for independence, fragmentation is occurring and brings with it much suffering. And you need look no farther than your religious newspaper to see it can happen in churches.)
94. To discuss this “power over others” concept without placing it (where it belongs) in the context of the qualities of the leaders and the community’s glad choice of them, is to rob the concept of its biblical character. When the leaders are elected and are honourably pursuing noble ends, they really do have God’s authority behind them and they must be viewed in this light. Deut 17:12-13 offers a stern warning about contempt toward God’s leaders. 2 Peter 2 and the book of Jude have blunt things to say about people who will not be submissive. This is a sensitive area and there are horror stories to be told at both extremes. There are men who gained power and became ‘little Stalins’ even as there are proud and self-willed people who insist that their opinions shape the policy of the church. To allow specific incidents of either of these to offset the balanced biblical instruction leads to chaos and fragmentation.
95. In the U.K., a few years back, there was a call for a referendum regarding Britain’s entrance into the exchange rate mechanism of the ‘European Community’. No referendum was carried out. “Referendum” is usually regarded as government abdication, the “refusal to govern.” It makes no sense for duly elected government officials to side step making decisions by appealing to all the electorate every time a serious decision must be made. It’s the responsibility of government to govern! The reason these officials are elected is because of their expertise, wisdom and commitment to the nation’s welfare. To refuse to carry out that role and ask the nation to decide by a show of hands is to abdicate responsibility. To allow a vocal minority to stampede a community or a congregation of people into a referendum each time a decision is to be made which might not please them, is a serious mistake. It’s true, of course, that the balance between the voice of the people and the voice of those elected for the people is sometimes hard to find. Difficulties like this led Churchill to say something to the effect that: Democracy is the worst possible form of government except for all the rest. God knows all about the difficulties people have in finding balance but he still established biblical leadership on the terms we’ve been discussing so we’ll have to live with the challenges. To dismiss Beethoven or Shakespeare because we know people who butcher their works makes no sense and to dismiss biblical teaching because we know people who abuse it is also senseless.
96. The appointed leaders are servants of the people. However difficult it might be for us to equate servants with leaders, we must recognize that leading is just another form of serving. “If any one wants to be first,” said the Christ (Mark 9:35), “he must be the very last, the servant of all.” In a discussion about biblical authority (and therefore biblical ‘greatness’), the Master said his disciples were to be different from what was usual in the political systems of the world. They were not to ‘lord it over’ people. If they wished to be great they were to be ministers one of another, if they wished to be first they were to be servants one of another (see Matt 20:20-28 and Mark 10:35-45).
97. We don’t choose leaders just so they can call the shots. We choose people we believe can serve us. If our hearts are affected by the Christ, we want people to help us grow into his likeness and further the aims he cherishes. We want a math teacher to free us from math ignorance and enrich us in that area. We want history teachers to awaken us from an ‘historical slumber’, to deepen and sensitize us in that discipline. We choose shepherds and Bible-teachers to protect and guide us and our children while we pursue a deeper affection for and greater loyalty to the Master.
98. People like this didn’t seize power over us, they win it by their way of life and their giftedness. They win it by their manifest love for us and what they are doing. We recognize them as helpers, as people who are ministering to our needs, as men and women who serve us. In our better moments we know this very well. We’ve all had occasion in our lives to thank God for some teacher because of how she has changed and deepened our friends and family. We’ve all been thrilled by a statesman who (sometimes at great cost) brought dignity and freedom to a nation. Such people serve us and what’s more, they mean to serve us. And they serve us by taking the lead, they do it ‘from the front’. (Of course, thank God, there are those who do us inestimable service without even being recognized. It was George Eliot who said: “The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who have lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited graves.”
99. It’s for the leaders and the led alike to recognize that honourable authority honourably exercised is one of the world’s grand acts of service. God gave Christ all authority because he made himself the servant of all, thus demonstrating that he knew what power was truly for (see Phil 2:5-11).of them, is to rob the concept of its biblical character. When the leaders are elected and are honourably pursuing noble ends, they really do have God’s authority behind them and they must be viewed in this light. Deut 17:12-13 offers a stern warning about contempt toward God’s leaders. 2 Peter 2 and the book of Jude have blunt things to say about people who will not be submissive. This is a sensitive area and there are horror stories to be told at both extremes. There are men who gained power and became ‘little Stalins’ even as there are proud and self-willed people who insist that their opinions shape the policy of the church. To allow specific incidents of either of these to offset the balanced biblical instruction leads to chaos and fragmentation.
95. In the U.K., a few years back, there was a call for a referendum regarding Britain’s entrance into the exchange rate mechanism of the ‘European Community’. No referendum was carried out. “Referendum” is usually regarded as government abdication, the “refusal to govern.” It makes no sense for duly elected government officials to side step making decisions by appealing to all the electorate every time a serious decision must be made. It’s the responsibility of government to govern! The reason these officials are elected is because of their expertise, wisdom and commitment to the nation’s welfare. To refuse to carry out that role and ask the nation to decide by a show of hands is to abdicate responsibility. To allower them. But the Bible is completely forthright about the fact that God not only approves of it, he calls for it!
93. Here is one of the tragic side-effects of “lording it over” people. It isn’t only evil in itself for it undermines wise, lawful and loving authority. It gives those who are inclined to gripe, ammunition to war against godly power. It makes people gun-shy and takes their eyes of the healthy exercise of authority and rivets them on tyranny calling itself leadership. Anarchy and fragmentation are the fruits of this. (You need only to look at what has and what’s happening in eastern Europe to see this illustrated. An understandable reaction to years of imposed rule and harsh treatment has been the rush to establish independence. In the mad scramble for independence, fragmentation is occurring and brings with it much suffering. And you need look no farther than your religious newspaper to see it can happen in churches.)
94. To discuss this “power over others” concept without placing it (where it belongs) in the context of the qualities of the leaders and the community’s glad choice of them, is to rob the concept of its biblical character. When the leaders are elected and are honourably pursuing noble ends, they really do have God’s authority behind them and they must be viewed in this light. Deut 17:12-13 offers a stern warning about contempt toward God’s leaders. 2 Peter 2 and the book of Jude have blunt things to say about people who will not be submissive. This is a sensitive area and there are horror stories to be told at both extremes. There are men who gained power and became ‘little Stalins’ even as there are proud and self-willed people who insist that their opinions shape the policy of the church. To allow specific incidents of either of these to offset the balanced biblical instruction leads to chaos and fragmentation.
95. In the U.K., a few years back, there was a call for a referendum regarding Britain’s entrance into the exchange rate mechanism of the ‘European Community’. No referendum was carried out. “Referendum” is usually regarded as government abdication, the “refusal to govern.” It makes no sense for duly elected government officials to side step making decisions by appealing to all the electorate every time a serious decision must be made. It’s the responsibility of government to govern! The reason these officials are elected is because of their expertise, wisdom and commitment to the nation’s welfare. To refuse to carry out that role and ask the nation to decide by a show of hands is to abdicate responsibility. To allow a vocal minority to stampede a community or a congregation of people into a referendum each time a decision is to be made which might not please them, is a serious mistake. It’s true, of course, that the balance between the voice of the people and the voice of those elected for the people is sometimes hard to find. Difficulties like this led Churchill to say something to the effect that: Democracy is the worst possible form of government except for all the rest. God knows all about the difficulties people have in finding balance but he still established biblical leadership on the terms we’ve been discussing so we’ll have to live with the challenges. To dismiss Beethoven or Shakespeare because we know people who butcher their works makes no sense and to dismiss biblical teaching because we know people who abuse it is also senseless.
96. The appointed leaders are servants of the people. However difficult it might be for us to equate servants with leaders, we must recognize that leading is just another form of serving. “If any one wants to be first,” said the Christ (Mark 9:35), “he must be the very last, the servant of all.” In a discussion about biblical authority (and therefore biblical ‘greatness’), the Master said his disciples were to be different from what was usual in the political systems of the world. They were not to ‘lord it over’ people. If they wished to be great they were to be ministers one of another, if they wished to be first they were to be servants one of another (see Matt 20:20-28 and Mark 10:35-45).
97. We don’t choose leaders just so they can call the shots. We choose people we believe can serve us. If our hearts are affected by the Christ, we want people to help us grow into his likeness and further the aims he cherishes. We want a math teacher to free us from math ignorance and enrich us in that area. We want history teachers to awaken us from an ‘historical slumber’, to deepen and sensitize us in that discipline. We choose shepherds and Bible-teachers to protect and guide us and our children while we pursue a deeper affection for and greater loyalty to the Master.
98. People like this didn’t seize power over us, they win it by their way of life and their giftedness. They win it by their manifest love for us and what they are doing. We recognize them as helpers, as people who are ministering to our needs, as men and women who serve us. In our better moments we know this very well. We’ve all had occasion in our lives to thank God for some teacher because of how she has changed and deepened our friends and family. We’ve all been thrilled by a statesman who (sometimes at great cost) brought dignity and freedom to a nation. Such people serve us and what’s more, they mean to serve us. And they serve us by taking the lead, they do it ‘from the front’. (Of course, thank God, there are those who do us inestimable service without even being recognized. It was George Eliot who said: “The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who have lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited graves.”
99. It’s for the leaders and the led alike to recognize that honourable authority honourably exercised is one of the world’s grand acts of service. God gave Christ all authority because he made himself the servant of all, thus demonstrating that he knew what power was truly for (see Phil 2:5-11). a vocal minority to stampede a community or a congregation of people into a referendum each time a decision is to be made which might not please them, is a serious mistake. It’s true, of course, that the balance between the voice of the people and the voice of those elected for the people is sometimes hard to find. Difficulties like this led Churchill to say something to the effect that: Democracy is the worst possible form of government except for all the rest. God knows all about the difficulties people have in finding balance but he still established biblical leadership on the terms we’ve been discussing so we’ll have to live with the challenges. To dismiss Beethoven or Shakespeare because we know people who butcher their works makes no sense and to dismiss biblical teaching because we know people who abuse it is also senseless.
96. The appointed leaders are servants of the people. However difficult it might be for us to equate servants with leaders, we must recognize that leading is just another form of serving. “If any one wants to be first,” said the Christ (Mark 9:35), “he must be the very last, the servant of all.” In a discussion about biblical authority (and therefore biblical ‘greatness’), the Master said his disciples were to be different from what was usual in the political systems of the world. They were not to ‘lord it over’ people. If they wished to er them. But the Bible is completely forthright about the fact that God not only approves of it, he calls for it!
93. Here is one of the tragic side-effects of “lording it over” people. It isn’t only evil in itself for it undermines wise, lawful and loving authority. It gives those who are inclined to gripe, ammunition to war against godly power. It makes people gun-shy and takes their eyes of the healthy exercise of authority and rivets them on tyranny calling itself leadership. Anarchy and fragmentation are the fruits of this. (You need only to look at what has and what’s happening in eastern Europe to see this illustrated. An understandable reaction to years of imposed rule and harsh treatment has been the rush to establish independence. In the mad scramble for independence, fragmentation is occurring and brings with it much suffering. And you need look no farther than your religious newspaper to see it can happen in churches.)
94. To discuss this “power over others” concept without placing it (where it belongs) in the context of the qualities of the leaders and the community’s glad choice of them, is to rob the concept of its biblical character. When the leaders are elected and are honourably pursuing noble ends, they really do have God’s authority behind them and they must be viewed in this light. Deut 17:12-13 offers a stern warning about contempt toward God’s leaders. 2 Peter 2 and the book of Jude have blunt things to say about people who will not be submissive. This is a sensitive area and there are horror stories to be told at both extremes. There are men who gained power and became ‘little Stalins’ even as there are proud and self-willed people who insist that their opinions shape the policy of the church. To allow specific incidents of either of these to offset the balanced biblical instruction leads to chaos and fragmentation.
95. In the U.K., a few years back, there was a call for a referendum regarding Britain’s entrance into the exchange rate mechanism of the ‘European Community’. No referendum was carried out. “Referendum” is usually regarded as government abdication, the “refusal to govern.” It makes no sense for duly elected government officials to side step making decisions by appealing to all the electorate every time a serious decision must be made. It’s the responsibility of government to govern! The reason these officials are elected is because of their expertise, wisdom and commitment to the nation’s welfare. To refuse to carry out that role and ask the nation to decide by a show of hands is to abdicate responsibility. To allow a vocal minority to stampede a community or a congregation of people into a referendum each time a decision is to be made which might not please them, is a serious mistake. It’s true, of course, that the balance between the voice of the people and the voice of those elected for the people is sometimes hard to find. Difficulties like this led Churchill to say something to the effect that: Democracy is the worst possible form of government except for all the rest. God knows all about the difficulties people have in finding balance but he still established biblical leadership on the terms we’ve been discussing so we’ll have to live with the challenges. To dismiss Beethoven or Shakespeare because we know people who butcher their works makes no sense and to dismiss biblical teaching because we know people who abuse it is also senseless.
96. The appointed leaders are servants of the people. However difficult it might be for us to equate servants with leaders, we must recognize that leading is just another form of serving. “If any one wants to be first,” said the Christ (Mark 9:35), “he must be the very last, the servant of all.” In a discussion about biblical authority (and therefore biblical ‘greatness’), the Master said his disciples were to be different from what was usual in the political systems of the world. They were not to ‘lord it over’ people. If they wished to be great they were to be ministers one of another, if they wished to be first they were to be servants one of another (see Matt 20:20-28 and Mark 10:35-45).
97. We don’t choose leaders just so they can call the shots. We choose people we believe can serve us. If our hearts are affected by the Christ, we want people to help us grow into his likeness and further the aims he cherishes. We want a math teacher to free us from math ignorance and enrich us in that area. We want history teachers to awaken us from an ‘historical slumber’, to deepen and sensitize us in that discipline. We choose shepherds and Bible-teachers to protect and guide us and our children while we pursue a deeper affection for and greater loyalty to the Master.
98. People like this didn’t seize power over us, they win it by their way of life and their giftedness. They win it by their manifest love for us and what they are doing. We recognize them as helpers, as people who are ministering to our needs, as men and women who serve us. In our better moments we know this very well. We’ve all had occasion in our lives to thank God for some teacher because of how she has changed and deepened our friends and family. We’ve all been thrilled by a statesman who (sometimes at great cost) brought dignity and freedom to a nation. Such people serve us and what’s more, they mean to serve us. And they serve us by taking the lead, they do it ‘from the front’. (Of course, thank God, there are those who do us inestimable service without even being recognized. It was George Eliot who said: “The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who have lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited graves.”
99. It’s for the leaders and the led alike to recognize that honourable authority honourably exercised is one of the world’s grand acts of service. God gave Christ all authority because he made himself the servant of all, thus demonstrating that he knew what power was truly for (see Phil 2:5-11).be great they were to be ministers one of another, if they wished to be first they were to be servants one of another (see Matt 20:20-28 and Mark 10:35-45).
97. We don’t choose leaders just so they can call the shots. We choose people we believe can serve us. If our hearts are affected by the Christ, we want people to help us grow into his likeness and further the aims he cherishes. We want a math teacher to free us from math ignorance and enrich us in that area. We want history teachers to awaken us from an ‘historical slumber’, to deepen and sensitize us in that discipline. We choose shepherds and Bible-teachers to protect and guide us and our children while we pursue a deeper affection for and greater loyalty to the Master.
98. People like this didn’t seize power over us, they win it by their way of life and their giftedness. They win it by their manifest love for us and what they are doing. We recognize them as helpers, as people who are ministering to our needs, as men and women who serve us. In our better moments we know this very well. We’ve all had occasion in our lives to thank God for some teacher because of how she has changed and deepened our friends and family. We’ve all been thrilled by a statesman who (sometimes at great cost) brought dignity and freedom to a nation. Such people serve us and what’s more, they mean to serve us. And they serve us by taking the lead, they do it ‘from the front’. (Of course, thank God, there are those who do us inestimable service without even being recognized. It was George Eliot who said: “The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who have lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited graves.”
99. It’s for the leaders and the led alike to recognize that honourable authority honourably exercised is one of the world’s grand acts of service. God gave Christ all authority because he made himself the servant of all, thus demonstrating that he knew what power was truly for (see Phil 2:5-11).
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment