God at work

Socio-economic alternatives: a theocratic model founded on divine principles

2010-09-10T02:05:00.000-07:00

The fourth way is maybe a work in progress, something that has to emerge and defend itself, but it is God’s way. Let me explain. I explored the primary socio-economic models of socialism (which has many flaws, but is still making an unavoidable comeback) and capitalism (which has its merits but is too threatening to social and environmental order). The third way was socio-capitalism, a blend of the best of both worlds. But humans are not too good at preserving order, so don’t go looking for solutions in social models.

The original Mosaic model was the first act of constitutional government or rule of law. It satisfies all the requirements of a constitutional framework. The ten commandments were foundational principles - a constitution is otherwise expressed as a ground rule, so it satisfies that principle. A constitution is also a set of principles that informs law making as the Mosaic law also did in guiding and empowering oral traditions.

So what Moses introduced was a framework that removed the subjectivity of near-east political models. It bound all, from the least to the greatest, to one set of guiding principles, thus ensuring that if a slave was killed by a rich man he would get the same justice as a rich man killed by a slave. What a profound step forward in human history.

The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, albeit reluctantly, was intended to do the same for Britain, but only three of its principles remain in law. Thankfully, Britain is held together by something stronger. Its traditions are so deeply ingrained that the institution has stood the tests of time to emerge as an envious and hallowed model of social order.

When William Penn left for the new world as a Church of England dissenter, he did so against the background of a British state that was far from ordered or fair. So he introduced a charter that limited his own power and the power of the state, recognized all men as equal before God and defined the rights and responsibilities of all Pennsylvanians. Even Voltaire approved of that. The state was not bound or enclosed inside walls, it was held together by its internal compass, just as Moses once foresaw.

So part of ensuring what I dare to call a Theocratic model, is not to have God rule amongst us, per se, though that would be good and indeed the government shall ultimately rest of Christ’s shoulders. I discount that option because it is not currently available to us, for all the idealistic clamor for such a state.

Rather, a theocratic state is one that is bound to the laws of God, but not by way of austere and oppressive religious decrees, because that merely replaces physical walls with symbolic walls. Rather, we need a state of existence that is founded on heart-felt agreement on the principles of God’s covenant with men, held together not by rule or even by tradition, but by a covenant of hearts.

To be continued …

Economic alternatives: Social-Capitalism, a possible compromise

2010-08-13T03:23:00.000-07:00

I recently explored the pros and cons of socialism and capitalism and made the point that socialism is inevitable in a global society so desperately in need on standardization. We need a uniform approach to global issues, such as the environment, poverty, disease, the economy and so on. That need is growing rapidly in the present decade, because the issues are so threatening to our collective survival.

Because the issues have such a collective ring about them a collective response is almost unavoidable, which predicts a return to socialism.

Anyway, there is a third way. I am partially inclined to it too, although I will ultimate argue in favor of a theocratic model. The third way is Social-Capitalism. One of the early economic fathers, Adam Smith, argued that socialism and capitalism do not need to be antagonist.

Indeed he argued that a socialist state can benefit from the hidden hand of free market forces. Maybe an example of that is modern-day socialist China, which competes capitalistically in the global economy, a factor that is inducing all the efficiencies that are some of the best virtues of capitalism.

Classical social-capitalism foresees an economic duality, with capitalism defining the tier-1 economy and socialism the tier-2 economy. It means that wealth and other considerations are no longer class distinctions, because the two tiers are defined by the degree of dependence on the state.

I have actually seen some of this kind of model in working. Malawi is essentially a capitalist economy, although it does not work very efficiently. To offset the negatives of individualism, the government runs large collective farms that preserve national food security and employ local workforces in a reasonable symbiosis that meets a number of needs.

Then there is South Africa. It has an efficient first world economy, boasting some of the best banking practices in the world, outstanding communications infrastructure, a world-class resources sector and impressive industrial and service sectors that compete globally. It also has a sizeable third world economy that is not all poor, thanks to healthy entrepreneurship. The third world sector really comprises the informal economy and a large indigent population.

Few countries have such stark contradictions, yet the government regulates its quasi social-capitalist economy to uplift the poor and leverage them into the economy, whilst stimulating the 1st tier of the economy, resulting in collective advantages – a stronger capital market and limited social dependency.

Another example, one I will dwell on more in subsequent articles, is the Moshava or Kibbutsim model of Israel. It is internally socialist and externally capitalist. Moshava members equally share in the risks and rewards of the community and all members are equal, resulting in a rather pure form of voluntary socialism. But each Moshava competes in the economy on a capitalist basis, marketing its products and competing for markets to ensure their survival.

So maybe a duality offers the best of both worlds, if the government is able and willing to play a meaningful role in balancing the forces to ensure the survival, mutuality and progress of both forms of economy. In my next article I will dip deeper into a more theocratic economic model.

Economic options: Capitalism may be better than socialism, but is hardly ideal

2010-07-30T01:18:00.000-07:00

Capitalism has dominated western thinking and significantly influenced a lot of the orient. Today nations like India, Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan and Japan are thriving capitalist states and their people are better off for it. Though China still has a socialist ideology, it has shifted to a form of socio-capitalism that has seen its economy boom, doing far more for its people than Maoism ever hoped to do.

If I had to choose between socialism and capitalism, I would have to choose the former because it is more efficient and it acknowledges the dignity of the individual and teh instruments of regulation predict better governance, accountability and social responsibility.

Socialism did little for the poor, except to reduce the rich to the lowest common denominator. Thus Orwellian swine, in sharing their collective wallow, remained happy as long as no extremists tried to elevate themselves above the excrement.

A recent case in point was Zambia. Under the leadership of liberal-minded president, the late Levy Mwanawasa, the country lifted itself out of the wallow created by decades of misrule. That brought tangible reform, but only a minority had the resources to capitalize on the opportunities so created, so some rose above the masses, creating an uncomfortable dissonance. Into that discomfort stepped an opportunist who almost stole power from the ruling party, thanks to a groundswell of support from the masses, just as Hitler once did the German economy signaled the need for a champion.

The point about Orwell’s Napoleon though, is not the hope that one would rise above the wallow to lead others to the light, but that the quagmire should so suppress the will of the people that those who do rise above it can use their advantages to oppress the downtrodden masses, leaving them all worse off than before. That, sadly reflects the worst consequences of socialism: an oligarchic monster that robbed people of their souls.

Capitalism has also had its share of victims. Something is wrong with a system that elevates 5% of the world to the 95 percentile of global wealth, whilst teeming billions suffer in poverty and oppression. Add to that the fact that the capitalist world has severely impaired the global environment, compounded by a rapidly multiplying residue that in so multiplying has devastatingly exploited the earth’s free natural resources.

There are other dark aspects to capitalism. It has been an underlying cause for all kinds of abuses – the wars of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan were largely sponsored by capitalist greed and oil rights. The fact that we have moved so slowly to alternative energy solutions, was largely because fossil fuels were still such a lucrative cash cow. The global roll-out of social and environmentally unfriendly products also disintegrated family life, aggravated social welfare dependency and escalated global organized crime.

Unfortunately the biggest concern now is that capitalism represents the greatest single impediment to global reform. In the face of paralyzing serious and survival threatening issues like pandemic diseases, the state of the environment, destabilization of the earth’s crust, global economic recession and a myriad other significant socio-political problems, the world will have no option by to change direction … which is seeding the emergence of new world order, and at the head of it, the darkest of all champions.

Economic options: If global issues need better coordination, is socialism an option?

2010-07-14T05:23:00.000-07:00

There are two major socio-economic themes: socialism and capitalism. Both have pros and cons, but the pros that work such models and exploit whatever advantage they can, are the root cause for most of the cons that now fill our jails.

Socialism has faltered in recent years, but if you put yourself in the shoes of the small cluster of concerned global citizens who have the capacity and resources to influence the future of our planet, you will understand why it is on the way back. The enlightened elite are exceptionally capable and thus, by implication, surpassingly wealthy. I doubt if they even care for wealth anymore as their wealth has no relative benchmark. Rather, their identity vests in their power and the way they can use that power to shape the world.

Are they dark minded? Sure they are, so is our more familiar political and business context, who are coordinated and influenced by a power apex. At local, regional and industry level, chambers of commerce and other organisations help to coordinate and protect their collective interests, but they, in turn, submit to global mechanisms. That coordinating elite must reevaluate socialism. How else will they resolve painful issues – like the decimation of rain forests, the demise of rare species, global warming, emission standards and world economic recession? Indeed, many states are already cosignatories to global treaties that translate into national laws. That is how the world is organized.

Global levels of crime and other social deviations like drug or people trafficking, terrorism and environmental crimes, will all need to be better coordinated if we ever hope to stabilize the civilization of humanity. So, a purely pragmatic, non-emotive observation, on my part, suggests that the use of biographical identities and other controlling mechanisms, is inevitable. That would also enable a new world order to coordinate scarce resources and eliminate the forces or tensions that pose the greatest risk to our planet.

In a subsequent post I will explore capitalism and then extend the debate to alternatives, including a theocratic model, but for now stick with me. I am not lauding socialism – it persecuted Christians and propped up a dark, despotic oligarchy of atheistic leaders who brought this world to the brink of self-destruction. Even now the likes of Kim Yong Il of North Korea, the Military Government of Myanmar, or the corrupt leadership of Robert Mugabe, remind us of how bad things can be under a non-democratic, central power.

However, socialism does have its merits. It tries to remove the disparities between rich and poor and, where voluntary socialism has evolved, as in the Israeli Kibutzim system, it has become a major cornerstone of economic progress. In some African states, collective government farms help preserve food security, whilst reduce the wastefulness of subsistence farming, through a tradeoff that brings work and dignity to ordinary people.

However, when the coordination implied in such systems becomes a power elite, it devolves into the most despotic of all systems. To me the biggest downside of socialism was that it eroded self-realization and the incentive for entrepreneurship, resulting in a depressed, over-militarized and policed state. Most of all, it proved to be ungodly.

What do you think?

Economic options: To survive, either we stand together or fall as individuals

2010-07-09T06:15:00.000-07:00

Many years ago a Californian purchased London Bridge and shipped it all home, so he could preserve something of London’s history. Others, envious of the traditions and pageantry of the British monarchy, have tried to invent their own dynasties, calling themselves things like “William Gates III”. I too marvel at the richness of their traditions and the grandeur of their ancient places. But, whether we like it or not, it simply takes a long time to create something so rich. America has only had less than 250 years to build its own traditions. It has done well – its military pride, constitution and other great traditions are rich indeed, but Britain has been at it for two millennia and has long since perfected it.

That ends my introduction to a new leadership series: Economic alternatives.

The Queen can trace her line back about a thousand years, but Israel has had kings dating back four thousand years. Many of her ancient buildings still stand, having endured wars and tumults, the comings and going of empires and the rise and fall of nations. That certainly binds the nation together and as such her people will not give an inch of their hard-won legacy for a grain of cheap peace. Peace for the Jew was never about absence of war, but the presence of a God-given identity.
The Brits on the other hand can only stumble in awe at the thought of Jewish history.

Beyond the borders of Israel, the Diaspora are held together as they always were, by strong cultural traditions. Wherever Jews were scattered, they restored their traditions: the unseen walls that separated them from the rest of humanity more effectively than ghetto walls could ever do, resulting in the most enduring culture of history.

Muslims also have a strong culture. Like the Jews, they look out for each other, observe regular liturgical gatherings and redistribute their resources. They also dignify their faith with conservative dress codes and other symbols. For all the negatives that westerners observe from afar off, Muslims and Jews are sustained by strong chords.

Unfortunately, little of that is true for Christians. Though we have had two thousand years to forge a unifying culture, and though we have enough history behind us, Christians are culturally poor. Oh sure, most of us observe Christmas and Easter, but we have allowed commercialism to co-opt all of that and transform it into a hedonistic farce. And yes, some Christians observe lent and dignify other holy seasons, but generally our Holy days are neither ordained of God, nor universally embraced and our value systems have been hopelessly compromised by social influences.

A lot of our differences are a cultural phenomenon, the result of the progressive revelation that has slowly defined the church and her place in the world. However, there is no excuse for our lack of ethos. We generally don’t care for each other and often harm each other in market places, churches and other social exchanges. We readily do charitable things for the poor and downtrodden, but in so doing we end up serving the social role that society has imposed on us. Yet, we are so uncharitable to our own.

Forgive me for being harsh, but what worries me is that our lack of a unifying ethos, value system, cultural norms, festival calendar or a commonwealth of souls, has reduced us to a scattered heterogeneity that is far too vulnerable to the troubles coming on the world. How will we endure and rise above coming crises unless we regroup and redefine our culture or build upon the solid foundations of our faith? I am not being critical for the sake of criticism, but because I see trouble coming and fear that we are so ill equipped for that.

What do you think?

Exchange theory of leadership: us vs them

2010-07-09T04:06:00.000-07:00

I recently listened to a retiring radio show host describe his years in the business. He used the opportunity to tell the untold story of internal shenanigans and even chose to name names. He was also resentful of the series of events that once catapulted him to the top of his game. His bitterness was expressed as something that would stick in his crawl for the rest of his days. Yet the move to a station recently acquired by his employer was only mismanaged, whilst his career benefited immensely.

The presenter went on to describe how the new station thrived under his influence and went to great lengths to describe how “his ideas” had boosted their ratings.

To be honest I felt nauseas as I listened to a large ego berate employers for decisions that were good for shareholders and which also gave him such a great break, but I almost gagged when he boasted of his personal achievements.

Sadly, I have seen this same kind of ego-centrism in all walks of life. Indeed, many leadership commentators seem locked into the idea that the leader is the crux of success. I do not agree. I give limited currency to leaders, per se, but hallow the principle of leadership. Biblical leadership was not supposed to be centered around individuals, but around the greatest stakeholder in the kingdom venture, God Himself. It never was about us or any other individual – it is about Him and the head of the church, Christ Jesus.

On occasions I have found exceptional leaders who led without being visible. They denounced public platforms or anything that would elevate themselves, choosing rather to work behind the scenes. When asked why their organisations were successful, they typically deferred to the team and turned the attention away from themselves. Churches so run, have the unmistakable evidence of Christ in their midst.

The idea of invisible, team-centric leadership is not pie-in-the-sky. Jim Collins wrote a globally respected book on Good to Great Leadership that celebrates that very position.

I am wary of being contentious, but I must say that there is no biblical precedence for a pastor-leader church model. The only model articulated by Paul was eldership – not senior or leading elder versus other elders, just simply elders. Personally I hate titles, but I also believe that real leadership is about creating leaders, not followers.

I have submitted to elder-led churches, but once presented a seminar at a large Baptist church, which had three mutually co-dependent leaders. Each had a different but complementary skills set that gave the congregation a sense of security – as such, because no individual was elevated but, because the leadership had a collective stature, internal conflict was also minimized and the three were mutually accountable to each other. The model was very analogous to the way geese fly in formation, where a leader is merely a role amongst roles and such roles are interchangeable and self-balancing.

I will explore these ideas further in subsequent posts, but I have said enough to provoke a debate – what are your views on these issues?

Exchange theory of leadership: all for one, one for all

2010-07-01T04:31:00.000-07:00

We all so readily confess that Jesus is the head of the church, but in practice it is rarely so. I have found very, very few contexts that give practical expression to that idea.

A friend spoke of their church being without a leader, because Jesus is their leader. That is commendable, but potentially risky. The truth is that leadership and authority is a serious issue to God. Many of our greatest issues stem from a clash of interest between God’s position on authority and the consequential resentment of followers.

Either way we lose if we don’t get a balanced perspective on leadership. Many churches have been suppressed by self-centered leaders, whilst others have been impoverished by lack of leadership, but far too many individuals are in wilderness places because they could not connect with leadership at all.

That presents the church with a significant dilemma. Empirically, we cannot defend a dominant-leadership model. I happily concede that good, even great leaders have come and gone, but that was as true of ancient, biblical Israel. Aside from David, Josiah and Hezekiah, Israel suffered a rotten bunch of leaders who led them all astray.

The greatest indictment against sovereign-leadership models was that Israel’s need for a king amounted to a rejection of God. Sovereign-leadership has no New Testament pretext, rather it stems from Catholicism and clergy-laity practices.

God’s model is more about leadership than leaders. Individuals are of little consequence to the kingdom. If Moses and others had to step aside, modern leaders are as dispensable.

Biblical leadership is plural. Biblical leaders did not operate alone, but they also respected the balance between the pillars of Biblical society, notably Prophets, Priests and Kings. Modern democracies and public companies also honor divisions of power and the related checks and balances. So, why then is the church at odds with a biblical idea that still works in civil society to ensure accountability and limit leadership excesses?

Until individuals matter less than the whole, we will never know the full implications of Christ’s headship. That is partly because the church was made for its members, not for its leaders. Leaders are, at best, midwives of the emerging church. The proof of that is in Ephesians 4, which says, “(the ministries) must continue until we all come into the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man”. Thus, church is not about organisation and the careers of professional priests, for leadership is a stewardship function designed to facilitate the emergence of a believer-priesthood.

Leaders are vital to church governance, but if they were plural and mutually balanced, there would be fewer conflicts of interest. It would also ensure real stewardship. Further, if individuals deferred to the greater thing that God is doing, individual members would be more effective in doing what they were designed to do. If that happened, we would see Christ revealed through the church and hear the shout of His kingship amongst us.

Image source: http://revsmilez.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/arms-and-legs-by-quasimondo.jpeg

Exchange theory of leadership: push vs pull

2010-06-21T05:03:00.000-07:00

Contemporary leadership theory is substantially about driving. It presupposes that the energy of the leader can energize the organisation, whether that energy is nervous, vital or passionate. The bible does not support that perspective.

In Romans 8, Paul compares the leading of the flesh to the leading of the Spirit. The former refers to carnal or hedonistic pursuits, including drivers like instinct, nervous energy or the ego. Such forces do drive behavior, the way that empires were built around the impulse of great leaders. Unfortunately, whatever they built failed to stand up to another, irresistibly greater force.

In 1 Corinthians 3 Paul compared wood, hay and stubble with gold, silver and precious stones. He argues that building with either will be tried by fire – a metaphor for human struggle. Gold, silver and precious stones will stand as they are all products of great heat, will stand, but wood, hay and stubble will be consumed.

Sailing illustrates these points. A sail set to capture a tail wind, exploits the brute force of the wind, but that is rarely where sailing comes into its own, for tailwinds are transient. It takes more skill to tack the boat across the wind and trim the sail so that the wind can pull the boat along.

The aerodynamic principle involved is analogous to being led by the Spirit, for good leadership of our own lives and the lives we influence is more about tapping into the compelling energy of God. His creative will formed the earth, drew history towards the climax of Calvary and now draws this age to its own climax. That same energy founded the church and sustained it, as kingdoms came and went and empires rose or fell.

Leaders who harness that force and shape their followers to engage the forward momentum of God’s kingdom, will build on rock and use gold, silver and precious stone to achieve outcomes that will transcend the course of humanity or history.

Time and again I see leaders sweating and toiling to build churches, organisations or their personal legacies, but that will never compare with the unforced approach of Jesus who built the church on relationships not resources, shepherding not cow-herding, humility not grandstanding, drawing not shoving, and discipleship not instruction. He single-mindedly built according to the patterns received from His Father, as Moses did when he descended Mount Horeb.

Part of my argument relates to the need for individuals to respect that the organisation is always bigger than the individual and is endowed with a life and momentum of its own. It pays to engage that and not work against it. I once had a boss who insisted that his department should be guided by market share, whilst I insisted that it be guided by the need and stimulus of the organisation. I argued so, because I believe in stewardship and the value of the whole, the team. However, there will always be those who believe that leadership is more about individualism and heroism – which, sadly, has hurt many lesser and greater leaders, including giants like Moses and David.

Exchange theory of leadership: enable vs control

2010-06-14T05:33:00.000-07:00

The sons of Korah comprised a praise choir, established by King David. They wrote the famous words, “I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of God than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season”.

I got to thinking how relevant that was. Were they choosing the least of all kingdom roles? Were they demeaning themselves? Were they accepting the worst that the Kingdom of God could offer in exchange for the best that a corrupt world could offer?

Well let’s think about what it means to be a gatekeeper as that may inform our response.

A gatekeeper defends his city … should a good leader not defend kingdom values, the integrity of a kingdom culture, the authority of God’s word and the deity of Christ?

A gatekeeper enables the city to do what it does best … the way that good leaders enable followers to find their own rhythms and fulfill their own callings, because they should be able to do what needs to be done, better than the leader can do. Thus a good leader should preserve the framework or context that maximizes organizational effectiveness.

A gatekeeper patrols the boundaries … the way a leader should define the patterns and doctrinal parameters of the church. People need such clarity, lest they go astray, but a church with good ground-rules is inevitably also a contented, fulfilled church.

A gatekeeper mans the gates … the way a good leader should decide which influences flow into church life and which expressions flow back into the world. He also wards off distractions that will cause a group to deviate from its primary goals, whilst protecting the team from undue pressures and demands from outside.

A gatekeeper is vigilant, watching for trouble … the way any good leader should be astute and perceptive enough to see coming threats and the impact of what is happening beyond the walls.

A gatekeeper regulates who comes and goes … the way a good leader should regulate and not impose. Regulation is merely about making relevant adjustments to the rate of flow or to the degrees of emphasis in the church. Managers direct, but leaders manage exceptions, without imposing their own character on what is, after all, the image of Christ.

A gatekeeper is first to arms … they rotate their watches day and night and are always in the line of attack, just as any good leader must be willing to ultimately risk all, including their popularity, position or life, for the sheep.

A gatekeeper never sleeps … unlike the time when I was caught sleeping on guard duty. Good leaders are also ever alert to what is happening, what God is doing and how the church is being influenced by the parade of life.

So, with just a few ideas I have sketched something that casts gate-keeping into a very noble role. Now I ask … would you a gatekeeper be? Or do you think a directive approach to leadership still has relevance?

Exchange theory of leadership: authenticity for genuine followership

2010-06-09T22:37:00.000-07:00

I am sure you have had one of those horrible moments when someone smiled at you, briefly lit up your heart and then replaced the smile with a cynical smirk. It’s worse than a smirk on its own, because our instinct is to warm to a smile so by the time the smirk comes we will have smiled back, only to then be shamed by their real motive.

Many marketers do the same thing, throwing out the welcome mat and then turning on us with all the coldness they can muster as soon as it becomes evident that we are not bankable. That is so dumb, because prospects could so easily on-refer the firm and its products, based on positive experiences. They could also have a subsequent rethink or a change of circumstances that would bring them back into the market.

When I was in the army, a sergeant spent some time in our tent just chatting warmly to us. Later I saw him again in the mess hall and I greeted him warmly, which embarrassed him in front of his peers. He pulled me aside and threatened my life if I ever dared to be so familiar again. I know I overstepped the mark, but he created the expectations. Though I respected his need to manage boundaries, his approach was about self preservation.

Charles Schwab, whose management style formed the basis of my Master’s thesis, is renowned for his warmth. Its not just in his heartbeat, it is also plastered all over his warm, handsome face, which belies a personal struggle against dyslexia. Schwab built a network, which at one time processed more dollars than any other financial services firm in America, yet the firm only “owned” one thing – a fiercely loyal customer base. That gave him a very tradable currency with which to leverage superior products from third party product companies and superior referrals from independent financial advisers.

Schwab said, “My ability to arouse enthusiasm in employees is my greatest asset. The way to develop the best in someone is by appreciation and encouragement. Nothing kills ambition like criticism from one’s superiors. I never criticize anyone. I believe in giving people the incentive to work. So I am anxious to praise, but loathe to find fault.”

Now, there is a man whose smile stays there. His authentic leadership style is worth its weight in gold. Neil Cole said it well: "Today authenticity is valued more than excellence. People have found that it is possible to have excellence yet not be real."

I have known many times when leaders have generated certain expectations and aroused interest only to then stumble at the first pass, failing even in the most basic test of the relationship. Maybe that is why I find no problem in shaking things up a little to test how real a relationship is, before investing my hopes and energies any further.

You can theorise about leadership until the cows come home, but successful leadership is always about relationships and relationships still rely, even in this cold age, on human touch. That is why authenticity will always separate great leaders from the also-rans.

Exchange theory of leadership: right way vs wrong

2010-06-09T00:23:00.000-07:00

The idea of building walls, as Nehemiah did, describes repentance. However, repentance in western thought is an event, whilst for the Jews it described a journey or process. Thus, in leaving Babylon and heading for the burnt out mound of Zion, Nehemiah enacted repentance. The entire journey, including the building of the walls reflected a determined turnaround and commitment to a new future. Just as Israel once did at Gilgal and Jacob did at Mizpah, Nehemiah drew a line, stone by stone, to define his point of departure.

We understand repentance as an act of turning around, but do we apply that to leadership. I have quoted before that we cannot expect a different outcome whilst persisting in the same things. Well that describes repentance. If you want something to change in terms of outcomes, change your inputs, review your methods and redirect your energies.

This is possibly one of the defining roles of leadership. A leader will often sense the need for change and see what that change should look like, because the very fact that they are in leadership, implies a certain perspective. Followers generally lack perspective and tend to follow their own emphases, but a good leader develops a sense of new direction through consultation, listening, praying, reflection and the voice of many counselors.

The mandate to move in a new direction is either enshrined in the leader’s terms of reference or in a prophetic impulse or it is a response to some stimulus – changing demographics, declining performance, new threats, a shifting environment, etc. When God wanted Israel to change, He also stimulated various aspects of their environment, speaking through prophets, discomfort, warnings, preludes to disaster, etc.

Had the kings of old been sensitive to their God, they would have responded and led their people through change. Hezekiah did just that, as did others. Their zeal saw the dismantling of high places and a return to divine order, but too many leaders (I suspect the ratios are no different today), chose to ignore the megaphone of God that spoke into their deaf worlds. Great tragedy followed as God’s people fell to their enemies.

So when Nehemiah started building his wall, he made a clear statement to his gainsayers and his motley followers – “We are going that way and will not be deterred from our objectives. We will not turn back from what God has called us to do.”

That is leadership 101. It is almost always fraught with gainsaying. For numerous reasons, critics will question what is happening – such is life. Leaders should expect no less, but they must act in the spirit of repentance, by persisting until the change process has run its course. I am not suggesting bull-headedness. It’s a stupid leader who does not consult or include others, for how else can we win support for a new initiative and how can we have any certainty about the veracity of our decisions?

I am merely saying, on the assumption that the process is inclusive, that a leader has the tough task of pushing until change becomes reality – that may be the limit of his role, for it is not what he says, but what they do that ultimately matters. Thus leadership is a vital, albeit limited role (not a title or position), which clarifies and redirects through the process of wall building.

(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net

Exchange theory of leadership: advance vs regression

2010-06-05T23:50:00.000-07:00

Ice must first thaw to water before it can turn to steam and if a pot of water has even a small block of ice in it, it will not come to the boil or even attempt to come to the boil, until that last block of ice has thawed. Similarly, a tree will not produce fruit in its first few years. It must first establish roots, achieve height and spread its branches. Once the framework is sound enough to support the longer-term objectives, it will bear fruit. Well, do you think similar principles apply to leadership?

Nehemiah could not start building until he had established a framework on which to build. He understood the need for the priesthood and civil comforts, but none of that could happen without the walls. Good organisation had to lay the foundations of their future and that meant a new social contract and a new model or way of doing things.

The walls were for more than mere protection. They gave the people a center. They also symbolized their restoration and gave them a beacon of hope, whilst sending a very clear, unambiguous statement of intent to their detractors.

Someone recently described a prophetic picture of a bird flying backwards, and added that if we are going on with God, we must turn around and face that future, move into it with conviction and never look back. When Israel crossed the Jordan they heaped up stones as a reminder that they had left their past, with all its wanderings and related struggles, behind them. When Jacob returned to Shechem, he set up a pillar of stones as a sign that he would never go back to what he had left, but also as a sign to his past that it would never be a feature of his future.

Good leadership must involve similar walls or heaps
, to separate us from the past and make a fresh start. “Unless the call is clear, how will the people know to follow”, stated Solomon. Well, when leaders take their people into a new way, they too dare not look back or allow the past to define the future. People like to hold onto the past for reasons of security and sentiment, but they dare not stay there else they will simply not progress.

I am not alluding to the lessons or legacies of the past. Of course we learn from what went before and we honor the examples left to us the way Nehemiah built on their heritage: teh ancient mound of Jebus. However, to build into the future we must create a new wineskin if we ever hope to contain new wine. We need walls so we can move forward without watching our backs.

Help me here. Many would argue for the need to breakdown walls, but that may have a different connotation. What do you think? Can we progress without first building walls and should the framework precede other things like relationships, functions and so on?

Image courtesy of: http://www.socialearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/FruitTree1.jpg

Exhange theory: New for old

2010-06-04T01:55:00.000-07:00

I have been making a point in recent blogs about how the building of walls relates to leadership. One of the most biblical arguments for this is the parable of Jesus, about the wineskins. He argued that you cannot put new wine into an old wine skin.

Someone once asked, “How can you continue doing the same thing and still expect a different outcome?” That is what Jesus implied. He was of course referring to the kingdom of God, but the implication was that the weight of revelation would strain old models and established worldviews. It needed to be contained in a new fabric, lest it burst. I suggest we are facing similar painful transitions in this era.

The transition from an Old Testament law-based religion to a New Testament faith and grace model was disruptive, though nothing new. Before he could start building the heart and soul of the post-exilic community, Nehemiah first built walls to separate the remnant of Israel from external influences and gainsaying. He had to change the outer fabric or framework, before trying to build the heart and soul.

The point about Nehemiah’s approach was that structure preceded function. It was true of Moses too, who first had to acquire divine patterns in the mount, and implement those patterns, before he could institute the priesthood.

I so often see churches trying to sustain some form of status quo, holding on to what has been. I see that play out in the corporate world too, but the influence of stakeholders is more direct and robust, so change does tend to happen more readily – that said, many firms found it very difficult to adapt to recent economic shifts, preferring to live in denial. Others are ignoring broader mega trends and slowly falling behind.

Today the church stands at a crossroads. The world is becoming increasingly hostile to our posture and it is also becoming tougher to sustain congregations. Some are responding to a changing world by becoming contemporary, but that merely papers over the cracks, whilst doing nothing for the underlying fabric or model – thus we cannot expect a different outcome. Indeed, one of the underlying motives of such trends is the need for popular leaders to protect their power bases and sustain their platforms. Unfortunately, as in Jesus time, we may find many so busy holding on to what they have that they may in be offended by the essence and heart of the faith, Christ our King.

Many other churches are responding by shifting to various levels of organic church life, which is both biblical and better equipped to endure coming contradictions. Ironically, the corporate world is also becoming more organic, with matrix organisations and networked firms. Individuals are also connecting via social networks.

However, to get there, we must review our framework. We must also be biblical, for therein is our equivalent of Nehemiah’s royal seals, and we must restore our ancient ruins for that is what Isaiah 61 says will be our end of the age mandate.

(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net
Image source: bradbeaman.wordpress.com/

Exchange theory of leadership: building walls

2010-06-01T00:18:00.000-07:00

I wrote a blog yesterday relating to the walls that Nehemiah built and how that experience relates to everyday human crisis or crisis recovery. However, it is also a useful metaphor for work-life.

The leadership series relating to the exchanges that take place between leaders and their followers also has relevance here. One of the great things a leader does is to build walls.

When a leader takes up a new role, there will always be gainsayers like Sanbalat, notwithstanding the seals of the king (management), the favor of God and the resources placed at our disposal (the king's forest and quarries). Gainsayers stalk corridors and market places, looking for ways to vent their personal identity crises against emerging leaders. The reason socialism or collectivism worked at all is thanks to a human need to reduce everyone around us to a common level of misery. However, it also happens in the first world, albeit with a degree of subtlety. Indeed marketing works because we tend to manage our identities through symbols, like visibility, posturing, cars, houses and other meaningless tokens.

Emerging leaders also face rearguard struggles against organizational uncertainties, doubts, the insecurity of their workers and the fact that their roles are always under scrutiny. Initially, their followers are also comparable to the bedraggled bunch of post-exilic souls that returned to the burnt out ruins of Jerusalem.

So, the first role of the leader is to build walls. For Nehemiah that was necessary because without walls they really could not tackle other projects as long as they remained vulnerable to attack. The walls also gave them a symbolic centre, a rallying point for their aspirations and dreams, and an identity. Of course the greatest reason was that the walls laid foundations for their long term recovery and symbolized real progress.

The African Lion is immensely powerful but limited, because his intimidating presence is not for hunting or other pride activities, but to ward off challengers. They are wall builders, who spend every day patrolling the pride “walls” and marking their territory, so that the pride can survive and get on with what it does best.

In the same way, leaders must build walls, to provide a vital refuge for their followers so that they can get on with what they need to do, but also so that they can trade on the emerging stature and identity of those walls. The leader’s role is not to do, but to defend and instill the means to do – to create opportunities, empower people and “lead” them to do what they do best. Equally important is his value in keeping them within the pride boundaries, so that they don’t stray from their collective objectives or lose their way.

The exchange aspect comes in when, like the African Lion, the leader must defend followers from outside interference, distractions, pressures and threats – even to the point of laying his own wellbeing on the line. Leaders meaningfully exchange when they trade protection and empowerment, for the commitment and initiative of their followers - a reasonable exchange.

Exchange theory of leadership: communication

2010-05-28T00:52:00.000-07:00

A view of leadership is that we must sustain a certain image of confidence and competence. To me that is more of a hygiene factor than a defining factor. A sloppy, ineffectual person is not a leader to himself, so how can he lead others, but the maintenance of a certain image is not the preserve of leaders – if it were so, then Churchill, a depressed chain-smoker and drinker, would never have been a great leader.

It is a misnomer that a leader’s presence energizes organisations. That misnomer is rooted in clergy-laity thinking, which has come to mean that contemporary churches cannot do church without the presence of their leader. To my mind, that invalidates the leader. The real proof of leadership is when others can continue without the leader. God had a dependent following in the wilderness, but never settled there – rather He led them into a codependent state, where they occupied the Promised Land under God.

So then, how do we energize organisations?

Nothing or almost nothing deflates an organisation or individuals more than a loss of direction and purpose, which is lost to poor communication, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, wrong signals and rewards for wrong behavior.

A man fired a worker for bad workmanship, but then saw him at a ten-pin bowling alley. He was so good at the game that the boss had to inquire why the worker could do this so well, not that. In reply, he simply said, “Here I knew what to aim for”.

People often either don’t know what they need to do or retreat back to what they know and then end up being irrelevant. I have seen many workers doing stuff that is no longer important, because that is what they know. They fear change and prefer to stay with what they know. I have seen people resort to criticism and negative behavior, because they find solace in others who are equally disillusioned about how they add value. I have also seen businesses waste money on bonuses where regular acknowledgement would do far better.

Bosses try to lift motivation through motivational speeches, team building efforts, incentives, manipulation and by modeling positive behavior, but that only addresses symptoms not causes. People need direction and, where change is happening, they need to be led into that direction until they have enough confidence to get on with it. Once they have direction they need the space to express that without being mothered, but as they start to gain momentum they then need relevant restraints to hold them on course.

The ideal state is one where people know what to do, feel empowered to act, are acknowledged for doing so and know where their boundaries are. That shifts the leader from a close, supervisory role, to a broad, gatekeeper role, where people can do what the leader is not good at doing, so the leader can harness organizational energy to achieve bigger objectives. It's one of reason why my son's best rugby season was under a tough, uncompromising leader - they knew where they stood, but bound together as a team (to draw solace from each other) and then went on to win all their games, losing in the league final by 3 points.

To be absolutely honest, true leadership is less about the leader than the led, and true leaders would do better to decrease, so that the whole may increase.

Exchange theory of leadership: gatekeeping

2010-05-18T07:19:00.000-07:00

In the chronicles of Narnia, the great battle scene after Aslan’s death brings the good forces of Narnia up against the evil queen. Two styles of leadership emerge. King Peter leads from the front and his siblings support from the center. The witch queen on the other hand, leads from the back, sending her forces to face the wrath of battle first.

Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest soldier the world has known, also led from the front, so did Moshe Dayan, the great one-eyed Jewish leader who guided Israel through the wars of independence.

That poses a great question about the role of modern day leadership. Churchill wanted to join the D-Day armada, but George VI rightfully stuttered, “Me they can replace, not you”. So Churchill stayed where he belonged, where he was most needed – in the war rooms of Westminster. It was his military brain that they needed not his unwieldy frame. So it is not always prudent for a leader to put his life on the line.

That brings me to a potentially different kind of model altogether. The African Lion is what I would call a gatekeeper. He is a runaway haystack, hardly ideal for hunting, but a fearsome visage for opponents. He generally eats, sleeps and has sex throughout his adult life. The females are far superior at hunting, raising the next generation, social integration and a myriad other vital things that keep a happy pride, happy.

So is he just a passenger? No. He maintains the balance of power in the pride and preserves order. When not eating, sleeping or procreating, he patrols the pride-lands to mark territory and keep interlopers at bay. At times he has to even put his life on the line to protect the pride. The first thing a new male does, when he takes over a pride, is to kill the existing cubs and chase off all juveniles. That’s why he has to fight.

Too much is said about the active aspects of leadership. But the greatest role of leadership, and leadership is but a role amongst roles, is to act as a gatekeeper – a regressive role. Leaders are being drawn into the front line, where they are ungainly and less effective at implementing than the rest of the pride is. Leadership, not to be confused with management or doing, is about orchestrating, organizing, enabling and restraining. It’s about being armless and legless, whilst extending the leader’s limited reach and effectiveness through others - a fair exchange of complementary roles.

Jesus is also the head of the church, from which we are all fitly joined together. We are His hands and legs. Does that imply that vision comes from Him – well not entirely so. The edict of Christ actually came from the Father – He is merely executing that mandate. So what comes from Jesus is analogous to what passes between my brain and my limbs – it’s the impulse or enactment of the Father’s will, translated through you and me.

Exchange theory of leadership: engaging

2010-05-16T03:11:00.000-07:00

Exchange is the highest expression of leadership. Most humans communicate, but few connect and fewer yet, engage. Yet the greatest leaders of history found real engagement was critical to war-winning alliances.

The majority of communicators engage in telling, not listening. Listening is a tough skill, yet those who master it open many doors, by tapping into the other party’s need to be heard. It can be abused, but astute leaders use it to defer judgment, gain insights, build trust, shift positions and cultivate tradable relational equity.

Advertisers offer the worst example of one-way communication. They push without connecting as they manipulate human insecurity, inadequacy, identity or hunger.

Some leaders transcend basic communication and reach connectedness. They start to resonate with their audiences, which generates a following, not merely a response, in the form of a political constituency, brand identity, market support or loyal workers. If their style is also marked by transparency, opennness and sincerity, they are likely to transcend mere connectedness and achieve real engagement.

Many internet communicators develop sizeable audiences, but connection often lacks glue. Followers are transient, buying in for a while without deepening the relationship, because the communicator does not invite more. That is rhetorical communication involving statements that do not elicit a response other than general affirmation. It is also rewarded with closed-ended replies like, “thank you”, or “good point”, etc. Such rhetoric may present as debate, but rarely allows the debate or the relationship to deepen. To me it serves the communicator not the audience, which is self-defeating and unsustainable.

Engagement is a two-way street. It rarely involves telling, per se, other than a statement that positions their views. It is never closed-ended, but facilitates real engagement. Engagers listen, learn from others and adjust their positions through interaction.

Paul said in Ephesians 4, “Endeavor to keep the unity of the faith in the bond of peace” and later, “until we all come into the unity of the faith”. To him, real oneness was a process not an event. History assumed the sovereignty of priests, but Paul embraced a more realistic model, that induces authentic oneness through engagement. Thus we are described as a shared priesthood, a holy nation, a commonwealth of equal stakeholders sharing one destiny and heritage and that is the end to which the church aspires.

I am not advocating contention, nor did Paul. However, God communicates His own heart through contradictions that force us to search for answers. The process transforms minds and aligns hearts, to His. It is the same when we surrender dogmas and engage meaningfully to build real understanding, using open-ended styles rather than rhetoric.

My wife and I came from different backgrounds that were cast into the melting pot of marriage. Over the years we mutually adjusted to each other’s position, until we found real, not contrived oneness. That oneness provides us with a foundation for broader inclusion of meaningful leadership. That is engagement and it is just as relevant to that great melting pot we call the church, which has to engage diverse cultures and backgrounds, walk a journey together and so enable individuals to exchange personal positions for collective vision and a shared destiny.

Stewardship is the greatest hallmark of leadership

2010-05-13T00:41:00.000-07:00

Recently I was told of a survey that rated CEO’s based on perceptions. It found that leaders who looked the part commanded an average 7% higher pay.

The biblical King Saul was a commanding presence. Yet he was a bad leader - the unfulfilled perceptions were to be a recurring theme of history. His successor, David, was also striking, but Saul tried to kill him, his son subverted him, he had many enemies and his wives scoffed at him. So much for the idea that appearances matter, not that I give much credence to perceptions, given the sheer number of leaders who never lived up to their images.

What made David such a great king was beyond perception. God saw a heart after His own heart. When he fled from cave to cave, he learnt to listen to the voice of His shepherd. He never became great because he looked the part or was some superhero or had all the answers – his prayers suggest vulnerability and a lack of answers. He was a great leader, not because he could command men, although to an extent he did in spite of so many rejections. He became a great leader because he submitted to God.

Moses also had a noble bearing, but he too learnt to sit at the feet of his God. He was not an original thinker – he merely implemented the patterns God showed him on the mount. He was not a natural leader – he was shy, reluctant and of few words. He was not a commanding presence – men often challenged him, throughout his life. Yet he was arguably the greatest man to ever walk the earth (aside from Jesus).

My own sense is that just about all our theories on leadership are speculative and manmade. The key distinction of all great biblical leaders was their stewardship. I might add that our model of manhood is also debatable, for the great biblical men were all shepherds: a form of steward.

Think about it. The modern CEO is appointed to steward shareholder value – that is what he does and, as Jim Collins observed, if he is shy, unassuming and humble that’s okay, as long as he is resolved about what the firm does and doesn’t do – he is the backbone, the gatekeeper, the shepherd. The idea that he must be visionary is moot. Vision is a collective consciousness, distilling from stakeholders and implementers. A good leader needs rather to facilitate a visioning process by building a learning organisation and can achieve more by allowing his followers to participate and engage in that process.

Most of all, a leader will achieve not only by stewarding value effectively, but also by instilling a similar core value in all those who follow him – because if we do what our stakeholders expect us to do, who could want for more. Maybe the church would not have drifted into its secular and commercial wallows if leaders had realized – “this is not our turf”, we are just stewards of “His” kingdom and those He entrusts to us.

My son played rugby for many years and captained a club team, but then we transferred him to a new, monastic school - with 800 boys, 4 teams per grade and far greater competition. He was selected for the C team, but approached it all as one "who knows the game" and "has little to learn". He was really downcast and directionless, until he changed his stance, humbled himself and listened to his coaches. He also diligently applied what they taught him. Within weeks he was being noticed and was promoted last week. The coaches are delighted with him and thanks to their guidance he is also playing a better game - he is progressing because he is stewarding the mandate of his coaches and it is working remarkeably well - a great lesson.

Not all things are pleasing to God

2010-05-11T09:35:00.000-07:00

For the better part of two millennia, leadership models have been informed by the clergy-laity models of the Greek-Roman-Christian era. It was ratified by the steep organizational structures of Rome, which resulted from the unilateralism of Julius Caesar. Prior to his crossing of the Rubicon, Rome had maintained a progressive albeit imperfect Republic based on constitutional and democratic principles.

The Greeks also had a steep leadership structure, but both they and the Romans adapted their leadership models from the God-King models of near east kingdoms like Persia and Syria. The result was a world with a strongly centrist approach to leadership. Although developing nations probably needed a more martial approach to government, including variations of slavery and subjugation, the underlying driver was an ancient mystery that John the Divine referred to as “mystery Babylon the great”. It is rooted in what we see in the mountaintop temptation, where the Devil offered to trade all the kingdoms of the world for Christ’s soul.

At the top of all centrist systems is effectively a devilish throne – and that is sadly true of the church and the world. According to the Book of Revelations, a significant body of churches or ecumenical Christians will subscribe to a false prophet who will endorse the ultimate, one-world, antichrist government.

So what is God’s way? Well Paul was rather clear on the subject. The 1st book of Corinthians, Ephesians, Romans 12 and other references, point to an inclusive and participative leadership model. Paul referred to a Commonwealth, implying a shared destiny and an internal economy. Paul also taught on the “Body of Christ”, pointing to one head, Christ, from whom the whole body is fitly joined together and grows into oneness. I don’t have the space to say more now, but it was God’s intent that we decrease or step aside to facilitate the headship of Christ and that we also defer to each other, so that real discipleship can be outworked through a believer-priesthood – until we reach a unity of faith a complete concept of fullness of Christ.

One of the most enlightened commentaries on leadership has been made by a contemporary thinker, Jim Collins. He effectively validated Paul’s model when he showed that good-to-great leaders are invisible, self-deprecating, humble, empowering and yet still so in touch with the distinction of their roles – namely fierce resolve. The latter role is the backbone on which others build - It is not the sticks on which marionettes dangle as they dance to their master’s voice.

I read an article today decrying the secularization of believers – leadership has become a commercialized platform and is steadily drifting from the heart of God into something that is dangerously at risk of reinforcing the throne of Satan.

Not all things are possible with God

2010-05-07T00:10:00.000-07:00

We so glibly quote the expression, “all things are possible with God”, which is technically valid, yet practically invalid. God cannot sin, not because it is impossible (He would be a machine if that were so), but because He is righteous. He cannot deny His own (as Paul said), without denying Himself. He will never tempt us. He will never destroy the earth by water again. He will never revoke His covenant with Abraham. I could go on – suffice to say there are a lot of things he cannot or will not do.

He also cannot go to church for you or love your family as you should or go to work so you can have bread on the table. Those things are obvious, but there are things you can do better than He can. He cannot relate to other people as readily and tangibly as you can – He did once, but His mission was to die not to relate, per se. No one can reach or touch the person next to you more effectively than you can.

So God effectively delegates such roles to us as individuals and, corporately, as the church. The elegance of the church is that it is so self-maintaining. Its mere existence facilitates ongoing connection, support and discipleship – not just through the formal aspects of church life, but almost more importantly through the organic life of the church.

God is into delegation (wrong term, right principle). The Father has a limited role – He could not bear the cross and also validate it, so He stood aloof of Christ’s suffering, so that Jesus would be vindicated and thus not die in vain. Jesus also has a limited role. He is our high priest, our mediator – He stands between God and us. The Holy Spirit has another, separate and distinctive role. Yet, those roles are so indivisible and mutually compatible that we see the Lord God as one.

That expresses something of God’s heart for us. Not to have divisions, departments and hierarchies, but to be an integral part of the whole, stakeholders and fellow heirs of His kingdom, yet distinguished by our different roles. We don’t go to church – that is a clergy-laity throwback to pre-Lutheranism – we are the church and we each have a stake in the advancement and fulfillment of Christ’s restorative mandate on earth.

Not only are these principles valid to church life they also inform our everyday interactions. Delegation is to leadership, what discipleship is to the church – in raising individuals from sheep to stakeholders. Its about equipping, handing over and letting go. Yes there will still be balancing roles, but that does not detract from the idea of empowering individuals to become vital, integrated stakeholders and pillars in the house of God and in the workplace – until we are able to say, “I don’t work the organisation – I am the organisation.”

Image courtesy of: ScSV.nevada.org

Jesus as leader - beyond the man

2010-05-02T23:05:00.000-07:00

The most telling feature of Jesus’ own leadership and the greatest reason for His impact on the world was because He touched the world where it hurt most. To try and comment on His leadership from any other perspective would be to cast Him into the mold of an icon: the very reason He had to go away again.

If we remember Him as a man, for all the greatness evident in His life, we will never benefit from His life or death – indeed we will be intimidated by it. He will be to us nothing more than the stones of condemnation that Moses smashed before His people – a standard beyond us. Yet even if we could get past that, we would still veil Him in mystique and miss the very point of His incarnation. He came to die, not to live as a hero.

The golden calf was a depiction of Jehovah, not a throw back to the gods of Egypt. Because Moses had been gone too long they created a replica of their concept of God. Sadly, in remembering Jesus the man and in trying to evoke a visible replica of a savior who never wanted to be remembered that way, many have made another golden calf.

Jesus came to earth in the fullness, or ripest moment, of time. He stepped onto a platform established by the witness of all who preceded Him and He stood in an era that provided an ideal environment for His ministry – good communications, a sense of order, etc.

It took millennia to infuse a sound concept of sin, the real pain of humankind, into the hearts and minds of the Jews. Though sin was an issue, whether they respected that fact or not, it needed to be understood to ensure the relevance of His life and death.

So although Jesus was not able to achieve His objective independently of what others had already done before Him, in waiting for a time when their real need was most clear to all minds, He achieved maximum impact. Thanks to His grasp of our need and His clear articulation of that issue, enough got the message for the original spark to fan to flame.

He was a profoundly effective leader, but not because of His stature and good looks (its doubtful if He had either), charismatic presence (He was humble, soft spoken and retiring), His power (He sidestepped Herod and the Romans and bowed to His executioner) or His miracles (which had to do with preparing His sacrifice). He was effective because He resonated with the crying need of humankind – and still does so.

Then in a final dramatic act, that ultimate need met with the ultimate solution, as the savior gasped His last breath on a wooden gibbet. He led from the front, not as a mighty presence, but as a broken, naked man. In His final act, He exchanged our forsakenness for His life, our death for His, our sins for His sacrifice and our need for His provision.

Question: Was it the man that changed the world or what He represented?

Exchange theory of leadership: trading

2010-04-20T23:01:00.000-07:00

The more I look at life, the more I realise the value of relationships. Clever children often do well at school and not so well afterwards and statistically most fall short of their potential. Yet many average kids do succeed. One of the keys to that success is their ability to develop and retain vital networks. Those networks open doors, provide vital links and oil the cogs of commerce.

Relational people are more likely to succeed because they can resolve the barriers to effective cooperation, win the support of their teams, negotiate with stakeholders and interpret the environment. Its no wonder that God values relationships far above activity, performance, works, buildings, technology, accomplishments, etc. It is through relationships that He shapes the world.

So exchange is vital to effectiveness. Whatever else you say about leadership is somewhat thin and potentially irrelevant if you do not have the ability to exchange value - I have said enough about the mutually self-eliminating qualities of leadership in Churchill and Hitler to make the point that highly vaunted variables like integrity, honour, credibility, charisma, authority and many others, are not definitive.

The problem with exchanging value, is that there must be perceived value in the exchange. If a leader offers a compelling new deal, people will exchange their support for the future benefits he offers. However, if dissonance creeps in due to diminishing credibility or doubts about his sincerity or his ability to deliver, many will subsequently opt out and withdraw their support. Similarly if the leader actually offers much but fails to find meaningful support for his position, he will withdraw the offer and move on.

Perception is a very powerful feature of effective exchange. Few people have a sound grasp of reality, but almost all of us have perceptions of reality. Marketers exploit that idea to motivate us to buy for price, quality, brand or some other perceived value. Well, good leaders must also manage perceptions in order to resonate with their target audiences - they must speak their language, be sensitive to cultural dynamics, be relevant and connect with them, else they will not follow. The apostle Paul was skilled at that and argued, "To the Jews I became a Jew, to the Greeks a Greek - so that by any means they might be saved."

The rise of despots in history inevitably resulted from a "what have we got to lose" sense of desperation and a shrewd reading of the climate by dark minds. The people followed, because they had reached a point where they were willing to trade their souls for a better lot. The antichrist will exploit similar social tensions. That places an enormous responsibility on the shoulder of noble leaders - people can be exploited and will trade their souls if need be, but as Oscar Schindler inferred: the power to do (to kill a helpless prisoner in his case), was not comparable with the real power of choosing not to do.

So, leadership is about exchange and it is more about exchange that many other things we love to cite. However, ethics must guide the exchange if the outcome is to be noble.

To lie or not to lie

2010-04-19T01:33:00.000-07:00

Does the bible say anything about lying? Maybe, but the the 9th commandment does not read, "thou shalt not lie", nor is there any biblical grounds for lying to be regarded as some deadly sin. With due respect to our Catholic brethren, "thou shalt not lie" is a catholic interpretation, not a biblical one.

The point is that God carefully chose His words to avoid a law that would have been untenable, namely, "thou shalt not lie", but in so doing He shifted the emphasis to the courtroom and focused on the legal weight or implications of our witness. He was far more concerned with ensuring the integrity of the biblical legal system - thus, the injunction to not bear false witness had similar implications to the modern-day principle of lying under oath. Any violation of the commandments was serious, potentially punishable by death, so God was being very serious when He introduced such a vital ground rule to the biblical legal code.

Now I am regularly heard to speak of "perceptions" and that perceptions are reality - to most people, reality is secondary to perception. I have also advocated the idea that management of perceptions is the essence of marketing, The question is, is my position legitimate? Well Paul spoke of "avoiding the appearance of evil" and in another case he admonished believers to avoid drinking in front of weaker believers. Both of those arguments allude to managed perceptions. Paul even manipulated his audiences as when he truthfully confessed to being of the resurrection, to gain support from the pharisees and thus divide his opponents.

Even Solomon made a case for managed perceptions when he said in Proverbs 17:28 that a fool will be deemed to be wise if he keeps silence - or as I have since heard, "better to shut up and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". I have known astute leaders who would deliberately keep quiet throughout a meeting and only talk when the timing was right, to preserve their images.

Empirically speaking, our culture has acquired the ability to lie tactfully - who would tell his wife she is fat, even if she is. What man would tell his employees they are lazy and what woman would want to expose her husband's nakedness before friends. We cannot afford to be so blunt or so honest that we do each other harm, yet the implied subteties do not imply that we have to lack integrity. Integrity also alludes to the 9th commandment, because it goes to the weight of our witness and it gives us credence in the courts of life. It should be a ground rule for every believer, because it undepins every daily transaction. Integrity is a life rule that guides what we do when no one is watching and it is fundamental to our character. So, we cannot conceal vital facts or alter essential truths - we must be ethical in all our daily activities.

When it comes to managed perceptions, I do things like dressing appropriately for my audience - out of deference to them. I also use a language and humor style that fits their profile, not mine. In my written communication I constantly weigh my words, because that is good communication. It means that I am often not being myself or true to myself - but I am being true to my cause, and that is far more relevant.

I also have found ways to ensure that I maintain connectedness without adding a huge maintenance burden to my life - efficient communications will often require some trade-offs and a degree of perception management. If you take yourself too seriously, you will become irrelevant and ineffective, so you must do what needs to be done in a sustainable way, else you will neglect both your job and your constituencies.

I would love to hear your comments - can Christians lie selectively and what are the implications?

Exchange theory of leadership: connecting

2010-04-14T01:25:00.000-07:00

I am so often confronted with straightforward, compelling logic which later leads to reflection and a subsequent, "now hold on a bit".

John Maxwell has just released a book about connecting versus communicating and my instinct was to say, "amen", as have his many loyal fans. Of course I have yet to read the book, which licences me to be objective around the idea without being critical of the content. That said, let me add that Maxwell is a sound author, worthy of all respect - so do read his book.

Starting with my blog about Hitler and Churchill and the transactions that defined their leadership, I asked the question, "Did they connect?" The truth is that neither did. Churchill was blatantly ignored by parliament and the public, until crisis made his message more compelling. No transaction was possible until the people were ready to hear. His message never changed, but the audience and the climate for listening did. Should he have changed his stance to a more popular, relevant issue? How could he, given his absolute convictions about the impending threat of Hitler.

Actually Adolf also failed to connect. He was douwnright offensive to his own in his emerging years, but once the people perceived that he might put Germany back on the map his cause gained broader support - germans were even willing to shut their eyes and minds to Nazi excesses in return for the new possibilities that Hitler evidently promised - and to the poor, struggling masses that made sense.

The prophets of old generally failed to connect and even distanced themselves from everyday society. They were pugnacious, direct, offensive and dressed badly. That never deterred them as they kept up their provocations until their prophecies came to pass or the people humbled themselves. They only connected when their message started to resonate with reality and even then many hardened their hearts, but the message had to be sounded whether they reciprocated or not because such is the nature of a prophet.

Paul was often disconnective. He happily offended the house of Diana and turned the world upside down, regardless of the risks. He did similar things elsewhere. So did Jesus. Yet, with time their message was validated and found its target, but only when individuals saw the value of the transaction - then they traded their souls for truth, a very significant transaction that often cost their lives.

Indeed God breaks all the contemporary rules of connectiveness - He never amplifies His message, but speaks through a still, small voice. He never instructs, but influences. He generally tells it how it is and we generally reel back until we come to terms with His truth. He often leads people into wild desert places to reach us, rather than popular forums or auditoria. He is generally silent, His ways are hard to find and He is shrouded in mystery. Yet countless souls have reached out hungrily for Him and followed Him to the ends of the earth, not because He is chic, popular or relevant, but because He is so compelling.

Many firms use negative advertising to get attention. They deliberately disconnect and provoke controversy then feed on all the negative publicity to gain traction with their target audiences - in doing so they apply a lesson that harks back to childhood, where strategic withdrawals and sulking are often rewarded with positive attention. Is that all healthy or good? No, yet when he offended the followers of Diana, Paul effectively fed on the resulting negative publicity, whether his strategy was deliberate or incidental.

All leaders communicate. In doing so they channel their energy towards people, the way a power station channels its power to consumers. Electricity not used is lost forever, just as a leader's words can fall on deaf ears - for until the respondent switches on and transacts no meaning will be traded. Yet even then, if they connect for the sake of amusement or interest, the connection will yield little or no change. It is only when the audience is ripe for the message that a true transaction will happen. Sadly, many charismatic leaders feel that their job is done if they are there and if they also successfully ra-ra, amplify, haul out the dancing girls and make a spectacle, yet all they achieve is bemused detachment, not sustainable action.

Can we connect and get a response? Yes, but lets get into that later.

The exchange theory of leadership

2010-04-12T23:10:00.000-07:00

There is so much theory about leadership that sometimes we miss the obvious for all the looking. Why is it that good and bad people still have the potential for leadership? Hitler and Churchill had little in common, yet is that not the point? We could argue in favour of integrity, vision, honesty and all kinds of other virtues, but finding them in one not in the other is self-defeating or at least self-neutralising.

Let me explain. Both Hitler and Churchill were great leaders and great communicators, by all standards. They stirred significant followings and uplifted whole nations to their cause. Yet the one was honourable, the other offensive. The one was integrous, the other anything but. The one had a righteous cause, not so the other. The one had a warm, open face, the other had a dark, malignant expression. The one was imposing, the other short and ugly. The one spoke with rhythmic cadences, the other with vitriole and intensity. So what do we make of that? Do the comparisons inform us on how we ought to live, lead or communicate? I think not.

So what common features made them comparably effective? It was a simple reality of human exchange. Their followers exchanged their support for a reciprocal benefit. Hitler offered Germans the hope of restoring lost glories, Churchill was a rallying point for victory.

Is that empiracally sound reasoning? Well, why is it that many bosses lead, with degrees of effectiveness, in spite of themselves. Could it be that they have something to trade - be it a salary, promotion or other priveleges? Why do politicians command their followings - because of their sexy hairstyles or scintillating rhetoric? I think it is because their followers perceive a viable trade to be in the offing.

Many church followers will bring acts of service to influence their positions rather than for the love it. Many workers in the workplace will trade personal sacrifices and after-work socialisation for perceived benefits, with success, whilst the real work-horses remain mere Cindarellas. Heck some would go to hell and back to enhance their lot and all the above would enhance perceptions about the leader in the middle of it all. Yet their followers will as readily defect to another leader if the perceived benefits of their support are diminished.

Enough said for now ... what do you believe? I will explore this theory further, later.

What Jesus did not do - part 2

2010-04-12T04:06:00.000-07:00

Continuing on the theme of the previous blog ...

He did not do performance - He was never driven by externalities, but by an inner compass - a desire to please the Father. His obedience was rewarding enough to sustain His soul, thus He said, "My meat is to do His will". He was never driven by ambition or fear or personal vulnerability, all of which are negative, energy sapping and unsustainable drivers of human behaviour. He was always driven by the zeal of His Father's house.

He did not seek position - Aside from His personal presence, which had to be felt rather than observed from a distance, Jesus generally dismissed positional status. He preferred to be invisible and understated. He typically led from the middle, not from the front (as charismatic leaders prefer to do) or from the back (as generals like to do), but from the middle, where He could coach, mentor, guide, motivate and uplift His followers. He knew He only had a few years to work with them, so He had to build away from Himself.

He shunned iconic status

- He never wanted people to cling to and depend on the son of man. He chose to leave the earth and return to us in spirit, so that we would not follow "the man" or establish a "cult following". He wanted the church to get up and be the church, rather than a band of idealists following an icon.

He never tried to be all things - He clearly shunned the roles people thrust on Him, be it that of a social reformer/saviour, a king, a miracle man or simply a friend to the downtrodden. No one could pin Him down to an expedient role. However, He also maintained a complementary role to the Father and Holy Spirit, choosing never to be entire in and of Himself. He worked with the Father, implementing the will of God, so that the Father could fulfil His own role as the independent judge and referee of heaven - the final validator of His son's works.

He avoided intrigue and power plays - The power of His ministry vested in a relational role, not in power, politics or manipulation. That enabled Him to be absolutely honest and true for He had no one to please and cared little for human opinion. Sensitivities to the feelings of those in power were only ever applied in the context of relationship, but where there was nor shared value He quite simply stated things as they were. He was a straight as a die, unwavering and those who followed Him always knew where they stood.

What did Jesus not do?

2010-04-06T06:08:00.000-07:00

So often we use models of historic or current leaders to define leadership. That is useful, but it often ends up being anecdotal rather than principled.

A principled person has a clear sense of what to do and what they will not do. Thus, observing what Jesus did not do, may provide us with a more principled leadership model. Some of the things He did not do:

He refused to be His own man - now that is about as against the grain of contemporary leadership thinking as I dare go. He defined His entire life around His Father and that became His sole basis of authority. It is not a crazy idea either, for the modern CEO is a steward of shareholder value, answerable to his board and never to his whim. That said many CEO's are self-serving, but Jesus refused to serve His own interest.

He refused promotion - His identity lay not in what He did or in His pedigree, but in His obedience to His Father. He said, "I came to do your will Oh God". When they tried to make Him king, He shrugged it off and stuck with His original mandate. He came to offer a sacrifice not to secure a throne.

He did not treat every one the same - that is almost as controversial as earlier points. He treated Peter, James and John as His closest confidantes. He kept the 12 nearby and equipped them to be witnesses and accepted that their broader effectiveness was of secondary relevance - indeed few of the 12 really made an impact. He empowered the 72 to go out and preach the gospel, as the vanguard of the coming church age. He treated the downtrodden with compassion, but treated the religious leaders with disdain. He was discerning and discriminating, using His power and influence appropriately.

He did not abuse His power - charismatic leadership is so power-centric and built around personalities. Jesus could have done the same, using His power to gain prominence. Yet, He only did miracles to give credence to His cross. He never used power for power sake - He had only one mission, to die for the sins of the world, and He never diverted from that. His power was not an end in itself, it was merely a means to a far greater end.

... to be continued

Influence versus direction

2008-04-05T00:48:00.000-07:00

Directive leadership styles are always popular with leaders - but divine leadership is a better way.

God is often perceived as directive in His own leadership style and certainly there are many examples of decisive leadership, as when He dealt with Pharaoh of Egypt or led Israel out of captivity through the Red Sea. But it would be wrong to interpret Him as a directive leader, because there is substantially more evidence pointing to an influential style of leadership.

It is a given that God respects our freedom of choice and will not impose His will on us. Yet He gave us His Word and made it very clear that there are consequences for not obeying it. That borders on directive-ness, but stops short of it. He does not actually respond directly to disobedience, rather He created laws of cause and effect that are invoked by our own responses to them. So when we willfully disobey we invoke the embedded consequences or curses of His law.

Actually the entire universe is made that way. God doesn’t sit down with a “weather angel” every day and decide what kind of day we are going to have. Rather He invested a handful of highly deterministic laws that govern the entire weather cycle, without any further intervention. Thus Jesus said, “The wind blows where it wants to”.

Now such principles already allude to a very effective style of leadership. Rather than interfere in daily decision making, which would be disempowering and intrusive, God established the fewest possible laws (minimalism) to achieve the greatest possible level of self-regulation in life. The resulting system is very self-adjusting and able to bounce back from human excesses, although we are currently at risk of pushing our life support system beyond its design limits.

So God gives us principles to guide our lives and then lets us find the fine balance between those principles so that we may be effective. Beyond that He influences our hearts and minds, through His still small voice, but He never says “do that or else”. He makes allowance for our complexity and our competing influences, by patiently influencing our choices until that yields the peaceable fruits of righteousness. Sometimes our willfulness will drive us into long periods of isolation and frustration, but then He simply meets us in those experiences and shows us His divine ways.

Humans tend to be too willful to adopt a patient, influencing style. Yet a lot of modern thinking around EQ (Emotional intelligence), presupposes an influential, patient approach to the way we interact with people. Many vent their frustration with people and turn to manipulation: anger, politics, underhandedness, malice and all the other negative levers so popularly applied in corporate and, sad to say, church life. That is self-negating, because the resulting impositions provoke a push back from people and that leads to the nasty, unproductive standoffs that characterize politics. Some have paid dearly for that, as did the bourgeoisies of revolutionary France.

So effective leadership does not require an overt, charismatic, loud, assertive, pushy style – ever.

Truly effective and sustainable leadership requires us to shepherd, not herd, God’s heritage. It is a rod and staff thing, requiring us to use the staff to gently nudge and influence, whilst deploying the rod to deal with exceptions, exceptionally. The rod reflects the consequences that are embedded within divine law and reflect God’s bottom line. Good leadership must define boundaries (doctrine, direction and discipline) and defend them, but it should liberate and empower all behavior that functions within those boundaries.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Designed for glory

2008-03-28T23:23:00.000-07:00

We are not our own. God our maker, called us to serve His purpose and fulfill our design potential.

I read a quote recently, which implied that we cannot reach our potential without Jesus.

That sounds good enough, but I am never happy to just accept motherhood and apple pie. I need to dig into an expression like that and get to its soul.

In 1947, Howard Hughes built a huge, eight-engined propeller powered aircraft out of wood (due to wartime shortages of metals). Critics soon dubbed it the “Spruce Goose”. The eccentric billionaire had taken flying to the edge on many occasions, but he invested all his passions into building this great aircraft: the largest flying boat ever and the reigning world champion for all aircraft in terms of wing span (97m) and overall height (24.2m) – compare that with dimensions for the world’s largest passenger aircraft at 76m wingspan and 24.1m height and you get some idea of how big the Spruce Goose was.

But, alas, the Spruce Goose only flew once at a height of 70m and a speed of 135mph. Critics argue that she lacked the power to climb and only achieved her maiden flight through ground effects. Well, whatever the truth, I am sure the plane was never designed to be parked in a museum, in Long Island. It was designed to fly and carry cargo. But it never reached its potential.

Everything in life is designed. Go and look at the smallest insect and you will see design and logic. Each has its place in the cycle of life, the food chain and the functional balance of nature. Nothing is wasted.

It is as true that we were built to specification. We may not be Spruce Gooses, but each of us is uniquely designed for a purpose. God created humans to serve many general and specific purposes, but He never intended any aspect of His creation to become a mere museum artifact. We were made to live, breathe and be of value.

So, when we speak of reaching our potential, we at least refer to the fulfillment of the potential invested in us by our maker. But there is a more subtle point here. We have not reached our potential merely for the fact of doing or achieving many things or through the exploitation of our talents. We can only reach our potential within the context of God’s will and purpose for our lives – He is the sole judge of what we are supposed to be and whether we realize that potential.

So it is right to say that without Jesus we cannot reach our potential – we can do much and achieve great things, but we can only reach our potential on the terms of our maker.

This introduces two key leadership issues.

Firstly, are you a leader at all, by God’s standard, if you merely achieve. No you are only a leader insofar as you achieve His purpose. That is not at all unreasonable. When shareholders elect a CEO they entrust the stewardship of their investment to the chief executive, which may or may not center around profit growth. In return, the CEO entrusts issues of compensation to them. No CEO who is truly worth his own salt exists for himself. An executive exists to satisfy the objectives of his shareholders and his performance will be judged by them alone.

Church leaders are there to execute God’s mandate. In effect they are really just midwives who oversee the outworking of God’s potential and the realization of Christ-likeness in the lives of individuals.

That brings me to the second point. You are not a leader if you mold followers to your ways or your patterns and make them replicas of yourself, for you are not and shall never be the standard by which their potential shall be measured. You can only consider success in terms of the degree to which Christ is formed in the hearts of people and that is exactly what Paul defined as the whole purpose of ministry (read it for yourselves in Ephesians 4). As partakers of the divine nature of God He has given us all we need for life and Godliness, so that the outworking of His potential may redound to His glory without ever being the product of human ingenuity or original thinking – indeed, no flesh shall ever glory in His presence.

I get the feeling that the modern shepherd has become more of a cowherd, living with the notion that leadership is all about herding people from meeting to meeting and doing relevant crowd management through good music, entertaining ministry, creative programs and comfortable auditoria. Well that’s all good and well and may have its place, but when you stand before Him one day, the sole shareholder of this divine enterprise will only be concerned with the faithfulness of your stewardship. If we fail to implement the patterns He has prescribed for us, we have not achieved at all and we will have missed our potential.”

Look, simply put, the church is not a good ideas club. It is God’s design for bringing us all (not an exclusive few) into unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man. That is what we are about and what we must achieve, nothing more, nothing less. If people do not grow up into the head, which is Christ, and thus become like Him as true disciples, well then you can only really claim to have formed a museum artifact, something with unfulfilled potential that was designed for greatness.

(c) Peter Eleazar at http://www.bethelstone.com/

Stand in the gap

2008-03-20T07:30:00.000-07:00

The power of precedence, is a key biblical principle. It was the watershed of major historic events.

The act of one man, Adam, less so much his wife, determined the future of the entire human race. The act of Saul, when he disobeyed Samuel, blighted his descendents and cut them off from the throne of Israel. A single act of obedience by one old man on a lonely Canaanite outpost, blessed all of Abraham’s descendants from that day onwards. When Esau sold his birthright for some stew, he could never get it back though he sought it with tears, but what he lost to Jacob would remain Jacob’s inheritance forever.

Ultimately these principles point to the cross where the second Adam, paid the price to right the precedence of sin and death that came through the first Adam, so that now through that one man righteousness and life must accrue to all who believe in Him.

These principles allude to the weightiness of leadership and the substance of our stewardship. It is why I, like many other men, drew a line in the sand and declared that whatever errors defined our forefathers, the rot would stop with us.

It is evident from 1 Samuel 10, that God anointed Saul and placed His spirit on him, but that did not prevent his failure because Saul had never been through the forging furnaces of life that are so necessary for preparing us for greater responsibility. But David first proved his heart, then was anointed as a future king and then faced years of struggle and only then was He commissioned to rule as King. That made him a far more resilient and wise leader, but it also ensured his own teach-ability, humility and sensibility.

The problem with leaders that have power without substance, is that they are all too often impulsive, reckless and egocentric, just as Saul was. They also suppress all opposition, just as Saul did. They can break organizations and do untold harm to the teams they inherit, but their insecurity makes them the centre of attention so that everything revolves around the dominant individual, just as it was for Saul. And like Saul, some of them never outgrow their flaws but eventually just fall on their own swords.

A seasoned campaigner has fewer chips on their shoulder and is more likely to be magnanimous, tough when needed, but otherwise unthreatened by other aspirant leaders.

So as moments of decision or key individuals made telling differences to succeeding generations throughout history, so one leader can and often does make a telling difference to the future of modern organizations, including churches. That demands a very accountable, servant-like heart that is in touch with the weight of their role and willing to humbly execute their mandate in obedience to God.

Look what Abraham did after he secured God’s blessing. He paid great attention to detail in ensuring that Isaac was mentored, had the right wife to support him and was otherwise adequately prepared to carry his legacy into the future. I could paraphrase the man’s sense of his blessing and the implications thereof: “Heck, I will not let anyone take this blessing and corrupt it. Listen to me Eliezer, this is not a matter of life and death: it is much more than that. Place your hand on my groin and swear by an oath that you will not fail to ensure a proper wife for my son and a mother to my grandchildren.”

I may have used nice airy-fairy biblical language thus far, but the previous paragraph brings the concept of stewardship into a richer perspective. The kind of heart it takes to carefully watch over and shepherd all that God entrusts to a leader, is the kind of heart that has paid too great a price to ever drop the ball.

Leadership is not a game, nor is it a title, rank, career or symbol for our fragile egotism. It is a fearful and significant thing for God to delegate the weight of His kingdom to us and to call us watch over His beloved people.

When we wound the sheep and drive them away to preserve our own rights, we stand guilty of the presumptuous sin that David so despised. But when we fearfully determine that none shall be lost of those so entrusted to us, then and only then will we have grasped the heart of leadership.

Leadership is not eloquence or learning, but may involve both. But when leaders are anointed because they look, sound or seem the part, they are nothing but empty vessels, sounding gongs and clanging symbols (1 Corinthians 13: 1). But when we shepherd faithfully, in a covenant of love and a full understanding that we can make a difference for the kingdom in preserving His legacy, then you will understand why, “love is patient and kind, without boasting or pride. It is never rude (offensive to the sheep) or self-seeking. Nor is it easily angered and it keeps no record of wrongs. It always protects, trusts, hopes and perseveres and it will never fail” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8).

© Peter Eleazar at http://www.bethelstone.com/

The heart of God

2008-03-14T05:55:00.000-07:00

Leadership transcends practical and theoretical considerations till it translates the heart of God.

The bible is so deftly written, with such economy of style, that sometimes we can miss quite obvious truths. The problem with theology is that it deals with facts at the surface, without necessarily delving into the heart behind those facts.

God has veiled His Word in mystery so that we will search for meaning beyond the two-dimensional context of the written word. That is why, in Hebrews 9, He covenants to write His laws on our hearts, not in our minds.

Don’t get me wrong, I deeply appreciate the contributions made by theologians throughout history, for they have helped in our interpretation of text and context, but we also need to know the heart of God and that comes from walking with Him. No other man knows my wife as I do, because no one has walked a lifetime with her as I have done, not even her parents. There is a degree of knowledge that others have, but it is limited. There is a depth that I have plumbed that no one else has and it has been derived through relationship, not factually. That is the depth we must plumb in our walk with God.

This brings me to the nub of this article. There is a factual, mechanilistic level of understanding on the principles of leadership that is attainable to most of us. It is largely valid although a lot of worldly influences have come into modern biblical leadership and whilst some of those influences are valid, many are not. We would be wise to look into the bible for principles, lest we be beguiled by Satan into humanistic models that feed the soul and build soulish strongholds or power-bases that ultimately end up serving Satan more than they serve God or His people.

True leadership, biblical leadership that is, must devolve from the heart of God. The reasons are many-fold:

Firstly, spiritual leadership implies accountability for God’s heritage. It is a process of stewardship, not ownership. He is the only shareholder for they are His people. He entrusts them to our care, but never cedes them to us. We should be fearful and very careful about how we handle God’s people. Jesus left a great example, saying, “Of those you gave me I lost not one (save the son of perdition)”.

Secondly, spiritual leadership follows God’s vision. I have heard leaders ramble on about vision and inevitably it amounts to a somewhat humanistic exercise and a thin disguise for centralized control. The only vision we really need is to implement the mandate of God, the patterns He showed us on the mount. Many churches today have a cultural or social bias that bears no resemblance to biblical models for church life – they may be very popular and trendy, but that is not the point. The church is not an incorporation or fiefdom: she is the bride of Christ and the heritage of God.

Thirdly, spiritual leadership reflects His heart. God loves His people and that is what drove Him to the cross. He does not bless us out of some sense of duty, nor does He function on a give and take, win-win principle. He loves unconditionally and gave Himself expecting nothing in return, so that we might love Him who first loved us. There is no higher reason for serving God than to demonstrate our love for Him, for thus He said thrice to Peter, “If you love me, feed my lambs”.
Fourthly, spiritual leadership is not an end in itself. We don’t lead to establish a following or to build numbers underneath us. We lead to equip the church to fulfill her divine mandate. Leaders are merely the midwives, the lowest order servants who wait come alongside His people and provoke them to be what He called them to be. The sheep were not meant to be co-opted by the shepherds for their own gratification, but were called by God to be a peculiar people, a royal priesthood and a nation of God. We can at best facilitate that, but we must be careful never to hijack the process to build our own thrones or to frustrate the flow of God’s spirit. In Old Testament parlance, we can only really establish the framework, the tent, but God must inhabit it so that it becomes a living, vital thing and a place of union between Him and His people.

I am reminded of the vision of a valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37). God’s spirit came on the bones, linking them with sinew, muscle and tissue until the whole rose up as one army. Leadership provides the bones, the framework of spiritual living, when they set the church in order and plant a basic working replica of God’s model. But the indwelling Spirit of God must then transform the faithful implementation of His divine framework into a living reality, else it will remain a lifeless organization. By His spirit, God fills it, adds flesh to the bone and knits lives together, to give it muscle and fabric: until the institution becomes a living, vital organism. The Life within us then establishes us as the whole, the only army of the Living God, where every member is vital to the whole, as stakeholders (not laity) in the life and thought of His everlasting kingdom.

© Peter Eleazar at http://www.bethelstone.com

Image : www.allpoetry.com

Authority relates to stewardship

2008-02-26T23:04:00.000-08:00

Leadership is the highest form of stewardship that imposes the greatest call to personal submission.

Power closely relates to sin and sin feeds on self. Self awareness was the first change that happened in Adam and Eve after they ate of the tree of knowledge. It is the crux of all temptation and has been used by Satan to draw us away from God into deviant purposes. Self-knowledge is a key consideration of the tenth Commandment: “Do not covet”.

It is no coincidence that the grand prize in Satan’s temptation of Jesus, was to get Him to displace His Father’s authority and rule in His own right. That was completely against the grain for Jesus, but it reflects the soul of self-awareness: the instinct to advance ourselves. Whilst I am all in favor of self-development and self-respect, the insidious spirit of self-centeredness relates directly to original sin: the rebellion of Satan against God’s throne.

We tacitly align ourselves with that rebellion when we promote self over the kingdom, for in so doing, we effectively subvert the throne and authority of God. Indeed, whether self-awareness manifests as pride or debasement, as overt or covert behavior, it still detracts from the glory of God, diminishes the power of the kingdom and makes us an unwitting channel for Satan’s subversion of God’s purposes.

Self is a key factor of the power struggle between leaders and followers. Both parties struggle within themselves for mastery and recognition and the issues compete with the healthy attributes of leadership. Most leaders would agree that laying ourselves down to serve the greater cause, in cooperation with leaders, significantly reflects spiritual maturity. I agree and I also adopt the bible’s bias towards leaders. Even imperfect leadership is better than no leadership and taking the law into our own hands is perverse, for leadership represents the whole and the whole is always more than any one individual.

But for submission to be relevant at any level it must be relevant at all levels. Leaders must also be subject to authority and if not they have no right to require submission from their followers, for the essence of all leadership is stewardship of the mandates entrusted to us. If we lose touch with that principle and strike out on our own independent agenda, we will also place ourselves beyond the limits of God’s authority.

It is no wonder that the bible calls “Rebellion, the sin of witchcraft” (1 Samuel 15:23), for it is the heart of corruption, insurrection, conflict, wickedness, vice, malice and lawlessness.

For a leader to give full effect to their own submission, they must take deliberate steps into the context of authority. They must respect that the principle of authority is independent of the person, but dependent on God. This is not just about being accountable to other leaders: we must start with submission to God and His Word.

Now this is where the rub comes. When leaders misinterpret leadership as something sacrosanct, an imposed right of way, they miss the raison d’etre of their calling: which is all about God entrusting His Kingdom and His purposes to our frailty. Indeed, it is about a whole (the kingdom) that precedes us and will outlive us, but nonetheless extends to us (individuals) the privilege of participation.

The reason that Abel and Jacob found favor with God over their brothers, was because they brought back to God what God first entrusted to them. Their brothers tried to impress with the labors of their hands and the originality of their thinking. But Abel and Jacob feared God in the spirit of true stewardship. Abel despised sweat capital and only laid before God a lamb that was first entrusted to his shepherd heart: it was a costly part of his own heritage and the sacrifice was sensitive to the heart of God (he offered a lamb without being told that such a sacrifice would be a recurring symbol of godliness).

Abel brought to God what God wanted, but Cain brought what he wanted. Jacob, on the other hand, showed profound regard for the legacy handed down from Abel through succeeding generations, whilst his foolish brother was willing to trade that legacy for some stew (you could stew for popularity, power, position, symbols or reputation).

Our legacy, the Kingdom of God, has a six thousand year heritage established through faithful hearts, whom God sustained through enormous personal sacrifices. How dare we assume that what we have inherited is our fiefdom or an expression of our own original thinking? Moses would have raised his rod over this generation, saying “He called us only to implement the patterns shown on the mount”.

It is a fearful and noble thing to be called to steward something of such priceless value and we must needs do so with fearful, faithful hearts. Like Joshua we need to apply great attention to detail in handling the wonders of God. That implies personal discipline, submission to the Word, holy living, accountability for our conduct and respect for the pillars of divine governance: the prophetic, the priesthood and ruler-ship.

In closing, may I hint at the next chapter in this discourse. The wise leader needs to realize that when biblical principles are applied to their leadership, it will enhance their ability to lead effectively. It is incumbent on all good leaders to study divine patterns and principles in the knowledge that real authority is independent of their personality, personal power, charisma, original thinking, vision or any other humanistic concepts of leadership. Real authority relates to what we steward, not who stewards it.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Authority is not personal power

2008-02-25T23:52:00.000-08:00

The idea of separating authority from the office bearer is controversial, but empirically logical..

In the previous article I said that Authority is not a person, but a principle. I wish to explore that further, using a few relevant examples. The examples I have chosen are biblically defined authority structures.

The first is Slavemasters. The term, as such, is no longer relevant, but the principle relates to business leaders. Peter was quick to say that we should submit to these, even when they are harsh and I support that, in principle. Harsh leadership has its place in every leadership context for those who define and preserve boundaries, but I will speak later on leadership styles and roles.

A business leader is empowered by defined terms of reference that are independent of the office bearer. In business we always referred to “the job”, not the “incumbent”. The job is mandated and sanctioned by the organization and its shareholders. The mandate and its compensation is job specific, not specific to the office holder. It ultimately relates back to the stewardship of shareholder value. The authority to do the job is defined within the terms of reference. These are readily accepted principles in business circles, but it surprises me that we cannot translate the principle to other leadership contexts.

When a business leader fulfils his or her given mandate and delivers to their terms of reference, they have authority. I do believe that such authority is more than a human mantle. God nominated such leaders as a legitimate class of authority and I have seen how an intangible spirit of authority seems to accompany appointed leaders. However, I have also seen leaders walk in and out of authority, for they can exceed themselves. Thus, when leaders (be they Christians or not) consciously or unconsciously apply biblical principles, things work. Fairness, equity, integrity, honesty and other timeless principles come to mind and great leaders swear by them. But of equal importance is faithful stewardship of their terms of reference.

A scriptural example of how authority can waver, relates to Joshua. Whilst clearly anointed of God to lead Israel, his authority was diminished by sin within the camp, the sin of Achan. God withdrew His power until the sin was resolved, for the people had effectively stepped outside of His authority. Sin here could be a proxy for corruption, inequity, double-dealing or violation of terms of reference: namely, “disobedience”.

Parental authority

As with the previous discussion, this is another defined biblical authority that carries divine weight. A Father has authority within the home, power to impose discipline and the ability to instill values. It is an intangible spirit of authority that comes from God, regardless of race or creed, but it is specific to Fathers. Mothers also have authority, but it is specific to their role. I frequently hear women express frustration with child discipline and other unnatural roles, but I rarely see men battling with their own natural roles.

However, I have seen men lose authority by stepping outside their mandate and I have also seen at least some of that same authority gradually pass to their wives, by default. A father can and does lose the respect of his wife and children when he fails to live up to God’s terms of reference. I think far too many men are currently disempowered and are being left behind because they do not understand their authority or invoke it. It doesn’t matter how theologians cut or slice this issue, the reality is that despite the defined authority of fatherhood, fathers will suffer diminished authority through sin and misappropriation of God’s mandate.

I once had a major sin issue in my household, but as for Joshua the sin was concealed. I found myself struggling in almost every area of my life because of this, because God held me accountable, just as Joshua was accountable for Israel. When I confronted and resolved those issues, I regained authority in my home and in society. I actually felt very disempowered and ineffective as a man until the issues were resolved.

Church authority

I am amazed at how all the foregoing is held to be valid, but somehow breaks down within church leadership. There are clear biblical principles for leadership that represent the separate mandate of authority. Leaders who live within their mandates, thrive and invoke the power implied by their terms of reference, but leaders who exceed their mandates forever struggle with discipline, submission and support. As someone once said, “If you keep hitting brick walls, you are probably doing something wrong”. That is true for leadership. There is a right way and a high way of leadership, but violations of our divine mandate, always undermine our ability to lead.

To make any form of submission reasonable, it is important that those who lead are themselves in submission: to Godly principle, the Word and to the “pattern” that God prescribed for His church. I do not celebrate many of the original ideas that leaders love to introduce in their pursuit of numbers and popularity, for it will be tough to stand before our King one day and explain how, like Saul, we grew impatient with His way and did it our way. I have limited regard for big ideas like vision or strategy. Jesus set the example, when He said, “I came to do your will O’ God.”

Simply put, if leaders are not accountable to God’s mandate and to those who cover them, then they will battle to command authority for by their actions they step outside their mandate into the realm of self-power, an authority that actually usurps divine authority, aligns with God’s enemy, frustrates the purpose of the Kingdom and turns a six thousand year legacy into a personal fiefdom.

Personal authority

The upshot of all that I have said relates ultimately to personal authority. Satan is an illegitimate authority, who assumes legitimacy because we allow his to do so. As rock beats scissors and scissors beat paper and paper beats rock, so anyone who has a right standing in God’s Word will find authority to overcome sin, Satan and the world. We can step into that mandate and step out of it, but the authority is an expression of God that outlives our comings and goings. Divine authority is ordained of God and we need to learn how to live within it if we are ever to be effective as believers. Indeed, whilst the world emphasizes personal charisma as a basis for power, God separates the locus of power and declares that those who live by His Word will prosper in spite of other more obvious limitations: how I thank God then that my success or failure is not something predefined by my birth, my looks, my height or my strength, but by His Word in me.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Authority as a principle

2008-02-25T06:51:00.001-08:00

One of the recurring cries of leaders is a call to submission but that is only one side of the story.

Jesus said, in John 19:11 that “All authority is God given and God ordained” or “All authority is from God”. He effectively challenged those who sought His life, saying “You can do nothing against me except my Father allows it”.

That aspect of the teachings on authority is relatively easy to grasp. Its implications for us are harder to grasp, because of scriptures like Romans 3:1-2, which says, ““Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves”.

Peter went on to emphasize this further in 1 Peter 2:18-20, saying that we should even submit to harsh authorities.

To the last point it must be said that Human Scientists also advocate situational leadership, arguing that sometimes a harsh leader is quite necessary. Consider the role of a drill sergeant in instilling discipline in troops, so that they can learn to obey orders in the heat of battle – a requirement that is designed to save lives and win wars. It is important to bring this context, because I will later make a contextual case for harsher leadership styles.

The teachings of Paul in Romans and other scriptures, combined with the words of Jesus and Peter, have created some serious dilemmas for believers.

We find four authority tiers in the bible, namely God, The State (1 Peter 2:13-15; Romans 13:4), the family (Ephesians 6:10 relates to children and parents, whilst Ephesians 5:22-24 relates to husbands and wives) and the Divine (His Spirit (Rom. 8:14), His Word (2 Tim. 3:16), and Church leadership (Matt. 18:17-20, Heb. 13:17)). So God-given authority has a broad scope and God requires us to submit to and honor such authorities.

Where the dilemma comes in, is with individual leaders. Hitler comes to mind. Was he ordained of God? I doubt it. I know that is an extreme example, but it serves to test the boundaries of the principle of authority. Clearly it could not have been God’s intent to universally embrace all leaders within the scope of His authority. Here I make a very contentious point in saying that there comes a point where even husbands step outside of the principles of authority and invalidate themselves, which the church should consider before subjecting a battered wife to an abusive husband.

Note, that I define authority as a principle, not a person. When a person submits to Godly principles, they acquire Godly authority and the power to represent God on those terms. But they can later step out of authority through disobedience and that will invalidate them, whoever they are.

We have a tendency to confuse the principle or concept of authority, with the subject of authority. I fear that is a hangover of the Catholic era, where the clergy wielded oppressive and offensive power through their command of the scriptures and the seals of office. That is not leadership, nor is it legitimate authority – it is merely control and power.

People can disappoint and have proved time and again to be fallible, but God’s authority as a principle has never failed, not in one single dimension. This separates the authority of God from the person in authority, for authority is continuous, but people are temporary.

Where there is right leadership of homes, children are more focused and self assured and wives are fulfilled. Where God’s Word overrules human whim, right decisions prevail. Where spiritual leaders rule well, they are worthy of a double reward. And individuals who learn to handle God's Word with fear and wisdom, will find victory through the authority extended to them by the Word.

Saul lost his (spiritual) authority to David, who not only acquired Saul’s anointing, but also inherited his throne. Saul held the kingdom hostage for years after, by holding onto the weakest element of authority, namely positional authority i.e. power and control. He occupied the throne and had the means to enforce his position, regardless of God’s greater intention for David.

David knew what the score was, but as is often the case in leadership tussles, he had to patiently wait for his moment knowing its inevitability and trusting in his anointing. There is such wisdom in his demeanor and I counsel leaders-in-waiting to learn patience, for it is in such times that God builds character. In fact, during his time of waiting, David built vital alliances and an army in waiting, a great example for leaders-in-waiting who should spend their waiting days constructively building alliances and support structures. It is a foolish leader who believes that his/her future role will be effective without the support of informal power bases. For no man/woman is an island.

There is so much yet to say, but let me close by saying that any principle is only valid if it holds true for all conditions. Authority as a person fails routinely and is, by all empirical considerations, invalid. But (godly) authority, as a principle is always valid and consistent for all observations.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Prophet, Priest and King

2008-02-18T01:37:00.000-08:00

Sustainable leadership is built on a diversity of interdependent roles, mature debate and consensus.

The Old Testament leadership model was built on three pillars, namely:

Kings or Judges – regardless of the foregoing debate about Kings and Judges, both forms of leadership related to governance. They defined the legislative (doctrinal), administrative (discipline) and ethical (direction) principles of the nation.
Priests - this was an early form of church and state separation, something Jesus reinforced when He said, “Render to Caesar, the things that are Caesar’s, and render to God, the things that are God’s”. The priesthood preserved the cultural and spiritual roots of Israel and “ministered” to the people.
Prophets – I guess this could well equate to one of the columns of modern society, the Press, freedom of which is still a cornerstone of constitutional states. The prophets were much more than reporters though. They were the conscience of the nation, a pillar of accountability and the channel for divine direction. They also anointed the rulers, ensuring an appropriate separation between rulership and the right to rule.

Saul, who never was a judge in either spirit or application, subverted the prophets and killed the priests.

Samuel was the dominant prophet of his time, but Saul upstaged the prophet by disobeying him and taking his own initiative. He effectively violated the principle of accountability and acted unilaterally. No one should ever be autonomous from the organization, for the whole is always bigger than the individual. But neither should we violate accountability. In the case of a business, that would be tantamount to firing the shareholders, but in the case of a church it is about firing God and undermining other vital stakeholders.

Saul also killed the priests. He thereby undermined the heart and soul of the nation and tore her fabric. The priests mediated between God and the people and God and the king. They had no direct physical title (shareholding) except to serve in the courts of the temple. In the New Testament, priests describe regular believers and their vital, volunteer role in sustaining the work of God and representing an unseen God to the visible needs of people.

The priests are the life of the church, as employees are the life of business. They make the sacrifices and keep the fires burning. When we kill them, we disempower the heirs of the kingdom and displace ownership of the kingdom from its stakeholders to its rulers. Even at their best, business executives should never be self-serving, but servants of their stakeholders. But kings have a propensity for going it alone as though everyone is there to serve them. That is a major factor for the emergence and persistence of clergy-laity models.

Because Saul was so autonomous in his leadership, he left no lasting legacy, nothing that would outlast him. Sadly when he fell, he took his family down with him. There is something so tragic about that, for stubborn men tend to drag their own families into disrepute, pain and ignominy. They don’t just hurt themselves, but everyone around them, especially those nearest and dearest to their own hearts.

Indeed, David, not his son, emerged as the heir-apparent. Saul tried to suppress the emerging leader, as kings are wont to do. But the more he tried, the harder it got for Saul until the inevitable moment when his own ego so blinded him that he fell on his own sword. Kings are a liability to themselves, for their centrist approach builds nothing of self-sustaining and enduring value. Rather it predicts their fall.

I once had to work with a leader whose unilateralism put a community at risk. Because of his strong personality, his wife had limited influence over his actions. But when the situation did come to a head she very subtly spoke of how God had intervened to save them from disaster.

Single-minded kings can be so independent that the people with the biggest stake in their decisions, their families, are at risk of being swept aside as crudely as other stakeholders would be. That is really sad, given that they are the one’s to bear the greatest brunt of bad decisions: that in spite of their persistent loyalty and support. Wives can be so intuitive, so in touch with the unspoken reality and nuances of a political context, that I am often amazed by the reluctance of leaders to lean on their counsel and guidance.

Kings often reject all counsel. They don’t debate openly, but impose their rule, resulting in foolish and damaging decisions. That is one of the reasons why New Testament leadership models are not cast into the singular, but built around elderships. They are supposed to comprise leaders with the ability to disagree constructively in search of follow the mind of God and wise counsel.

Mature leaders, or Judges, are skilled diplomats, able to influence the organization and negotiate its political context. They know well enough to not ignore informal power bases, but rather learn how to co-opt all to the cause or the vision of the enterprise. Because they sell something higher than themselves, such leaders are effective in defending principles and values.

Insecure leaders, like Kings, use authority and fear to impose their will and upstage any kind of opposition. They “own” the enterprise and dictate its terms, breaking down goodwill and motivation. They are so short sighted that they cannot see how the system hits back at them: good resources leave, criticize in the corridor and drive away new “customers” (visitors). A well motivated team exponentially enhances an organization beyond the specifics of their job descriptions, but a demotivated team can’t even fulfill its job descriptions.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

lead or rule

2008-02-17T10:28:00.000-08:00

Kings are popular for their charisma, power, presence and forceful personalities. Judges are better.

Jim Collins' book on good to great leadership effectively supports a Judge model as opposed to a traditional King model.

Kings are not good for any organisation. The whole purpose of any leadership role, in business as well as church, is to be a steward. A public officer of a company is a steward of shareholder value and a leader of a church is a steward of Kingdom value. The owner of either a business or the church is generally external to the organisation.

Shareholders own public and many private businesses, but as for the church, well that only has one head, Christ.

God has entrusted stewardship of the kingdom to us, to continue that work which Jesus started in His lifetime and will complete on His return.

Kings get in the way of all that. They speak of vision, but Moses spoke about implementing the pattern God showed him on the mount.

Kings also worry about numbers, but David incurred God's wrath for doing the same.

Kings look at externalities (stature, presence) when considering leaders, but God has always entrusted His kingdom to faithful hearts.

Kings will tend to appoint "yes men", but better decisions come through consensus that discerns the heart of God.

Kings are a law unto themselves, but Judges intermediate between the people and the laws of God, providing relevant direction, doctrine and discipline within the context of God's Word.

Kings execute their opponents and exalt whomsoever they favour, even Egyptian wives, as Solomon did. But who are we to subjectively judge whom God uses: after all, subjective decisions overlooked David, a great king, but favoured Saul's impressive resume.

Kings are program-driven. They love building structures and organisations and systems. To achieve their goals, they co-opt the human capital of the firm or the church. But Judges are more organic, working collegiately, to build consensus and influence the organisation and its heartbeat. They are always more effective in the long run, even though Kings can produce visually impressive results through fear and control.

Kings are also ego-centric, building the organisation around themselves, whilst Judges build the organisation around principles, through team-building and empowerment of people. Kings therefore tend to centralise and bureacratise the organisation, whilst Judges build people away from themseves through empowerment and respect for diversity.

Kings believe things cannot work without them. God believed that rejection of the Judges in favour of Kings, was a rejection of the whole purpose of a kingdom that existed for and by the Great God above.

Kings supplant the purposes of God with their own agendas. They run off on their own missions without waiting on God and they make the stakeholders beholden to the organisation, not vice versa.

Kings confuse, Judges clarify. Kings wear themselves out, Judges equip others. Kings impose themselves, Judges build a culture. Kings keep power in the family, Judges empower the people. Kings tend to have conflicts of interest, Judges are always accountable to their constituencies.

Most disturbing of all is that people will follow Kings as they lead the organisation into decline and bankruptcy, as Israel did when they followed their Kings until the enterprise was bought out by the Babylonians. Judges preserve the organisation through transparency, strident debate, reinforcement of values and articulation of principles.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

The judge model

2008-02-05T00:16:00.000-08:00

A judge, unlike a king, does not implement but enables whilst preserving the framework of progress.

A good analogy of what I wish to say about judges, is the African Lion. The male lion tends to just eat, sleep and have lots of sex. Sound familiar? But hey, the use of this example has no gender implication and indeed a female judge of Israel (Deborah), once assumed a similar role of leadership.

Lionesses work together to get food. They diversify their skills into runners, ambushers, fellers and decoys, yet work in perfect concert. They seem to just sense what to do and when, whilst preserving perfect radio silence. When a fast and powerful “feller” gets to the quarry, the fastest runners come up in support to help her get the prey down, whilst she clamps on to its windpipe and avoids dangerous counter-measures.

The females also hold the team together, regularly grooming other pride members. They raise and train the young, equipping them for their future roles in the pride.

It might seem that the males are somewhat superfluous. I once saw a Giles cartoon of female nuclear non-proliferation protesters sitting outside Greenham Common airbase. They had a single male tethered to a post, which they ostensibly kept “for breeding purposes only”. That could be the limited role of the African Male Lion, but it isn’t.

As a lumbering haystack he may be a limited hunter, but he performs a vital role in preserving the social integrity of the pride. He maintains order and preserves the balance of power. He is a powerful role model for the next generation. But above all, he is the defender of the pride. He patrols the borders of the pride and keeps out interlopers and hyenas. Recent research shows that the male lion is the supreme cat, slightly smaller than the tiger, but a consummate fighter of immense power. He needs to be to keep his pride intact else his place will be taken by another.

The judges of Israel kept social order for their tenures. Judges 2 shows that after Joshua had brought them rest from their enemies and war, (Josh 11:23, 14:15; 21:44), the people regressed into syncretistic religion and everyone did what was right in their own eyes (Joshua 21:25).

Then Judges 2 shows that they cried to God and he delivered them. He sent elders to judge the land and for as long as the judges lived, Israel had peace. Judges 2:20-23 reveals that complete peace would never be assured: it was God’s way of keeping them on their toes and vigilant to their ethos.

So, neither the judges, nor the kings that succeeded them, had any real chance of ensuring a lasting stating of settlement in Israel: a misconception of divine peace. The kings may well have been progressive, but they were also regressive. However, the judges did maintain stability whilst enabling the tribes to progress autonomously.

I will define the judges more in subsequent articles, but suffice to say for now that the judges did what the male lion does for his pride.

They interpreted, defined and clarified the moral and physical boundaries of Israel; they patrolled the borders to preserve territorial integrity; they patrolled the ethical boundaries to preserve Israel’s values and cultural traditions through due process of law; and they preserved a context for unity within diversity. The people were able to find their own niche’s and develop autonomous sub-cultures whilst still standing together as one nation.

That is a powerful theocratic model for biblical leadership.

Detractors will reflect on the era of kings from a humanistic perspective and argue that iconic leaders were progressive and unifying: that argument is moot. God preferred the judge model and deemed the people to have rejected Him when they rejected that model: for the judge model enabled God to lead His own people through human proxies, whilst the kings eclipsed His rule with their own self-determination.

The potential of the judge model was preempted by the cry for a king, which should have been limited to a cry for their real need: a centre that would define them as a nation amongst nations.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Leadership is not kingship

2008-02-04T01:35:00.000-08:00

Kings centralized power and suppressed initiative or diversity and do little to empower the whole.

For as far back as we can go in history, leadership has revolved around individuals. It has been less about the concept of leadership and more about the individual leader.

This is a fair idea as long as the leader is good for the context. Many great leaders did great things for their constituencies, but few of those were without flaws or blind-spots. The result is that there was always a price to pay for having a king, a leader that dominated the landscape. That is the idea conveyed by the appointment of Saul.

God warned the people of the prices that would be exacted on them for their choice of an iconic leader – but they persisted and got exactly what they asked for. Saul was a demagogue, an autocrat that was best suited to military discipline than civil diplomacy.

Saul was also the first in a long line of kings, of which less than a third were good. The rest were despotic, corrupt and a bad influence on Israel. The kings progressively demoralized the nation until the enterprise collapsed, to be subject to a hostile take-over by Persia. Much good that did for a people who had really just wanted a unifying, nation-building process rather than the king they ended up asking for.

The kings were laws unto themselves. They were less concerned with providing a moral, ethical and institutional centre for Israel than they were for ensuring a centralization of power. They had a fortress mentality, not unlike the economic fortresses of selfish, self-reliance that large organizations tend to build. Kings commanded a following, but tended to use that power to achieve their own goals, leading the people away from their ultimate centre: the God of Israel, their flag, founder and defender.

The spiritual thread here could be used as a model for the ethos or DNA of an organization. The “spirit” of an organization describes its culture, traditions, values, practices, impulses and the people who live and work to sustain that. Kings have a tendency to overrule what has gone before and ride roughshod over the soul of the organization to impose their own personalities.

Judges, by comparison, seem to have been regressive compared to the kings. The kings could whip up an army and build cities, whilst the judges seemed to only really focus on judging the exceptions to social order: prosecuting the enemies at their borders and the deviants within society.

But that is an over-simplification, for the judges were not implementers, but role anchors. Their value lay not in what they did, but in what they facilitated. The nation was decentralized, with tribal (departmental) autonomy, functioning independently, yet collaboratively, with the rest of Israel. That kind of leadership provides the spawning ground for entrepreneurship and initiative. It liberates people and builds social rather than brick and mortar boundaries, providing a self-sustaining buffer against moral and political erosion.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Leadership is not power

2008-02-03T10:30:00.000-08:00

Leadership is not symbolic, but functional. It is far less about the office bearer than the office..

Leadership is often regarded as being synonymous with power. Position often carries the entitlements and symbols of power.

The story of King Saul provides a symbolic illustration of the point. One of the perquisites of his job was a company car, or chariot to be specific. He also had a privileged parking space and just in case no one had noticed his elevation, they gave him a crown. His office had a throne, where courtiers waited on him every day. Oh it was never so grand as medieval castles, but good enough for his era. In addition to all the foregoing benefits, the king had a kind of palace – actually, he was not very well off as a king, for David and Solomon after him fared much better, but there was no doubt about his status as he rode amongst the people.

Is that leadership? Hardly. It may have held value to Saul as it does to so many leaders today, but there is a breed of leaders whose fulfillment comes from none of those things. They find their value in motivating their teams and building a winning culture.

This is not merely a biblical idea. Jim Collins has written a great book on “Good to great leadership”, in which he identified ten notable leaders based on their having lifted their organizations from good to greatness in a given time. Those leaders were all self-deprecating, humble and nondescript, not your typical high-powered executives. They were also fiercely resolute, providing a vital anchor or reference point for other roles in their organizations. They were almost invisible in their leadership style, because they always advanced the teams that had to implement their clearly articulated visions.

Saul was a king in the timeless tradition. He was his own man, driving his own agenda in his own time with ruthless consequences for his detractors. He had no sense of his place in the greater scheme of things, his limited role amongst other role players or his accountability to the people of God. He was also out of touch with God, for he was far too proud to truly bow his heart.

Was it sustainable? Well sadly for Israel he went quite far and lasted longer than many hoped for. I concede that he did do some good, but he did more damage: he killed priests, persecuted David, divided the kingdom, reneged on long standing covenants and made enemies that never existed before him. Worst of all he angered God and Samuel his emissary, though his misguided impulsiveness, a trait of power-centric leaders. He was a frustration to God and men.

I once worked for a man who spoke of his sweeping visions for market share and victory over oft-derided competitors. I pointed out to him that our objective was only to fulfill the expectations of the bigger organization. As a sales function, we needed to take our cues from the product and marketing units of the firm and collaborate with them to ensure that we helped them to achieve their objectives and vice versa. He was deeply offended by my position and my career suffered accordingly, but my debate expressed something of the frustration his whole team suffered because his mindset put his own team at odds with the rest of the organization. He was a Saul, whose own ego upstaged the wider context, for his own advancement: he had no sense of serving the whole or its stakeholders.

J R P French and B Raven, in their work, “The bases of social power”, refer to different bases of power. There is coercive power, which depends on fear, but is otherwise unsustainable and often an expression of insecurity. Reward power is manipulative and rarely brings any fulfillment or aspirational behavior. There is also expert power and referent power, the power wielded by people of influence. But the only power that stands apart from these is legitimate power. Biblically, legitimate power stands on the authority (terms of reference) and anointing of God and holds its own in the serving of a greater cause.

The greatest upshot of Saul’s tenure, is that he never fulfilled the expectations of his people. They wanted a king, to settle and unify the nation. Instead he had a high-maintenance administration that hurt Israel’s enemies but never subdued them, whilst creating almost as many enemies within his realm as he had at the borders. Contrast this with David’s focus on establishing and settling the nation, whilst providing them with a strong spiritual and political centre.

© Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Leadership is not a person

2008-02-03T04:29:00.001-08:00

Leadership does not draw many individuals to one, but gives each one a place of value in the whole..

God read the hearts of Israel and gave them, not just what they asked for, but what they really had in mind. They were not just asking for a leader, but a king like the neighboring kings. They wanted a significant man.

Their concept of significance is no different for us today. How many poor leaders appealed to other men because they looked the part. How often better leaders are overlooked because they are not part of the club? How often a stronger woman or more capable brick proves better than an impressively weak charismatic?

Is a man’s man the right model for leadership? Well no, because leadership is not about the person, but about the function they perform, the second principle of leadership.

Leadership is not a position of power and status that directs the organization, but is a vital role anchor that empowers and equips others to find and fulfill their unique roles within the organizational fabric.

The notion that it is all about a person places undue pressure on individuals to live up to such expectations, resulting in vulnerable leaders: they are often over-exposed to loneliness, stress and criticism.

Who said that a church or business will cease functioning for the absence of one? Who says a Sunday service, whatever that means, can only be value-for-money if the main attraction is there. I thought Jesus was the main attraction – after all it is His church.

Saul was every whit a man’s man: taller than all his equals, handsome, statuesque, powerful and falsely humble. He also did a fair amount of good for Israel on the battlefield, but so would any military leader without specifically having to be a king. Saul would have been better taking orders and supporting a king, but he was exactly what the people wanted so God answered their prayers specifically – to teach them a vital lesson.

Saul’s biggest weakness was that he felt that he was the end to leadership, rather than a means to an end. David always deferred to the ultimate ruler of Israel, for he had a heart for God: the basis of his inspiration and vision. Saul was purely mechanical, a doer without a visionary heart and with no sense of accountability to the God of Israel. That is no less true today, for thus so many leaders serve themselves at the expense of their organizations, building empires instead of stakeholder value.

© Peter Eleazar at http://www.bethelstone.com/

Leadership is not position

2008-02-03T03:54:00.000-08:00

Leadership is not position, it is a function. It is not status, but a role anchor for other roles..

After a long period of Jewish history, during which they were ruled by judges, the last judge, Samuel, had to manage a painful transition to a monarchy.

The demand for a king came from the people, who felt that the nation had no centre, no unifying factor. They looked at other nations and saw that they had kings to rule over them.

Samuel advised them that a king would be costly. “He will draft your sons into the army and your daughters will serve in his courts. He will tax you and impose all kinds of laws on you. Why do you reject God and seek a king in His place?” 1 Samuel 8.

I am reminded of a story about a man who went to a shop to buy an electric drill. The sales person asked him, “what do you need it for?” “To make a hole in the wall”, came the reply. “Ah then what you need is something to make a hole in the wall (not necessarily an expensive drill)”.

What Israel demanded, had little do with her need. She needed a centre and a unifying force, things to raise her stature amongst the nations and to assert her strategic position. She perceived that a king would solve that, but overlooked that God was her centre and had always been so. He had turned a slave culture into a noble nation and given them title to their own land. For two hundred years that had progresses as a nation, albeit not in the ways that we prefer to measure success.

Sometimes I wonder if we are able to recognize success. Capitalism is insatiable, always demanding progress regardless of the damage it often causes. God’s model of success had far more to do with peace, stability, order, spiritual significance, maturity and issues of character. Wealth, power and status were not on his list of priorities.

However, God is also progressive. He moved Israel from nothing to something in a very deliberate way. So we must assume that He was not against progress, just concerned with how that would be achieved.

The first principle of leadership is to know what you seek to achieve. Stephen Covey made the same point about starting with the end in mind. The theory of situation leadership also comes to mind.

How often people feel nothing can be achieved without a significant leader, a pastor or senior pastor or bishop or something similar. That is not God’s heart. Leadership is not specifically about an icon or charismatic pinnacle, but about galvanizing people and that is the need that leadership must meet.

Perhaps what Israel really needed to ask God for was a centre, a process that would unify and integrate Israel into something looking like a nation. The solutions to such a brief, might well have involved a form of leadership that would not have looked like a king.

(c) Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com

Leadership is accountability

2008-02-01T01:32:00.001-08:00

Leadership is submission and accountability, for therein lies the mandate that empowers our actions.

When Saul was anointed King, Samuel the priest told him to wait seven days at Gilgal. Now Samuel was Saul’s key point of accountability, his reference point. He would be akin to a covering leader, chairman, boss, stakeholder or shareholder i.e. our locus of authority.

Saul should have obeyed Samuel and gone straight to Gilgal, but he felt there were more important things to do and battles to engage. He only obeyed two years later.

The first principle of leadership is that we are actually not instruments of our own timing.

We are beholden and should respect the authority that anoints us. No matter how well intentioned our actions may be, running off on our own is a sure recipe for a dangerous standoff and loss of confidence. Waiting until our stakeholders give us a mandate to proceed is a vital process in securing real authority, rather than simple positional authority. Positional authority (rank, status, position) has little currency in real leadership contexts and expert authority (knowledge, opinion) has not much more.

Real leaders arise out of a need to implement what they were appointed for and to influence all other power bases (staff, the organization, the public, experts, detractors and other leaders), to buy into the vision. Real leadership is about influence and the ability to command a following. Someone once said, “He who thinketh he leadeth but findeth that no one follweth, merely taketha walk.”

So when Saul was asked to wait, for only a short period, he would have learnt something from Samuel about his role and the expectations that came with his mandate. Ultimately he would have gained something of God’s heart rather than his own head.

The second principle of leadership is to recognize that we are custodians of what is entrusted to us. Israel was God’s heritage, not Saul’s fiefdom. It was God’s kingdom, not Saul’s empire. The heart of God for His own people was all that had to be implemented, not Saul’s own original thinking or presumption. The context is always bigger than us. We are dispensable and God’s heritage will outlast even the most charismatic of leaders.

Saul also needed to realize that his own stature (he was head and shoulders above all his peers), his breeding or his identified skills were of limited consequence. Indeed he was ultimately replaced by a youngster who had no experience in matters of state, but possessed the one thing Saul never had: a heart for God. The authority of Saul lay entirely in his mandate, his anointing. I can be quite outspoken, but hate to defend myself: yet when a principle or the interests of those I represent is at risk, I will put up a defiant struggle, because the mandate of my constituencies carries weight, or authority.

Saul was anointed to be king of Israel, a privilege extended to him by God and His people: with it came a reciprocal responsibility to fight for their cause, defend them and establish a form of government that would facilitate kingdom life and not to feather his nest or champion his ego.

The third principle of leadership is to recognize that the locus of your power lies not in your qualifications, your personal power, your stature (even though men tend to follow men of power) or your background. It rests entirely on your anointing and the role you have been called to assume on behalf of those that anointed you. God said to Moses, “be careful to implement all that I showed you on the mount.” That is exactly what I mean: implement God’s mandate not your own personal ambition or vision. If you can get that right, you will rise to greatness and be entrusted with much.

Saul felt that anointing equaled status and substance, instead of servant-hood. He implemented what he though was a good idea and missed the point, frustrating himself, his people and the throne above his head.

See 1 Samuel 10:8 and 1 Samuel 13:8