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
