Tough Questions series, #5: Can a bad person be a good leader?
July 1, 2018
First Presbyterian Church, Sterling IL
Christina Berry
Our first reading depicts the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr, and a certain accomplice in the stoning, a fellow named Saul. I chose this reading because later on in the book of Acts, we see this man Saul converted by the grace of God. From then on, Saul is Paul, an important leader of the early church, and an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s a striking contrast, as is the contrast between Stephen and Saul. Just before this reading, Stephen has just preached to Sanhedrin, a council of Jewish leaders, and his sermon was not well received, to say the least! The scripture refers to the members of this council as “they” and it describes the death of Stephen, and the role of Saul as a persecutor. Let’s listen for God’s word to us in Acts 7:54 – 8:3
When they heard these things, they became enraged and ground their teeth at Stephen. But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
“Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened
and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he died.
And Saul approved of their killing him.
That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria. Devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison.
Here ends the reading.
The gospel reading today is a brief but crucial scene in which Jesus describes the essence of Christian leadership. We come into the story as Jesus and his followers are going to Jerusalem, where he will be put to death. He has predicted this to his friends several times, and in spite of the grim nature of what he has told them, apparently James and John, the sons of Zebedee, see his impending death as an opportunity for themselves. Let’s listen for God’s words to us in Matthew 20: 20-28.
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons,
and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him.
And he said to her, “What do you want?”
She said to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit,
She said to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit,
one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.”
But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking.
But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking.
Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?”
They said to him, “We are able.”
He said to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers.
But Jesus called them to him and said,
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you;
but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave;
just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,
and to give his life a ransom for many.”
The word of the Lord,
Thanks be to God
Can a bad person be a good leader?
That’s our tough question for today, the fifth of six in our series. The question is made twice as tough by a lack of consensus on what exactly constitutes a bad person, or a good leader! We all have different experiences of leaders, good or bad, and many of us have different definitions of good leadership. I used to say, “Managers do things right. Leaders do the right thing.” But some writers say that leadership itself is not a moral concept.
One said, “To assume that all good leaders are good people … may cause the leaders among us to kid themselves into thinking that, because they are leaders, they must be trustworthy, brave, and generous and that they are never deceitful, cowardly, or greedy.”
People have very different understandings of “good leaders.” Many people today would describe a good leader as someone who wields authority with great power, someone who favors “the use of strict, tough, harsh, punitive, coercive social control." [1] They view our country as such a mess that we need someone who is aggressive, authoritarian, and who disregards conventional morality and behaviors.
Think of a man who rose to power not by his character, but through position, influence, and coercion. He traded on relationships with people as mercenary as he, and he did not have any particular expertise. In fact, one writer said, “he preferred to avoid in-depth conversations, sometimes excusing himself by saying that the details should be left to the experts. [He] was a leader more interested in imposing his will than in harmonising his attitudes or policies. He was a politician more interested in seeming to know than in knowing.”
The writer goes on to say “The real novelty of his ambition lay in his pretensions to enter the hearts and minds of his subjects…” and to gain power by “readjusting his own history “ He is described as being thin-skinned and hypersensitive to the press, with “an arrogance which only partially cloaked his own sense of inadequacy.” He loved his buildings with his name and image prominently displayed. He appointed his son in law to a position of power in his government. He was described as being a ‘man of the banner headline’ at heart, who was “bored by detail or discussion…preferring to ‘let things run of their own accord’.”
I am speaking, of course, of Benito Mussolini, the fascist dictator of Italy and ally of Hitler during World War II. He was famously reputed to have made the trains run on time, but it turns out even that was not true – the famously terrible Italian trains did NOT run on time, but Mussolini forced everyone to SAY that they did.
Historian David Dudley notes: “The Italian rail network was indeed in sorry shape after World War I, and the rebuilding process that Mussolini took credit for was underway by the time he seized power in 1922. Some aspects of Italy’s state-run railway system did receive massive investments under the Fascists.”[2]
Mussolini was a successful leader, but only for a time. As he fled the country, he was arrested and executed by firing squad.[3] So much for his fabled train schedule. But there were many Italians who believed Mussolini was just what the country needed.
One Christian scholar says most leaders lead through
coercion, position, expertise, and relationship.[4]
Coercion works through threat of punishment or promise of reward.
Position gains the desired response due to a sense of obligation to do what one is told by the leader.
In other words, it is respect for the office, not the person.
Expertise is a crucial leadership trait.
When we recognize, or believe, that our leaders know more than we do,
we are more likely to follow and to obey.
Relationship gains the desired response because of a sense of connection to the leader. And if I like you, I’m more likely to listen to you.
But leadership is more than coercion, position, expertise and relationship.[5]
In our Presbyterian denomination, leadership is a moral undertaking. Our Book of Order, part of our constitution, says that “congregations should elect persons of wisdom and maturity of faith, having demonstrated skills in leadership and being compassionate in spirit. Ruling elders are so named not because they “lord it over” the congregation, but because they are chosen by the congregation to discern and measure its fidelity to the Word of God, and to strengthen and nurture its faith and life.”
If leadership involves “both getting people to work together and the pursuit of some common purpose or goal”[6] we have to make a judgment-- not just of efficiency or results or even popularity, but a moral judgement of the goals they pursued. Success matters, but leadership is a moral matter, too. That’s why we think Mother Theresa was a better leader than Hitler. Leadership is influence with a purpose, and that requires character.
We know that some leaders ARE deceitful, cowardly, or greedy. We don’t have to search too long in the Bible to see that this has always been the case. Moses was a murderer. Abraham pretended his wife was his sister, and let their hosts take her as their concubine. King David stole the wife of Uriah the Hittite, got her pregnant, and then had Uriah killed in battle.
Saul, before he became Paul, was quite skilled at persecuting Christians. It’s easy to imagine that his performance evaluations would give him high marks for his dedication, and leadership. All of those men turned out to be great leaders. The man Saul, who held the coats of the men who stoned Stephen, who was “was ravaging the church by entering house after house…” who was dragging off men and women and throwing them in prison, that man Saul was effectively leading the persecution of Christians. He led through coercion and position, certainly not through expertise, relationship or character.
The great leaders of the Bible who started off as failed or flawed or criminal share one important characteristic: they were confronted by God, they repented, and they changed.
Abraham got himself together, trusted God,
and his family became a great nation.
Moses pulled himself together, went back to Egypt,
and led the people out of slavery.
King David, confronted by God through the prophet Nathan,
said, “I have sinned against the Lord.”
Saul experienced the presence of Jesus on the road to Damascus,
stopped persecuting followers of Jesus, and became one himself.
They did not magically become good people – in fact they continued to struggle with pride, power, and desire. They did not become perfect leaders, but they were called into leadership by God, and equipped for the role.
James and John, in our gospel reading, were not bad men. They misunderstood what Jesus had told them. They hoped to rise to positions of power because of their relationship with Jesus. They assumed that once he was in charge, they would be, too.
They did not understand that the call of Jesus was not to power and glory.
They did not understand that leadership in Jesus’ terms
was going to lead to sacrifice, suffering, and deep joy.
In our times, this is not an attractive job offer.
“Jesus bids you come and die,” is not a great marketing slogan.
The early leaders of the church, like Stephen, were willing to die for their faith.
They were willing to stand up to the earthly powers, like Caesar, and say,
“Jesus is Lord. Jesus is Lord, and not you.”
They pledged no allegiance to anyone but Christ.
They were leaders in the sense that Jesus defined:
“whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
In those terms, good leaders are people of character, who lead from a place of humility, who regard themselves as servants of those whom they lead, rather than the other way around. Good leaders are ready to sacrifice for others, rather than demand that others sacrifice for them. Max De Pree writes, in Leadership Is an Art:“The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must become a servant and a debtor.”
What matters is not how the world views us, but how others see God working in us for the good of others. What matters is that we have followed the one sent by God, to serve, with humility and gratitude.
Leadership is not about efficiency or popularity or personal power.
Leadership is not about making trains run on time,
They said to him, “We are able.”
He said to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers.
But Jesus called them to him and said,
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you;
but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave;
just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,
and to give his life a ransom for many.”
The word of the Lord,
Thanks be to God
Can a bad person be a good leader?
That’s our tough question for today, the fifth of six in our series. The question is made twice as tough by a lack of consensus on what exactly constitutes a bad person, or a good leader! We all have different experiences of leaders, good or bad, and many of us have different definitions of good leadership. I used to say, “Managers do things right. Leaders do the right thing.” But some writers say that leadership itself is not a moral concept.
One said, “To assume that all good leaders are good people … may cause the leaders among us to kid themselves into thinking that, because they are leaders, they must be trustworthy, brave, and generous and that they are never deceitful, cowardly, or greedy.”
People have very different understandings of “good leaders.” Many people today would describe a good leader as someone who wields authority with great power, someone who favors “the use of strict, tough, harsh, punitive, coercive social control." [1] They view our country as such a mess that we need someone who is aggressive, authoritarian, and who disregards conventional morality and behaviors.
Think of a man who rose to power not by his character, but through position, influence, and coercion. He traded on relationships with people as mercenary as he, and he did not have any particular expertise. In fact, one writer said, “he preferred to avoid in-depth conversations, sometimes excusing himself by saying that the details should be left to the experts. [He] was a leader more interested in imposing his will than in harmonising his attitudes or policies. He was a politician more interested in seeming to know than in knowing.”
The writer goes on to say “The real novelty of his ambition lay in his pretensions to enter the hearts and minds of his subjects…” and to gain power by “readjusting his own history “ He is described as being thin-skinned and hypersensitive to the press, with “an arrogance which only partially cloaked his own sense of inadequacy.” He loved his buildings with his name and image prominently displayed. He appointed his son in law to a position of power in his government. He was described as being a ‘man of the banner headline’ at heart, who was “bored by detail or discussion…preferring to ‘let things run of their own accord’.”
I am speaking, of course, of Benito Mussolini, the fascist dictator of Italy and ally of Hitler during World War II. He was famously reputed to have made the trains run on time, but it turns out even that was not true – the famously terrible Italian trains did NOT run on time, but Mussolini forced everyone to SAY that they did.
Historian David Dudley notes: “The Italian rail network was indeed in sorry shape after World War I, and the rebuilding process that Mussolini took credit for was underway by the time he seized power in 1922. Some aspects of Italy’s state-run railway system did receive massive investments under the Fascists.”[2]
Mussolini was a successful leader, but only for a time. As he fled the country, he was arrested and executed by firing squad.[3] So much for his fabled train schedule. But there were many Italians who believed Mussolini was just what the country needed.
One Christian scholar says most leaders lead through
coercion, position, expertise, and relationship.[4]
Coercion works through threat of punishment or promise of reward.
Position gains the desired response due to a sense of obligation to do what one is told by the leader.
In other words, it is respect for the office, not the person.
Expertise is a crucial leadership trait.
When we recognize, or believe, that our leaders know more than we do,
we are more likely to follow and to obey.
Relationship gains the desired response because of a sense of connection to the leader. And if I like you, I’m more likely to listen to you.
But leadership is more than coercion, position, expertise and relationship.[5]
In our Presbyterian denomination, leadership is a moral undertaking. Our Book of Order, part of our constitution, says that “congregations should elect persons of wisdom and maturity of faith, having demonstrated skills in leadership and being compassionate in spirit. Ruling elders are so named not because they “lord it over” the congregation, but because they are chosen by the congregation to discern and measure its fidelity to the Word of God, and to strengthen and nurture its faith and life.”
If leadership involves “both getting people to work together and the pursuit of some common purpose or goal”[6] we have to make a judgment-- not just of efficiency or results or even popularity, but a moral judgement of the goals they pursued. Success matters, but leadership is a moral matter, too. That’s why we think Mother Theresa was a better leader than Hitler. Leadership is influence with a purpose, and that requires character.
We know that some leaders ARE deceitful, cowardly, or greedy. We don’t have to search too long in the Bible to see that this has always been the case. Moses was a murderer. Abraham pretended his wife was his sister, and let their hosts take her as their concubine. King David stole the wife of Uriah the Hittite, got her pregnant, and then had Uriah killed in battle.
Saul, before he became Paul, was quite skilled at persecuting Christians. It’s easy to imagine that his performance evaluations would give him high marks for his dedication, and leadership. All of those men turned out to be great leaders. The man Saul, who held the coats of the men who stoned Stephen, who was “was ravaging the church by entering house after house…” who was dragging off men and women and throwing them in prison, that man Saul was effectively leading the persecution of Christians. He led through coercion and position, certainly not through expertise, relationship or character.
The great leaders of the Bible who started off as failed or flawed or criminal share one important characteristic: they were confronted by God, they repented, and they changed.
Abraham got himself together, trusted God,
and his family became a great nation.
Moses pulled himself together, went back to Egypt,
and led the people out of slavery.
King David, confronted by God through the prophet Nathan,
said, “I have sinned against the Lord.”
Saul experienced the presence of Jesus on the road to Damascus,
stopped persecuting followers of Jesus, and became one himself.
They did not magically become good people – in fact they continued to struggle with pride, power, and desire. They did not become perfect leaders, but they were called into leadership by God, and equipped for the role.
James and John, in our gospel reading, were not bad men. They misunderstood what Jesus had told them. They hoped to rise to positions of power because of their relationship with Jesus. They assumed that once he was in charge, they would be, too.
They did not understand that the call of Jesus was not to power and glory.
They did not understand that leadership in Jesus’ terms
was going to lead to sacrifice, suffering, and deep joy.
In our times, this is not an attractive job offer.
“Jesus bids you come and die,” is not a great marketing slogan.
The early leaders of the church, like Stephen, were willing to die for their faith.
They were willing to stand up to the earthly powers, like Caesar, and say,
“Jesus is Lord. Jesus is Lord, and not you.”
They pledged no allegiance to anyone but Christ.
They were leaders in the sense that Jesus defined:
“whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
In those terms, good leaders are people of character, who lead from a place of humility, who regard themselves as servants of those whom they lead, rather than the other way around. Good leaders are ready to sacrifice for others, rather than demand that others sacrifice for them. Max De Pree writes, in Leadership Is an Art:“The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must become a servant and a debtor.”
What matters is not how the world views us, but how others see God working in us for the good of others. What matters is that we have followed the one sent by God, to serve, with humility and gratitude.
Leadership is not about efficiency or popularity or personal power.
Leadership is not about making trains run on time,
or even about coercing people to say that the trains run on time.
It’s about being on the right train to start with, with the right destination.
This sermon got its name from a song called “Jesus Train.” The songwriter said that the song “just popped out of me in church. It popped out having a dream in which there was a train that was definitely a spiritual presence: a powerful, armored locomotive. Looking back at the dream, it just seemed like that was the Jesus Train…There’s a lot of power in that train. For me, the image is not one of blissful meditation or feeling in tune with the universe. This is: “get on this train and charge through whatever landscape you have to charge through to get where you’re going.” Because it’s a train, you don’t have to fight your way through yourself. You’re on a vehicle that is going to take you there, no matter what.[7]
Can a bad person be a good leader? Probably not.
But Jesus is in the business of taking us, bad or good, where we are, loading us onto the Jesus train, and teaching us how to be servants. Following a leader like Jesus, claiming him as Lord, getting on his train, on time, or any time, will take us far beyond any place we’ve ever imagined going on our own.
I'm on a Jesus train…I'm on a Jesus train…I'm on a Jesus train
headed for …headed for …headed for the City of God.
Bruce Cockburn sings "Jesus Train"
[1] https://psmag.com/news/inside-the-minds-of-hardcore-trump-supporters
[2] Dudley, David. “Stop Saying Mussolini Made the Trains Run on Time.” https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/11/the-problem-with-mussolini-and-his-trains/507764/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
[4] ibid
[5] https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/can-bad-people-be-good-leaders/
[6] Pennings, Ray, “Can Bad People Be Good Leaders?” April 1, 2004, Cardus magazine, accessed June 20, 2018 at https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/can-bad-people-be-good-leaders/
[7] http://montrealrampage.com/bruce-cockburn-talks-about-life-and-bone-on-bone/
This sermon got its name from a song called “Jesus Train.” The songwriter said that the song “just popped out of me in church. It popped out having a dream in which there was a train that was definitely a spiritual presence: a powerful, armored locomotive. Looking back at the dream, it just seemed like that was the Jesus Train…There’s a lot of power in that train. For me, the image is not one of blissful meditation or feeling in tune with the universe. This is: “get on this train and charge through whatever landscape you have to charge through to get where you’re going.” Because it’s a train, you don’t have to fight your way through yourself. You’re on a vehicle that is going to take you there, no matter what.[7]
Can a bad person be a good leader? Probably not.
But Jesus is in the business of taking us, bad or good, where we are, loading us onto the Jesus train, and teaching us how to be servants. Following a leader like Jesus, claiming him as Lord, getting on his train, on time, or any time, will take us far beyond any place we’ve ever imagined going on our own.
I'm on a Jesus train…I'm on a Jesus train…I'm on a Jesus train
headed for …headed for …headed for the City of God.
Bruce Cockburn sings "Jesus Train"
[1] https://psmag.com/news/inside-the-minds-of-hardcore-trump-supporters
[2] Dudley, David. “Stop Saying Mussolini Made the Trains Run on Time.” https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/11/the-problem-with-mussolini-and-his-trains/507764/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
[4] ibid
[5] https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/can-bad-people-be-good-leaders/
[6] Pennings, Ray, “Can Bad People Be Good Leaders?” April 1, 2004, Cardus magazine, accessed June 20, 2018 at https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/can-bad-people-be-good-leaders/
[7] http://montrealrampage.com/bruce-cockburn-talks-about-life-and-bone-on-bone/
Comments
Post a Comment