Skip to main content

The Impetus of Leadership

Leadership.  If you want to start an argument, discussing leadership is as easy a way as any.  Who should lead, how should they lead, and what it means to lead are all hot topics.  One very popular leadership philosophy in our postmodern world (our post-postmodern--I'm not sure where we're at in 2018) is to be a very passive leader.  In other words, you lead by not really leading at all.  Parents let their kids make their own decisions, managers don't really manage their employees, and husbands don't lead their wives.  No one wants to offend anyone or take responsibility, so leaders are impotent.

This philosophy or style of leadership, sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit, is an overreaction to the despotism, chauvinism, and insensitivity to which human nature so naturally inclines.  As such, it expresses legitimate concerns, but the answer to a problem is never to abandon the good and the right into order to avoid the bad and destructive.

Moreover, leadership is not optional.  If you are in a position of authority or leadership, you don't have the option of not leading.  If the President of the United States fails to do his job, it doesn't simply mean that he is not a good President.  It means that he is a bad President.  He is a failure of a President.  He has been negligent, perhaps even criminally so.  He has been derelict of his duty and there should be repercussions.  The same is true for any leader.  Leading is not a prerogative; it is a calling.  If we are called to lead, we may do no other.  Unfortunately, many of America's leaders, in the family, church, and state, have been criminally negligent.

This impetus of leadership means that it is important a) to identify if you have been to called to leadership; and b) to make sure that you understand what true leadership is.  The latter is a complex topic that deserves its own treatment, but the former can be summarized in this way: if you are in a valid position of leadership, and if you have been placed in that position through legitimate means, you are called to lead.  If you are a father, you are called to lead your family.  If you are a mother, you are called to lead your children under the headship of your husband.  If you are a pastor or an elder, you are called to lead your sheep.  If you are a manager or a civil servant, you are called to lead those under your watch.

Let me single out dads for a second.  Maybe you don't think you're a leader.  Maybe your personality and past don't lend themselves to you assuming that role naturally.  It doesn't matter.  If you are a father who still has children in your home, you are a leader.  You cannot give that responsibility, that calling, away.  You will either be a good leader or a bad leader, you cannot simply not be a leader.  You will be faithful, though certainly imperfect, or you will be negligent.  Even if you don't believe in God, you have a calling from Him to lead your family.  And you know what?  Your role model for that calling is none other than our Heavenly Father Himself!  Intimidated yet?  If that doesn't scare you a little bit, you probably aren't taking your role seriously enough!  You are called to love and lead your children as God loves, instructs, provides for, and disciplines His children.  You are called to lead your wife as Christ leads His bride.  That's a high calling!  Talk about aiming for the impossible!

No matter what position of leadership you fill, your job is to lead.  Do you have regrets?  Weaknesses?  Sins?  We all do.  Don't let them stop you from leading.  Lead humbly, lovingly, and gently, but lead all the same.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...