Centenary Missionary Addresses Missionary Conferences at Amazon
|
Introduction Some leaderships have been characterized as good and have been applied as challenges for others to emulate. This description notwithstanding raises an evident question: upon what criteria were these leadership characterized as good? It is sure that a heap of leaders, whose leadership does not fall within this category, have good calibers that others may emulate. For this reason it is essential not only to recognise that a leadership has been characterized as good but likewise to know the characteristics that qualifies it as good. According to Anthony D’souza, leadership involves an inter-relationship amid three elements: (a) The quality achievements and needs of the followers It may be observed from what D’souza has said that the original factor deals with the personality of the leader; the second, his followers and the third, the task to be accomplished. On the basis of what has been said the characteristics of good leadership will be identified beneath the following headings:- (a) The personal characteristics of the leader have been classified as good will form the basis of this presentation. (a) The Personal Characteristics of the Leader It may be observed from scriptures that God was very selective in choosing leaders for specific tasks. God distinctively chose Nehemiah to spearhead the reconstructing of the Jerusalem wall; Moses to fetch the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt; Paul, to pioneer missionary work to the Gentiles and David, whose kinship would have a lasting dynasty, to replace Saul. These men surely had calibers that were necessary for good leadership. God recognized these calibers in them as potentials when He chose them. In this section a great deal of of the calibers of leaders cited above will be discussed in a more general way. The goal is to show that it has been recognized that the good personal calibers of leaders, when employed to leadership are characteristics of good leadership. Nehemiah In reflecting on the book of Nehemiah, John White said that “the book of Nehemiah serves principally to unfold for us portion of God’s on-going plan for his people. But always it is the man, his reputation and his leadership that holds my interest”.2 Two important things stand out from John White’s evaluative statement with regards to Nehemiah’s leadership that are characteristic of good leadership. The original is the reputation and conduct of Nehemiah himself as a leader and the second, is his leadership ability. White further commended that in all probability one of the reasons why Nehemiah was chosen as a cupbearer was because of a well-trained personal quality like that of a stable character. Such well-trained stable reputation was not just the crusade of Nehemiah alone. This may be seen in the following statement – “God employed Nehemiah’s active prayer life to mold him into a godly leader”.3 As a godly leader, Nehemiah was dependent upon God from whom he received his personal help and encouragement, which motivated him sufficient to succeed. Nehemiah achieved his ministry goal and his leadership has been characterized as good. His good reputation and conduct and his activity of formally presenting something of leadership abilities were personal characteristics of his leadership, which made him succeed. Moses Moses’ childhood training as an adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter was tailored towards leadership. The incidence, which led to his escape from Egypt, revealed that he recognized his leadership calibers before God called him to leadership. However, it took 40 years from the time of his escape from Egypt, before God called him to leadership. Joyce Peel observed that Moses learns how to be a shepherd. Long years of looking after sheep taught him the forbearance he was to need as leader of the cantankerous children of Israel.4 This observation by Joyce Peel shows that the personal quality of goodnatured tolerance in Moses’ life was a characteristic of his good leadership. This quality was made apparent in the life of Moses through the great challenges he faced as a leader over Israel. One example was when he came down from Mount Sinai and found the persons worshiping the golden calf. He smashed the tablet inscribed with God’s commandment, and, with a rousing cry, ‘who is on the Lord’s side?’, summons the faithful Levites to a massacre.5 The next day he reproaches the humans and then brokenhearted, goes back up the mountain to plead for their forgiveness.6 Patience was not the only personal quality that Moses had. But it has been applied to show that good personal qualities, when applied to leadership, fetch with regards to positive results. Therefore, good personal calibers are characteristics of good leadership. Paul Paul made outstanding accomplishments in the ministry God called him to. Achievements ought to notwithstanding be seen as pointers to personal abilities or calibers that a leader has that made him to succeed. What then were those calibers in Paul that made him to succeed? First it would be necessary to look at a lot of of the attainments that Paul made. He made noteworthy affect in his missionary work and also in his writing. John Stott observed that thirteen letters ascribed to Paul in our New Testament form closely incisively one quarter of the whole New Testament. It was the rediscovery of the theology of Paul which led to the reformation of the sixteenth century, that theological revolution which prompted an upheaval within the Roman Catholic Church and led to the birth of all the present day Protestant Churches.7 Paul’s instructional background gave him this advantage. It will have to not go unnoticed that this outstanding apostle applied all that he had personally achieved in his formative years in his leadership role. Making use of his personal calibers in bringing with regards to positive results in his leadership was a characteristic of Paul’s good leadership. David According to Ted W. Engstrom, David the second king of Israel was a striking contrast to Saul, the introductory king.8 This was because of his noble, generous and admirable calibers he demonstrated in his leadership. This comparison gives evidence of that David’s leadership was not only better than Saul’s but his leadership may be characterized as good. John C. Maxwell also equated the two leaders. In answer to a question, which he posed – ‘Why did Saul fail as Israel’s king while David, who appeared to be weaker succeed?’ he said that it was because of David’s attitude. Unlike Saul, David tried to become a better leader.9 It is clear from these two writers that David’s personal qualities, peculiarly that of his attitude to always be a better leader were characteristics of his good leadership. Having the qualification or calibers is one thing, but applying them in one’s leadership role is rather another. David applied his leadership calibers in leading and made an affect as a leader. The Characteristics of the Followers Some of the characteristics of good leadership may be identified with the followers. Before identifying these characteristics, it would be helpful to thoroughly question a good deal of definitions of leadership, to be reminded of the kinship amongst leaders and followers. According to Oswald Sanders, leadership is influence. It is the capacity of one person to influence others to follow his or her lead. Ted W. Enngstrom defines leadership with just two words – ‘leaders lead’. Myron Rush also gave a definition of leadership and his definition of leadership as ‘leader reproducing himself on the followers’. These definitions point to the kinship among leaders and followers but most significantly, what they considered to be the goal of the relationship. Oswald Sanders and Engstrom focus on the aspect of following. This focus identifies one of the characteristics of a good leadership – more than willing followers. If one gives considerateness to D’souza’s point cited in the introduction, that one of the parts of leadership is ‘the needs and expected values of the group’, it follows that one reason why humans will willingly follow their leader is because their needs and expected values are met. Another characteristic may be identified from Myron Rush’s definition – making leader out of followers, there is a guarantee of the continuity of that ministry. The four leaders, Nehemiah, Moses, Paul and David, whose leaderships have been classified as good, will now be applied as test case to tell apart the two characteristics. Nehemiah When Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem from Susa, he original personally assessed the circumstance of Jerusalem’s destruction. Afterwards he called the humans and shared his vision. The Bible stated that the persons responded to Nehemiah (see Neh. 2:8). This shows without doubt or question that from the start out of his mission Nehemiah had more than willing followers. They were more than willing to follow because they realize that the imagination was good and that galore of their needs as a community will be met. Maxwell noted that the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt because of Nehemiah’s capacity to work with persons and lead them where they need to go.10 This shows that Nehemiah had more than willing followers. In addition Nehemiah gave acknowledgement to subordinate leaders as he delegated responsibilities to them. This, as he said, opens the leadership potentials for others.11 Therefore one may justifiedly say that Nehemiah not only had more than willing followers but also leaders were reproduced beneath his ministry. Moses When Moses returned to Egypt to set the Israelites free, they were at introductory excited. But when Moses made their circumstance worse they were no longer excessively affected emotionally when it comes to freedom. However, by the end of the ninth plague they had realized that Moses was God’s servant sent to deliver them. They followed Moses’ instructions in observing the Passover and then willingly followed him as he led them out of Egypt. There is likewise scriptural proof that leaders were invented beneath Moses’ leadership. One example is that of Joshua, who substituted him. Joshua who had been the personal assistant of Moses was mentored by Moses to become a leader. Moses’ leadership hence had the characteristics of more than willing followers and that of reproducing leaders. Paul Even when he was “Paul the aged”, he remained the model and leader of a group of dynamic young men. The positive feeling of liking he kindled in his followers’ heart was mirrored in the tears that flowed when he told them they would see him no more (Acts 20: 36-38).12 Sanders revealed in the passage cited above that the apostle Paul’s leadership had the characteristics of more than willing followers. His ministry had outstanding affect in the lives of many, who were also not more than willing to interchange his leadership for another. Like the Lord Jesus, Paul invested his life on a few humans because he expected much from them. These were the people he took on his missionary journeys. Two of the people, Timothy and Titus became leaders of local Churches. Therefore, like Moses, Paul’s leadership had the characteristics of more than willing followers and that of devising leaders. David David rose to fame when he killed Goliath, the Philistine giant. Eugene H. Merrill, commenting on David’s victory reserved that with his rising popularity among the people came a deterioration of his kinship with Saul, for the king became insanely jealous of Israel’s new hero.13 It is evident that David had a huge following. People followed him because of the potential they saw in him. They recognized him as a great leader, even before official acknowledgement was given to him. David ruled Israel for approximately 40 years and by the time he was stepping down as king, Solomon, his son had already been groomed for that position. So, like Nehemiah, Moses and Paul, David’s leadership was characterized by more than willing followers and the devising of leaders. (c) The leader’s task or commission It may be observed from scripture that God always give a specific task or mission to each person he calls to leadership. Some of the characteristics of good leadership may be identified in the way the leaders set out to accomplish their task or mission. There are two things that are of essential importance to how a leader accomplishes his task. These are his imagination and his style of leadership. A leader’s imaginativeness and style of leadership may be characteristics of both good and bad leadership. However, in this division the intent is to shoe how these two characteristics may be characteristics of good leadership. According to John Haggai, a resourcefulness is primary because it is a key element in successful leadership.14 A leader may have a good imagination and yet his vision does not bestow in any way to make his leadership good. Haggai points out what a leader needs to do to make his imaginativeness a contributing characteristic to good leadership. First, he says that both leaders and followers must understand the vision. It is the leader’s obligation to help the followers comprehend the imaginativeness and receive it. Second, both leader and followers will have to commit themselves to act on the vision. This action involves designing a goal program to fulfill the vision. In this way both the leader and followers are prepared to face difficultnesses and eliminate obstacles. It is in this way that a imagination may be a characteristic of good leadership.15 The other distinct features noted that may be a characteristic of a good leadership is the style of leadership. Leadership styles have been given dissimilar classification by authors. Anthony D’souza classified leadership styles in a continuum in which one end is described as task-oriented and the other as relationship-oriented.16 Myron Rush also consorted with D’souza that leadership styles may be seen in a continuum, but he applied dissimilar descriptive terms for the dissimilar styles within the continuum.17 The four styles applied within Rush’s continuum are: dictatorial, authoritative, consultative and participative. These writers argument with regards to styles was not to point out the best but rather to show the importance of all of them. The point that they were making was that a good leadership had the characteristics of the dissimilar leadership styles. The leader must be flexible to the altering situations. When he is capable to adjust his leadership styles to altering situations, then his leadership styles… become characteristics of good leadership. Myron Rush gave examples of situations where queer leadership styles are appropriate. He said, dictatorial leadership style is suitable in an emergency or when people’s lives, are at stake; consultative style in conducting on-going planning for the section or organization; authorized style when workers constantly misuse authority and participative style as people become capable in performing their procedure responsibilities.18 The four leaders brought up in this paper, whose leaderships have been classified as good, will now be applied as test cases to determine whether the points brought up here are characteristics of their leaderships. Nehemiah Joyce Peel, commenting on Nehemiah’s task of building the walls of Jerusalem said that a dispirited nation needs an inspired leader who may unite and galvanize his humans into action. Such a man was Nehemiah.19 These words not only revealed that Nehemiah had a clear imagination of his task but also was capable to make his followers grasp the vision and commit themselves to act on it. This was just one reason why they were competent to rebuild the walls in fifty-two days. Many Jews lamented over the ruins of Jerusalem city wall, but it took the vision of one man, who united the persons and gave them hope to change the situation. Engstrom also pointed to the fact that the people caught Nehemiah’s imaginativeness and acted upon it, when he noted: “One has only to read the Book of Nehemiah to discover the importance of humans at work. The leaders in building the temple and city walls never lost sight of the total goal and overall picture. They were capable to keep this focus by using all the humans as well as experts who were trained to do specific work”.20 Nehemiah’s leadership had the characteristic of a clear imagination which was actively pursued by himself and his followers. It may be observed from the book of Nehemiah, that Nehemiah applied the consultative style of leadership when he got to Jerusalem to begin the work. However in the last few chapters of the book, when things were going wrong, his style of leadership changed to an authorized one. Therefore it may be said that Nehemiah’s leadership had the characteristics of a vision and a altering style of leadership. Moses Moses has a clear resourcefulness when he returned to Egypt to lead the children of Israel out of bondage. The Israelites wanted to be free, but they doubted the possibleness of Moses setting them free. However, when they became sure that Moses was God’s servant who will set them free from bondage, they obeyed his instructions and later walked out of Egypt following him. The biblical records likewise show that Moses varied his leadership styles. Before Jethro came to visit him, he carried a heavy load of work all by himself. Myron Rush pointed out that it was an authorized style of leadership because Moses had to make each decision.21 After his encounter with Jethro his style of leadership changed to more of a consultative one. Paul Paul’s imaginativeness was not only clear to him but also to his followers. Since his Damascus road experience, he knew he has been called by God to be a missionary. Sanders observed that Paul was a missionary trail-blazer, leaving behind him a string of new Churches. It is a significant face that the greatest missionary advances of the last fifty years have followed the rediscovery or re-emphasis of Paul’s missionary principles.22 It is because Paul’s resourcefulness and principle of achieving that imaginativeness was so clear that long after he has gone humans still followed his steps. It may likewise be seen from the Acts narrative that Paul varied his leadership styles. For example, in the contention amid himself and Barnabas over John Mark, Paul displayed an authorized style of leadership. Most times he is also authorized when dealing with issues in the Church. At other times he demonstrated a consultative style of leadership – in the issue that lead to the Jerusalem council. It may be seen that Paul’s leadership was characteristic of a clear vision and altering leadership styles. David Two things are very clear in scripture when it comes to David. The original is his resourcefulness for Israel and the second his vision for God. David was a king of war and he led his army in battle versus Israel’s oppositions and took the land God gave to them. He likewise lived his life in devotion to God. He had a vision to build a dwelling place for the Lord. Although God refused him this privilege, he made outstanding preparations for this temple, which was later built by his son Solomon. It is evident in scripture that David changed his leadership styles in accordance with altering situations. He displayed an authorized leadership style when he led his men in battle. For example in the circumstance when Nabal refused to reward him and his men with feed supply for protecting his servants and sheep in the fields. At other times he demonstrated a consultative style of leadership. When the biblical records are examined, one could distinctly see that David’s leadership show characteristics of a clear resourcefulness and a altering style of leadership. Conclusion In this article galore of the characteristics of good leadership have been identified. This was done under the following headings: (a) the personal characteristics of the leader, the characteristics of the followers and the leader’s task or commission. These sections were based on the conclusions of Anthony D’souza, which revealed that leadership involves an inter-relationship amid three elements – the leader, the followers and the task to be accomplished. Six characteristics of good leadership were identified and they are as follows: a) The personal calibers of the leader, which give him his leadership ability. focus in the ministry. Six leaders, whose leaderships have been characterized as good, were applied as test cases to see whether the calibers cited may be found in their leadership. It was proved that these characteristics were apparent in each of their leadership. There are a heap of more qualification of good leadership, but it is primary importance to have a remainder in the three major areas identified. An person may have all the good calibers of leadership and yet his leadership may not be good because of his style of leadership. Also, the people may not follow the leader because his vision is not clear to them. Good leadership does not only depend on the leader or on the follower or the style of leadership but on all three of these qualities. When there is a remainder in these three areas, leadership becomes particular and that was the kind of leadership Nehemiah, Moses, Paul and David portrayed. END NOTES 1. Anthony D’souze, Being A Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990), p 25. 2. John White, Excellence In Leadership: the Pattern of Nehemiah (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1986), p 10-11. 3. Ibid, p 14. 4. Joyce Peel, A Journey Through The Old Testament: The Story of God’s Relationship With Man Woman and the World (Oxford: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 1993), p 35. 5. Ibid, p 41. 6. Ibid. p 41. 7. John Stott, Men With A Message: An Introduction To New Testament And Its Writers (Suffolk: Evangelical Literature Trust, 1996), P 86. 8. Ted W. Engstrom, The Making of A Christian Leader (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p 30. 9. John C Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minutes In A Leader’s Day; Revitalize Your Spirit an Empower Your Leadership (Nashville: Thomas Nelson’s Publisher, 2000), p 4. 10. John C Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minutes In A Leader’s Day: Revitalize Your Spirit and Empower Your Leadership (Nashville: Thomas Nelsons Publishers, 2000), P 68. 11. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p 166. 12. Oswald Sanders, Paul the Leader: A Vision For Christian Leadership Today (Glasgow: Kingsway Publication Ltd., 1983), p 42. 13. Eugene H Merrill, I Samuel: The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Colorado: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1985), p 449. 14. John Haggai, Lead On! Leadership That Endures In A Changing World (London: Word Publishing, 1986), p 16. 15. Ibid. p 17. 16. Anthony D’souza, Being A Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990), p 36 17. Myron Rush; Management: A Biblical Perspective (Illinois: Victor Books, 1996), p 219. 18. Myron Rush, Management: A Biblical Approach (Illinios: Victor Books, 1983), p 226. 19. Joyce Peel, Journey Through the Old Testament: The Story of God’s Relationship with Man. Woman and the World (oxford: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 1993), p 141. 20. Ted W Engstrom, The Making of A Christian Leader: How To Develop Management And Human Relations Skills (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p 21. Myron Rush, Management: A Biblical Perspective (Illinois: Victor Books, 1976), p 220. 22. Oswald Sanders, Paul: A Vision For Christian Leadership Today (Glasgow: Kingsway Publication Ltd, 1983), p 967. END NOTE 1. Anthony D’souza, Being A Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990), p 25. Intervarsity Press, 1986), p 10-11. Relationship With Man Woman and the World (Oxford: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 1993), p 35. |
