I am amazed how little we learn from research, writings, and esperience. All research, writings, and experience conclude that the top-down, authoritarian, "my way or the highway", one-way communication, "know it all", and "never challenge me" style of leadership is futile, ineffective, and absolutely dead. Very few leaders operate this way anymore. However, some leaders persist with this leadership style. Usually if they employ this style, their tenure is short, the organizational morale is low, and employee turnover is high. Needless to say, the style is unbiblical.

In Joshua 1, God says "Moses my servant is dead." After 40 years in Egypt, 40 years on the other side of the desert, and 40 years of leading the children of Israel through the wilderness, God still referred to Moses as "my servant." This is truly a great honor and a term of endearment. What is servant leadership and how does a leader avoid the arrogance of leadership?

A servant leader sets aside personal gain, makes sacrifices, and puts the needs of others above the direction that one might prefer for oneself. He/she leads according to calling, vision, and principles not on position or leadership role. The motivation of a servant leader involves the unleashing of the potential of the followers and the good of the organization. He/she seeks to empower others and focuses on the needs and growth of the ones who are being lead. A servant leader models integrity which is characterized by the fact that the private life and thoughts match the public statements.

A non-servant leader constantly sells himself/herself, leads out of pride and force, and manipulates the followers. The ends are all that are important. The means to the end are not important. People are used and a prideful attitude is manifested. Authority resides in the power of the position and power and control are the strategies for accomplishment.

Leaders succeed that cherish members and speak the truth. Leaders fail who exploit members and practice concealment along with deceit.

In the next blog I will discuss the leadership style of Joshua, refer to some bad models of leadership, and explore a model for pastoral leadership as found in I Peter 5.

I am sure that our forefathers did not intend for the USA to have a one-party political system. While there is nothing constitutionally that precludes our having multiple political parties (more than two), we have the tradition of being a two-party system. Currently, that tradition is manifested in the Republican and Democratic parties with a few minor parties that seem to have very little political influence - some followers but not a very powerful political force. The last major third party impact on an election was Ross Perot, who received almost 20% of the vote in 1992.

My family raised me as a thorough-going Democrat. I grew up in a rural area with a farming tradition, and my parents worked in a textile mill. My family had lived through the Great Depression. "Republican" and "Herbert Hoover" were bad words. Certain family members never got over the association with Republicans and the Great Depression. I remember my first interest in politics came in the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon. Obviously, I was an avid Kennedy-Johnson supporter. I remember as I grew into adulthood, I gradually became a Republican because the Democractic Party left me. So when I could vote, I voted Republican for the first time. As many have said, the Democratic Party abandoned me and drove me to the Republican Party.

I currently contend that for all practical purposes we have a one-party system in America consisting of both Democrats and Republicans. It is a R-D or D-R party. In the light of this situation, I propose the Republicans and Democrats merge into one political party and that we form a new political party. There is not a "dimes worth of difference" in how both parties are behaving.

The Republicans lost their governing majority because the party lost its way, became arogant, and abandoned its principles. The party has not manned an effective opposition strategy to this socialistic and governmental takeover that we are experiencing. The Republicans suffer from a lack of leadership and coordination. Is there not a leader that will stand up and provide courageous leadership? The principles of the Republicans and Democrats are defacto the same.

A new political party must emerge that embraces social conservativism as well as fiscal conservatism, free market economic and governmental principles, and a lack of governmental intervention. This may sound harsh. But if General Motors and Chrysler cannot make it on free market principles, then they need to go out of business. Businesses cannot have it both ways. Don't punish the successful and, in many cases, hardworking people who have certain salary levels by taxing them more. What happens to incentive? The government does not create jobs; the private sector does. Wake up America! This massive and expensive national health care plan is about to change America forever and lead us down the socialistic path further. The massive ballouts have been outrageous. The Republicans are not manning an effective opposition to the new Supreme Court nominee. How can a social conservative support her?

We need a new political party that will stand for something and that will man effective opposition to the biggest socialist takeover and restructuring in the history of America. The new political party should be characterized by social and political conservatism, ethical behavior, and free market principles. More than anything, the new party must offer strong opposition to the current one party system consisting of both Republicans and Democrats!

The age old discussion/debate involving the relationship between the theoretical and practical is no more pronounced than in the theological and ministry world. As I consider this issue, cliches like “cart before the horse” and “did the chicken come before the egg” seem appropriate comparisons as points of discussion. This discussion is prevalent in almost all fields of academic endeavor. Sometimes, the debate is in the arena of pure vs. applied. For example, what is the relationship between pure science and applied science?  What is the relationship between fact and application? In many fields of endeavor, the two arenas are just segregated into their separate worlds. Sometimes, the pure theorist has an attitude of superiority. For example does(do) the scientist(s) who discovered nuclear energy take responsibility for the development of the nuclear bomb? Many purists would not.

 

I propose that in the theological and ministry world that the theoretical and practical are intricately related, and that there is biblical and logical sequence. We have clear answers in our theological and ministry world to the “cart before the horse” and “chicken before the egg” examples. Paul’s model in many of his writings is the theological and biblical first, thus the theoretical, then the practical. The practical is based on and rooted in the theological. No clearer example of this model is found anywhere than in the book of Romans. Romans chapters 1-11 deal with human sin, justification by faith, sanctification, and Israel. Romans chapters 12-16 deal with practical and Christian living issues. Paul argues that based on these theological issues and truth, then one should practice or live accordingly.

 

I see false and very devastating approaches to this issue in our current theological world. I contend that practical or praxis must be based on and rooted in the plain statement and meaning of Scripture. It is apparent to me that we should be concerned about what God has to say. How do we determine what God has said? It is His inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. In this dispensation we do not expect a vision or new revelation. A passage does not have multiple meanings nor do we have the right to approach Scripture from an allegorical perspective. God’s Word is our sole authority. Tradition, the church fathers, the church, and culture, while provide valuable insights are not on the same par as God’s Word. Should not a person in ministry or even a lay person be given over to determining “what God has to say” which means applying the literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual approach to the interpretation of Scripture. This is absolutely foundational and essential. Again, “what is God saying and what has He said?”

 

However, I do not see in the New Testament the model of accumulating truth and knowledge without the application of truth. We must practice truth. The fact is that we have a world that is lost and needs salvation. In many countries in the world, less than 1% of the population is Christian. The reality is that anyone without Jesus Christ will face an eternity in Hell. I would say “Live the Book.”

 

To launch out in ministry and in the practical without having a philosophy based in Scripture leads to many of the abuses and errors that we have today. Evangelism and Christian ministry without a proper theological and biblical base is mindless and devastating. Let’s return to the power of preaching His Word and programs that are biblically based. While stories and examples can illustrate truth, the power is in the preaching of His Word. This also speaks to ministry training. Strategy or programs without the proper foundation is futile! We are a people of the “text” and the “Book.”

As I develop my website, this is my first attempt at blogging. My purpose for blogging involves discussing on at least a weekly basis current biblical and theological issues as well as cultural and political issues, encouraging the development of a Christian worldview, and challenging the next generation of fundamentalist, independent Baptists to pursue truth, be individuals of integrity, and passionately pursue worldwide evangelization, planting of local churches, and teaching believers in Christ.

We need not fall prey to the "devices of men" or rely on human ability or wisdom to accomplish our task. The mandate is clear - "we need a band of men and women whose heart God has touched." Our focus must be singular: to glorify God in all that we do. We need to think like God thinks, and we need to view God as Isaiah did in chapter 6 - God's Holiness and man's sinfulness. Let's define some terms over the next few blogs as well as clarify some terms and issues. I look forward to this blogging journey.

Welcome to my blog. Please check back soon for new entries.