Then the king said to him, “How many times must I adjure you to speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?” So he said, “I saw all Israel Scattered on the mountains, like sheep which have no shepherd. And the LORD said, `These have no master. Let each of them return to his house in peace.’ “– 1 Kings 22 : 16 – 17 (NASB)

As I continue my shepherding Bible study, I came across this passage again.  While the passage (see also 2 Chronicles 18) does not refer to a specific person or persons shepherding, I still thought there was a lesson or two here for those of us entrusted with shepherding the Church.

The king mentioned in the passage above is Ahab, king of Israel.  Israel’s kings have turned away from God and began worshipping the Baal.  Ahab contributes to the blasphemy by erecting Ashura poles on the high worship places.  His evil wife and queen Jezebel is intent on killing all God’s prophets, Elijah most of all.  Unbeknownst to Ahab, the verses above and in fact all of 1 Kings 22 are about the end of his reign as king of Israel.

Three years have passed since Israel warred with Aram.  Israel was victorious in the previous conflict when God delivered the Arameans into the hands of the Israelites after the Arameans thought God’s power was limited to the hills (1 Kings 20).   Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, has allied himself with Ahab.  It is a curious alliance as Jehoshaphat has done much to restore Judah to worshipping God, unlike Ahab.  Having been in that part of the world, I know blood ties are strong.  Possibly a common ancestry is what binds Ahab and Jehoshaphat together, for faith certainly does not.  Regardless, Jehoshaphat asks Ahab to seek God’s counsel before going to war.  Ahab consults his “prophets”, who assure him God will be on his side if he wars with the Arameans again.  Jehoshaphat knows the prophets did not consult God and so he asks if there is no true prophet to consult (note the difference between “the prophets” in verse 6 with “prophet of the Lord” in verse 7).  Ahab confirms there is, but he is reluctant to consult him because he won’t tell him what he wants to hear.  Still, Ahab sends for God’s prophet, Micaiah.

The messenger who fetches Micaiah tries to convince him to tell Ahab what he wants to hear.  Micaiah states he will only say what the Lord has told him.  Interestingly, once he is in Ahab’s presence Micaiah does tell Ahab what the other prophets had already said.  Ahab may be evil but he is not naïve.  He must have sensed what I imagine was Micaiah’s mocking tone, both toward the king and his so-called prophets.  True to his word, Micaiah delivers God’s message that Ahab will lose the battle and the Israelites will be “scattered on the mountains, like sheep which have no shepherd (found in verse 17 and referencing Numbers 27:17).  Micaiah is rewarded with imprisonment for delivering God’s message telling Ahab what he does not want to hear.  Ahab ignores the message, fights with the Arameans, and is killed.

Years ago I was attending staff training at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  The thrust of the training is to turn Army officers into good staff officers.  I remember one portion of our training consisting of a “B” grade video The Road to Abilene.  The video takes place during the hot Texas summer in a small town an hour or two away from Abilene.  It is set during the 50s or 60s when vehicle air conditioning was not standard equipment.  A family is slowly passing a long hot afternoon.  One of the family members mentions they could drive to Abilene for ice cream to cool off.  What ensues is a discussion where everyone eventually goes along with the idea.  Cut to the end of the video.  Everyone is soaked with sweat and quite irritable.  They start blaming each other for a long hot road trip with no air conditioning.  I forget how the video ends, but I do remember it ends with everyone upset with everyone else.  It seems none of them really wanted to go to Abilene but none of them wanted to be the one to say “no” either.  They all succumbed to what we call “groupthink”, which is basically going along with whatever idea or plan is presented even if you don’t think it is good.

The lesson for us was good staff officers will avoid groupthink and present our superiors with the information they need to make decisions, even if that information is unpleasant or unpopular.  We were still to have the courage to present the information, regardless of personal consequences, because we were usually dealing with decisions costing lots of money and, more importantly, potentially costing lives.  Sometime after my training I had the opportunity to serve in Iraq with a commander who encouraged contrary opinions, provided you had the facts and analysis to back up your conclusions and recommendations.   Because of this I and my staff were able to gain his trust and confidence over time and we enjoyed successes for the remainder of our tour.

So what are the lessons for us?

First, avoid groupthink to encourage HOT (honest, open, transparent – not to be confused with heated or angry) dialogue.  Unfortunately, there are times when a congregation’s shepherds are accused of groupthink.  What people are not privy to are the discussions that go on behind closed doors or the information discussed because of the trying to maintain someone’s privacy, trust, and confidence.  Fortunately, the shepherds I serve with are so diverse there is usually HOT dialogue, especially over non-routine matters.  Most of our meetings also include our ministers, and both always provide valuable insight and other perspectives for us to consider in our decision-making.  However, we never let those discussions disrupt the unity or harmony among the shepherds because that will sow the seeds of division within the congregation.  In fact, there have been times where one of us will disagree with the others but will yield so we can maintain unity and harmony in the body.

Second, be prepared to be unpopular.  Micaiah presented a message from God and was rewarded with a slap from a false prophet and imprisonment from a king.  In some cases be prepared to receive a figurative slap that comes in many forms from members disagreeing with how you handle things.  Some do it intentionally, some unintentionally, but it hurts just the same.  I know I was guilty of the same in my younger, more spiritually immature days (and yes, I still have a long way to go).  One reason they do it is because they don’t have all the information you do, and they also forget you are fallible.  This is also the time to remember the numerous New Testament warnings about false prophets.  They will spread lies to fill the information gap we create as we protect our members’ confidentiality.

Third, seek God’s counsel when making decisions or conveying information.  Consider the options, search the Scriptures, pray, make the best decision for the body, and then communicate your decisions and as much of the information behind the decisions as possible to the congregation.  Of course, remember the second point as you do:)

Finally, we must remember Micaiah’s warning about what would happen if Ahab ignored God’s word.  The sheep would be scattered and leaderless.  If we ignore God’s word then our sheep will also be leaderless and scattered, and we will answer to God for it.

May your blessings exceed mine today and all your days. – DEM

And Samuel said to Jesse, “Are these all the children?” And he said, “There remains yet the youngest, and behold, he is tending the sheep.” – 1 Samuel 16:11 (NASB)

We are all familiar with the text.  Saul has disobeyed God by sparing King Agag and not utterly destroying the Amalekites.  As Saul rejected God’s command, so God rejected Saul (15:23).  This is one of many examples where God’s plans will not be thwarted.  Either we carry out God’s will, or He will find someone else to do it.  But that is a lesson for another day.

You will remember Saul became king after the people asked to be ruled by a king like all the other nations around them.  God chooses Saul the Benjamite, who was taller and more handsome than anyone around.  In essence, God gives the Israelites what they asked for and what they were looking for in a king.  Our preacher recently used these verses and an egg as a visual aid to illustrate too often we focus on what the present physical appearance of something is (i.e. the egg), instead of what the egg will become, which our preacher illustrated during the sermon with a picture of a beautiful bird.  This is a great lesson in and of itself, but it is not our whole lesson for today.

We are also familiar with what happens next.  Samuel travels to Bethlehem to anoint the son of Jesse that God has chosen to succeed Saul.  At this point God has not revealed to Samuel which one God has chosen.  Jesse has eight sons, seven of whom are invited to accompany Jesse and join Samuel for “the sacrifice”.  Samuel is impressed by the physical appearance of Jesse’s oldest son, Eliab.  However, God points out “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (16:7).  It is as if God is telling Samuel, and by extension the Israelites, “We tried it your way once and see what happened.  I gave you what you wanted, now I am going to give you what you need.”

The procession continues.  Each of Jesse’s sons is presented to Samuel, each is rejected by God.  It would be interesting to know what Samuel is thinking as he believes the last of Jesse’s sons fails to gain God’s approval.  But Samuel is faithful and so he asks if there is another son.  Then we learn the youngest son is out tending the sheep.  I have to believe this was one of those “AHA!” moments for Samuel.

It was probably normal in David’s time and place for the youngest son to tend the sheep while the older sons were with their father.  Each son probably took their turn at tending their father’s sheep when they reached a certain age, and now it was David’s turn.  I am the younger of two sons, and the same thing happened to me (only we had goats, not sheep).

The real lesson for me is found when you consider verse 7 and verse 11 together.  I do not think the recorded text mentions David was tending the sheep just to move the story along.  Rather, we have this recorded for a reason.  We shouldn’t miss the significance of God’s choosing a king because of his heart, and at the time he was chosen Saul’s successor was tending his father’s sheep.

While I don’t want to read too much into this, I think it is worth pondering.  Possibly you have heard the phrase “Shepherd’s Heart”.  I have heard it, sometimes even in half-hearted jest.  Nevertheless, I believe in this case it warrants further discussion.

What exactly is meant by having a “Shepherd’s Heart”?  I believe it is a phrase with many applications.  However, to me the application with regard to our text is it means a man of Godly character.  By tending his father’s sheep David demonstrated he was faithful to God and to do his father’s bidding, he was courageous, and he was responsible, all characteristics which manifested themselves later in life.  He also demonstrated self-control (how many times could he have killed Saul?), humility (he waited years to become king instead of trying to seize power), was faithful to God and His word, and was loyal to others as well.  That is not to say he was perfect, and when he sinned with Bathsheba and against Uriah he demonstrated the exact opposite of every Godly characteristic known (although he was quick to accept responsibility for his sin when confronted – 2 Samuel 12).  Yet, he is remembered as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13;14).

So what is the application for today’s shepherds?  First, our actions demonstrate our heart (i.e. character).  David consistently demonstrated his character throughout his life even though he was fallible (a friend of mine pointed out David’s adultery and murder plot were not his only sins, just the ones recorded).  Second, David demonstrated his character by tending his father’s sheep and later by being faithful to God.  Shepherds of today get to do the same, at least with figurative sheep.  Third, David was tending his father’s sheep already, before God chose him.  When considering future shepherds we should ask ourselves who is already tending our Father’s sheep.  Fourth, David’s character closely matches what are sometimes referred to as an elder’s “qualifications” as found in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1.  We would do well to consider these qualifications as not just a checklist, but also insight into a person’s heart and character.  We would also do well to remember everyone will fall short in demonstrating one or more of these “qualifications” and we should give them the benefit of the doubt.  That doesn’t mean not to bring it to their attention as Nathan did in 2 Samuel 12 or as Jesus tells us in Matthew 18.  However, let us not forget as we approach them the goal is to win a brother and not drive them away.

May your blessings exceed mine today and all your days. – DEM

But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn. He blessed Joseph, and said, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads; And may my name live on in them, And the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And may they grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” – Genesis 48:14-16 (NASB)

As I continue reflecting on what it means to be the shepherd God wants me to be, the verses above represent the second contextual reference I found.  Israel (Jacob) is coming to the end of his life.  He has been reunited with his lost son Joseph in Egypt.  Joseph has had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, from his Egyptian wife Asenath (Genesis 46).  In Genesis 48 Israel calls upon Joseph to bring his sons to Israel so he can bless them before he dies.

There are a few lessons for the shepherds of today in these verses.  First, in many ways Israel is a type of shepherd.  He is the patriarch of the family, he is a man of God, and he understands the responsibilities that come with filling each role.  Shepherds of today should also understand their roles and responsibilities with the clarity of Israel.

Second, Israel passes on God’s blessing as he adopts Joseph’s sons as his own.  One component of Israel’s blessing is his desire for the family name to live on in his grandsons, Manasseh and Ephraim.  Likewise, we shepherds should be asking God to bless our children and we should be doing all we can to pass on the family name of Christian on to subsequent generations.  One piece of wisdom I’ve kept in my rucksack over the years is you don’t really know how you did raising your children to become Christians until you see if they do the same for your grandchildren.  I’ve not reached that point in my life yet, but it is a fervent prayer of mine that not only will my children continue in their walk with God, but also that they will pass that heritage on to my grandchildren.  It is a sobering thought.

Finally, it is significant how Israel describes God.  James Burton Coffman comments:

One of the great things of significance in these verses is the triple designation of God, who is extolled as, “Deum Patrem, Deum Pastorem, and Angelum.” This means God of My Fathers, Shepherd God, and Angel of Jehovah. There are many names of God in the Bible; and, as always, the name chosen signified not some special “source” but some special significance. Hab. 1:12 also uses three names for God in a single verse! The Angel mentioned here is the Angel of Jehovah, identified with God Himself in the prophecies. Looking back over his life, Jacob was conscious of the guiding hand of God.[1]

I can’t say it any better.  All I can do is echo what Coffman wrote, in that just as Jacob was conscious God had guided his life, I too must remain conscious that, if I let Him, God guides mine as well (Acts 20:28)

May your blessings exceed mine. – DEM

Then Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said, “My father and my brothers and their flocks and their herds and all that they have, have come out of the land of Canaan; and behold, they are in the land of Goshen.” He took five men from among his brothers and presented them to Pharaoh.  Then Pharaoh said to his brothers, “What is your occupation?” So they said to Pharaoh, “Your servants are shepherds, both we and our fathers.”  They said to Pharaoh, “We have come to sojourn in the land, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks, for the famine is severe in the land of Canaan. Now, therefore, please let your servants live in the land of Goshen.” Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Your father and your brothers have come to you. “The land of Egypt is at your disposal; settle your father and your brothers in the best of the land, let them live in the land of Goshen; and if you know any capable men among them, then put them in charge of my livestock.” – Genesis 47: 1 – 6

In my last post I discussed our recent Dynamic Deacons seminar.  Prior to the seminar my fellow shepherds and our lead minister spent months developing a document describing each ministry we wanted our deacons and other servants in the church to lead.  Through the course of the discussions we began referring to the ministry descriptions as job descriptions.  Fortunately, our most experienced elder pointed out these are ministries, not jobs.  They are callings associated with an individuals gift(s), not something they are hired (or paid for that matter) to perform.  Finally, he pointed out the church is an organism (see the “body” in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), not an organization.  That was a very profound statement, one I’ve meditated on quite a bit, and one I am not ready to blog about.  However, as part of our discussion, the question of elder or shepherd job descriptions came up.  We quickly turned to the Bible and said it already contained our “job description”, a term we consciously avoid because we realize job descriptions belong to organizations and the roles we, our ministers, our servants, and our members fill are just that – roles.  Still, the discussion prompted contemplation and reflection on my part, so I decided to study every reference to shepherds in the Bible and determine what I could learn from them about my role.  This is the first of many such reflective lessons I hope to share.

The first reference to “shepherd” or “shepherds” I found in the NASB is actually in Genesis 46 but leads directly to the verses at the top of this post.  I drew the following lessons from the verses in Genesis 47 above.

First, it took more than one shepherd for Jacob’s flocks.  These flocks all belonged to the same family.  In similar fashion, congregations tend to have flocks that develop naturally based on relationships.  Many of these flocks are interconnected, for example they may possess a “vertical slice” (a term we use to connote age demographics) formed around common interests or, like in our verses here, around family relationships.  However, these “flocks” are really part of the same family of believers that assemble together and form a single flock (church body) at a particular location.  Like the shepherds of Jacob’s family, there is a need for multiple shepherds for the local church body.  Not to represent a particular “flock” within the body, but to guide the entire flock.  Wranglers of the American West knew it took several of them to move a herd across this great land.  Likewise, more than one shepherd is needed to guide a flock, which is consitent with Acts 14:23.

Second, these shepherds were looking out for the welfare of their flocks.  Famine reigned in Canaan and Jacob’s family knew to save the flock they must find better land, which they did in Goshen by Pharaoh’s grace.  In other words, the shepherds guided the flock to a better place where they could flourish.  We have the same responsibility today to look out for the flock’s welfare and guide them to a better future in God’s Kingdom so they too can enjoy the ultimate better future we can only find in God’s presence in Heaven.

Third, when talking to Pharaoh the shepherds referred to themselves as servants.  Shepherds of today are also servants.  Fortunately, we are servants of God rather than Pharaoh.  We serve our flock by protecting them both from both within and without and guiding them to fulfill their purpose in God’s Kingdom.

Finally, I think it is interesting that Pharaoh is willing to let these shepherds be in charge of his livestock.  To me that speaks to the character of the shepherds and the respect Pharaoh had for Joseph and his family.  Would that our lights would shine (Matthew 5) to influence those outside the body in such a way that they too would want their livestock, whatever the equivalent of that might be, to also be under the guidance of the congregation’s shepherds.

Blessings to you all.

DEM

“Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.  “If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” – Johsua 24:14-15

We just finished an incredible weekend of education and encouragement.  Our congregation partnered with another congregation along Colorado’s Front Range to host the Dynamic Deacons (www.dynamicdeacons.com) seminar facilitated by Aubrey Johnson.  We were also able to hold seminar sessions facilitated by his wife Lisa.  They are wonderful servants of God, with wonderful abilities, and it was a joy to have them share their decades of experiences as leaders in God’s kingdom.  We were blessed to share in great fellowship with our brothers and sisters from another congregation, share meals, and reflect upon and learn about the Word of God and what he wants from his servants.

A few years ago I had a Chief of Staff who would always ask if what we were about to do was going to give us a good “return on investment”.  He always wanted us to consider if the course of action we were about to pursue was going to be worth the resources it would cost.  Most of you are probably familiar with the term in the business world.  It is not a phrase you typically hear in the military.  I would guess it is heard even less often in the context of a church congregation.

Joshua’s life, like that of Moses before him, was one of investment, specifically investment in leadership development.  God invested in Moses over the span of 80 years to turn him into the leader of the Israelite nation.  Likewise, at some point Moses determined he would invest in developing Joshua into the man who would eventually lead the Israelites to conquer most of the Promised Land.  Numbers 11:28 tells us Joshua served Moses from his youth.  In Exodus 17:8-16 we learn Joshua commanded the Israelites during the battle against the Amalekites in Rephidim.  Exodus 32:17 tells us he accompanied Moses part of the way when he ascended Mount Sinai to receive the law from God.  He was also one of the twelve who were sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan (Numbers 13).   Finally, Moses publicly invested Joshua with authority over the people as his successor (Deuteronomy 31 – 34).

Each one of these developmental acts had a good return on investment.  A life of service to Moses prepared Joshua for a life of service to God.    Joshua experience as a spy led him to send his own spies into Canaan 40 years after Moses did the same thing, this time with different results.  Leading the Israelites at Rephidim prepared Joshua to lead the Israelites in conquering Canaan.  Finally, by publicly naming Joshua as successor in front of the Israelite nation Moses solidified Joshua’s role as the next Israelite leader.  As you can see, these all had a good return on investment.

However, the best return on investment was not realized until years later when Joshua is giving a final address to the Israelites.  Joshua recounts Israel’s history and reminds them what God has done for them.  He concludes his final address with the words at the top of this post and lets the entire Israelites nation know he and his family will serve God.  It is at this point we see how  Moses’ return on his investment in Joshua had reached maturity.

Several months ago my fellow elders and I made the conscience decision to equip our deacons with the tools, education, and motivation to succeed in their ministries.  We pledged to our congregation that we would deliberately focus on our relationship with our deacons to equip them to build up the body at Castle Rock.  In other words, we are determined to invest in our deacons, and thus invest in our congregation.

The Dynamic Deacons seminar was just one of many steps we are taking toward building stronger relationships between the elders, ministers, deacons, and congregation.  Our deacons will likely not lead a nation in military conquest, or spy in another country, or see first hand the awesome and mighty power of God on a mountaintop (although you can get close to that here in Colorado’s mountains).  However, if given the right leadership, tools, and opportunity, our deacons will still do mighty work in the kingdom of God.   The Dynamic Deacons seminar was one of those tools and we are confident it and other steps we take in the near future will result in a tremendouse “return on investment” for our deacons and our congregation.  We know the Lord will bless our investment as long as we stay true to His word and His will.

May the Lord bless you as He has me and may we all equip the saints for the building up of the body of Christ. -DEM

“Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead–by this name this man stands here before you in good health.” – Acts 4 : 8 – 10

My current duties involve supervising a small team of individuals that serve on a 24/7 watch. We monitor the strategic situation across the globe to provide indications and warnings of strategic attacks by nation states against the homeland, as well as terrorist plans to attack. The nature of our work requires us to communicate with both Department of Defense and various civilian organization watches to share information. A few days ago one of my team discovered a civilian organization had implemented new security procedures. He determined if we knew the security procedures, we would know how a terrorist might attempt to circumvent them. Therefore, my team member requested the details of the new security procedures from his fellow watch-stander at the civilian organization. The civilian organization’s watch-stander said he could not provide the information without a formal request, so my team member submitted the request.

The request went unanswered for a couple of weeks. Then, a few days ago, my team member was verbally counseled by a senior person working in the intel directorate of our organization. It seems my team member had not gone through the proper channels to request the information. Unbeknownst to my team member, the civilian organization had a representative in our organization who found out about the request. The request was then elevated to the highest levels within the civilian organization. In the process the civilian organization blew the request way out of proportion to the point it stopped being a request and became what was perceived as a requirement. We have no authority to require the civilian organization to provide us any information since they do not work for us.

Anyone that has ever worked with bureaucrats knows how important it is for them to defend their ‘turf’. That is to say they are determined to force others to follow procedures and protocol, no matter how small the subject matter. By doing so the bureaucrats feel they are protecting their jobs, their organization, and their power derived from possessing information others want. The information becomes leverage and that leverage translates to power. Additionally, bureaucracies become slaves to process and “form over function”.  Subordinates pass decisions up the chain until someone of sufficient ‘authority’ can make a decision. This is exactly what happened to the request sent by my teammate.

After a few weeks the request (or in this case perceived requirement) was passed up through levels of bureaucracy and passed over to the civilian organization’s liaison with our organization. The liaison engaged a senior member of our organization and expressed their displeasure at how procedures had not been followed. The senior member then let my supervisors and my teammate know how displeased they were with the procedure we used to attempt gaining the required information. Apparently, the request should have gone from my teammate to someone in another part of our organization who would determine if our request was valid before sending it on to the liaison. Then the liaison would forward the request to the appropriate authority in his organization for approval.  So, something that started off as a simple exchange between two watch-standers performing shift work turned into a two week saga involving more senior individuals than the request warranted. We have yet to receive the requested information. To top it off, the senior member in our organization tasked my teammate to write a procedure on how to obtain the information through ‘proper’ channels.

Processes are great for routine activities, but when they are applied to every circumstance they stifle individual initiative and creativity. A simple act of initiative becomes a challenge to a bureaucrat’s very existence (at least in their eyes).  Subordinates are reprimanded and told to get back ‘in their lane’.  Subordinates are not empowered to think, to make decisions, and to act.  My teammate became the victim of the old saying “no good deed goes unpunished”.

The disciples were also punished for their good deeds by the bureaucrats of their day. One incident illustrating this point comes from Acts 3 and 4. At the beginning of Acts 3 you will recall Peter and John were going to the temple in Jerusalem. They encountered a man who was born lame. Friends or family brought the man to the temple gate daily so he could beg for alms. When Peter and John were about to enter the temple the beggar began asking for alms. Instead of giving the beggar silver or gold, Peter miraculously heals him and the beggar accompanies Peter and John into the temple “walking and leaping and praising God” (vs. 8). Peter and John then go on to speak and teach Jesus Christ’s resurrection.

Enter the ‘bureaucrats’ (a term that fails to come close to describing the religious and moral depravity of the first century religious leaders). In Acts 4 the priests, temple guard captain, and the Sadducees arrested Peter and John in an effort to stop their spreading the gospel to the people. Apparently Peter and John were not ‘staying in their lane’. They had the audacity to heal a lame man, and then further their bureaucracy-defying infractions by teaching the resurrection, presumably without asking permission from the High Priest or his cronies. Clearly in these religious leader’s bureaucracy they were not about to let any good deed go unpunished, no matter who benefited from it. It didn’t matter that a lame man could now walk and was praising God in the process. It didn’t matter that the good news message was reaching those in need of it. The power of the bureaucracy was at stake, and as far as the religious rulers were concerned this would not stand. The religious leaders felt their authority was challenged, to the point they even asked Peter and John “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” (4:8).

It is no surprise Peter knew what the religious leaders were up to. He even calls them on it in verses 9-10 “…if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well… by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead–by this name this man stands here before you in good health.”.  Peter knew the religious leaders were opposed to anything good that could be attributed to the same Jesus Christ they had conspired to murder.  The religious leaders knew they would lose power over the people if this message continued to spread, and as we already noted information is power and a bureaucracy maintains its power by controlling information. The Sanhedrin was no different.  However, unlike my teammate, Peter had the Holy Spirit working on his behalf and the proof of the now-healed beggar in their midst. The Sanhedrin could not deny a miracle, so they turned to threats in order to control information, to punish those responsible for ‘good deeds’.

Of course where the Holy Spirit is involved, man’s attempts to control situations in ways not according to God’s will are in vain.  So what is important about today’s lesson for Godly leaders, specifically missional leaders? First, we should ask ourselves if we are acting the same way as the Sanhedrin.  Are we excited when someone demonstrates the initiative to do a good deed in the name of God (Mark 9:38 – 40 comes to mind), or are we disturbed because they didn’t go through proper channels or an established program? Are we happy to share information and responsibility, or are we trying to control information to retain our position in the sight of our fellow Christians? Are we a facilitator of God’s plan, or an obstacle? Are we a community of God’s people where every member is an active participant in God’s redemptive plan (i.e. missionally focused), or are we a bureaucracy?

Second, we must realize that if we are acting like the Sanhedrin we are in effect ‘arresting’ the imagination of our congregation. In my studies and my experience imagination and initiative are like muscles – if they are not exercised they will atrophy. How can leaders cultivate a missional culture in our congregation where members can imagine themselves at the center of God’s activities if we saddle them with programs and projects of our choosing? Put simply, we can’t.

Third, what are we doing when our members demonstrate some initiative? This question is important because as a congregation transitions to a missional culture they go through a phase of experimentation. During this phase members exercise their initiative by experimenting with ways they can be active participants in God’s activities in the local community. If members feel forced to focus on conforming their ideas to fit into an existing program they may miss an opportunity to participate. Additionally, leaders have to realize some experiments will fail (thus the term ‘experiment’ instead of ‘solution’). Members need to know it is okay for an experiment to fail because their leaders will encourage them to try something else instead of giving up. Leaders recognize and distinguish between failed experiments and labeling individuals as failures. Leaders see failed experiments as learning experiences rather than dead ends and leaders reward initiative, they don’t punish it.

Finally, missional leaders want to encourage and empower others to participate in God’s activities. Peter and John were empowered, and the results were amazing. Peter and John saw the threat of punishment for what it was – a challenge to God and his purpose (4:27-30). By using threats all the Sanhedrin did was further embolden Peter and John to spread the ‘information’ instead of controlling it. May we endeavor to see when our processes and procedures (i.e. ‘doing things right’) are getting in the way of God’s activities (i.e. ‘doing the right thing’). 

It is my prayer that this lesson is as helpful to you reading it as it has been to me writing it. It is also my prayer we will apply this lesson to our lives as we strive to serve God.  After all, we haven’t really learned a lesson unless we know how to and actually do implement it in a situation. The grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you.

Reference: Roxburgh, Alan J. and Romanuk, Fred The Missional Leader. San Fransisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 2006.