Good leaders are a scarce commodity: That is a modern-day maxim true for both our nation and the church. (Indeed, the bigger the church, the greater the need and, alas, the greater the dearth of potential leaders.)
In this regard, I shall never forget the ringing challenge with which Chuck Swindoll concluded his message to the leaders of my denomination at our annual conference a couple of years ago.
His clarion call: “Lead! Lead! Lead!”
Leadership is a delicate balance of opportunity, natural talents, training (education in the broadest sense), spiritual gifts, and the willingness to take advantage of those opportunities and use those talents and gifts to attain goals—either good or bad—through the common efforts of many.
Leadership, moreover, involves risk taking. No leader bats 1.000 in his or her decision making. The important thing, however, is to stay above .500. That means every realistic leader faces the risk of what most people will reckon to be failure. But when Christians strike out, they don’t need to fear destruction. They possess a safety net in the divine promise of Romans 8:28: God will work out for his ultimate good what all others may deem to be failure.
On occasion, a true leader can also find himself in terrifying isolation. But he is never really alone. He has a God who “sticks closer than a brother.” He can pray to God with assurance that he will be heard, and that the Holy Spirit will grant strength and sustain him along the most trying path.
Good leaders are always servants—and servanthood poses no threat to the Christian’s sense of self-worth and self-respect. In his incarnation God himself presents the Christian with a model of true servant leadership.
It would seem, therefore, that Christians have a “built in” leadership advantage. Why, then, are there not more evangelical leaders?
No doubt there are many possible explanations. But there is one serious handicap to which evangelicals are especially liable. It is their inability to distinguish between compromising convictions and moderating actions.
While it is always wrong to compromise convictions (they are never to be grounded in expediency, but ultimately on the authority of the Word of God and the illumination of his Holy Spirit), in a fallen world we must often be willing to do less than we would like to. It is not always a compromise in conviction to moderate our action so as to work with others to accomplish lesser goods that also need to be done. Unwillingness to moderate our action often means we get nothing done.
One example here will suffice: Evangelicals are almost universally opposed to pornography. But our society fears the loss of freedom of speech and press more than it fears pornography. Hence, strict laws against pornography are difficult to pass and even more difficult to enforce. Yet most Americans are strongly opposed to child pornography—and would gladly unite in stern enforcement of strict laws against it.
Evangelicals, therefore, should concentrate their opposition on child pornography. And every time they speak against child pornography they should speak twice as loudly against infringements of freedom of speech and press. By moderation of our efforts in this way, without any compromise of conviction whatever, we could quickly rid our society of most child pornography—the worst and most dangerous of all forms of pornography.
The evangelical church, our nation, and the society in which we live all desperately need capable leaders in our day. Evangelicals are peculiarly equipped to provide that leadership—leadership of moral integrity, principled wisdom, and solid commitment to minister sacrificially for the good of all. Evangelical leaders must never (and need never) compromise their God-given convictions. But within those convictions, they must be willing to moderate their actions if they would minister effectively in a fallen world.
