These days everyone in the news is talking about leadership.

Some claim particular people showing it, some say particular people are lacking it. Aside from the current economic problem our country has, there seems to be a lack of someone who steps up and takes charge of things clearly.

I am not trying to wax political, and I have my own views of such things, but it is the leadership question that I want to consider today. I am never quite in agreement with what people actually consider leadership. I wonder if it is just me. Suppose there were a group of people that wanted to paint our building blue, and a second group that wanted to paint it red. Both groups were very aggressive and adamant that they were "right". Leadership, I am told, is the person who is able to bring the two sides together. I suppose that means they compromise and paint the building purple. Bleah. Still, there are those that believe this ability to get people to come together is "leadership." I dunno about that.

Suppose there was one group of people that said it was OK to murder, and a second group that said it was not. If a leader is one who brings on "compromise", is it considered leadership when he convinces both sides to sometimes murder and sometimes not? That seems sort of broken to me.

In other words, is leadership the ability to let people do pretty much what they want as long as they all get along? So are you leading, in such a case, or just riding along with the crowd to your own advantage?

I think leadership akins itself to bravery. A brave person may be totally terrified but they do the right thing no matter what, because it is the right thing to do. In the blue or red example that "leader" seems more like a mediator than a leader. In the second example, a true leader it seems to me would be one who said "what does the law say?" and that would be the end of the matter. While detractors say being dogmatic and rigid is no way to lead, I disagree. If you are RIGHT then that indeed is the situation where there is NO OTHER WAY to be. If murder is wrong, even if every other person thinks it is OK a true leader would not knuckle under. A true leader would work to persuade people to see the truth of the matter and not just give in. A true leader would stand on the truth.

Now, such a leader might not be showing leadership for long. The people may rebel. So be it. There is more to being a leader, like charisma and patience and wise words, its true. Some of the places in the bible where the people rebelled was not because the leader was wrong - like Samuel, or Moses - but because they didn't have the ability to divorce the message from the messenger. In Samuels case, they rejected God as king and demanded a worldly king because they didn't like Samuel or his sons. Understandable, but not smart. Moses, he never wanted to be a leader but God chose him. God worked miracles through him. God got the people released from Egypt through him. Yet because they didn't like Moses as a leader, because he didn't fit the mold of what they wanted, they rejected God.

Today, we must be leaders. We must show leadership by being informed in what the truth is, and standing steadfast in it even when everyone around us refuses to agree with us. You might not think that is effective leadership, when others ask we compromise our faith, but if they had a honest heart they would know the truth, God's will, is not something that can be compromised. It is immovable as a bedrock foundation. When people talk about true leadership they may be talking about those who won't bend to public opinion, who instead cling to the word of God. They may talk about folks who do his will over their own.

They will hopefully be talking... about us.

Randy