|
Lyle Schaller, in his Inform newsletter, says:
- They present Jesus Christ as the way to find meaning in life.
- They help people build and maintain a strong spiritual
connection with God.
- They encourage people to connect with other people in caring
ways.
- They affirm the Bible's power for telling people about God
and how to live a meaningful life.
- They develop a faith community thinking and behaving
differently from the surrounding culture, but interacting with
the culture.
- They organize small groups of many kinds.
- They create a variety of service projects.
- They encourage participation in community betterment groups.
- They select leaders willing to accept the changes that new
members bring.
Back to top
Vietnam was the only war the United States ever lost. Robert
McNamara, secretary of defense during the Kennedy and Johnson
administrations which escalated the Vietnam conflict into a war
and set in motion the policy that would fail, wrote a book about
his experiences. From this book, we can learn how NOT to lead.
These points are chronological:
First, he speaks of approaching conduct of war in terms of
"minimum cost," by which he means, and says in other places,
"minimum loss of life." He also is obsessed with USA security and
an emphasis on less, less, less. He talks down the war effort,
minimizes it. This mission statement from the secretary of defense
for the Department of Defense contradicted Kennedy's own inaugural
address, in which the new president said America would "pay any
price, support any friend, oppose any foe." Kennedy agreed with
the domino theory articulated during Eisenhower's
administration--Kennedy's mistake was to appoint as secretary of
defense someone so out of tune with his own rhetoric. No wonder
the USA lost.
Second, McNamara didn't realize South Vietnam's own internal
problems because he had insufficient communication with their
leaders. McNamara could write good memoranda on leadership, but
the stony silence of Lodge (the US ambassador in Vietnam) meant
that McNamara had to act without knowing what Vietnam wanted, and
without advice.
Third, McNamara whines. He blames his failure on:
- McCarthyism (anti-Communist hunts by the USA legislators)
affecting his advisers,
- Cold War thinking,
- No advice from Kennedy.
This is nonsense because:
- McCarthyism had already been discredited by the time Kennedy
took power.
- The Cold War was very real. Kennedy acknowledged that in
writings now made public. McNamara, like everyone else, had to
work in that context.
- He had Kennedy's defining statement to work from. He was
already out of tune with that.
Fourth, McNamara did not seem to understand the difference between
black and white, right and wrong principles on one hand, and
methods on the other hand. He focused on methods without having
moral purpose, on means without an end. Moral disorientation came
a-tune with the amorality of JFK's administration--Kennedy would
naturally not consider moral grounding as a factor in selecting
department secretaries.
Fifth, the Kennedy administration did not really consider the
Vietnamese to be equal players in the struggle. For instance, when
Kennedy's administration's role began to change from advice (the
Eisenhower administration's role in SE Asia) to fighting, did they
try to find out what the Vietnamese wanted? And in promoting
United Nations-monitored elections, did they ask what was
important enough to SEATO for SEATO (South East Asian Treaty
Organization) to commit to? This was to be Asia's war. Kennedy's
administration should have said to South East Asian nations,
"We'll support and advise, but you must fight." McNamara admits
they should have stayed with that view, but that he bowed to the
views and purpose of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US armed
forces bureaucracy rather than to the Vietnamese' needs, and that
would, long term, doom the effort.
Sixth, McNamara micro-managed, apparently conscience-driven to do
so rather than to appoint people who agreed with his values and
then delegate power to them. As secretary of defense, he had power
to ensure appointments to joint chiefs were of people more in line
with his own goals. He did not do this, but let the situation
drift.
Seventh, he worked with cultural differences all too variant that
didn't relate to each other. Instead of working only with Buddhist
South Vietnamese and Christian British advisors such as Sir Roger
Thompson and Jewish advisors such as Moshe Dayan, he could have
added some Vietnamese who had become Americans and Christians, but
who used to be Buddhists and Vietnamese citizens. They could more
ably bridge cultural gaps, since they'd already bridged them in
their own lives, rather than the disparate and disconnected group
that ended up giving McNamara advice far too optimistic and remote
from the reality at hand. The British and Israelis didn't know the
Vietnamese situation, and the Vietnamese didn't know the situation
of the Americans supposedly trying to help them.
Eighth, McNamara was out of touch. His department knew they had to
win over the Vietnamese people, and they knew they had to carry
the war over to the enemy, and they knew they needed
counterinsurgency, but they thought they were achieving these
goals. Why didn't they know they weren't? Because:
- The South Vietnamese were telling the Americans what they
thought the Americans wanted to hear--this is East Asian culture
of avoiding shame rather than the West European culture of
avoiding guilt.
- The grassroots support for the war declined and sometimes the
Diep administration itself didn't realize how fast this was
happening. US generals were pushing back the Viet Cong, but
meanwhile were losing the Vietnamese people. It wasn't a simple
military failure--the situation was much bigger than the
military. It was nationalistic, internecine conflict.
- Kennedy's administration had trained South Vietnamese to
defend themselves, and planned a phased US withdrawal, but
waffled over whether or not to set a deadline on training.
- Diep's restrictions on religion alienated Buddhist monks, who
turned the South Vietnamese people against their own government
and caused them to support the Viet Cong.
In connection with point five, at this point Roger Hilton,
assistant secretary of state, felt that the US could not win with
Diep and should remove him, as if it were the US place to pick and
drop leaders of other nations. The US sponsored a coup when it
should have pushed UN-sponsored elections. McNamara says Kennedy's
administration wanted a more "satisfactory" regime. Satisfactory
to whom? When McNamara speaks to the South Vietnamese government
of the need for change, he says they need to "modify destructive
behavior" and that Diep needed to "mend his ways." He talks as if
to a child, or at least to parents about their child. It was
disrespectful, paternalistic, and not well received. McNamara
mentions the "anti-Diep faction" in Washington, DC. Who was in
this faction? And why didn't they simply warn Diep with the loss
of US support (within the bounds of US authority) rather than try
to remove him from power (only within the rights of the South
Vietnamese people)? McNamara mentions Diep's administration's
disgusting "inhumane oppression of its own people," but this issue
needed to be addressed through the people of South Vietnam. And if
they were to have a coup, who would take Diep's place? Possibly a
man educated in valuing democracy. But, although the USA found no
support for a coup, McNamara said it "could not be delayed"
because Diep was losing the support of his own people. George Ball
said, "We must do a coup," but then, after encouraging the South
Vietnamese generals to stage a coup, McNamara and Kennedy pulled
back. Kennedy's purpose in acting like this was to find out the
personal views of the South Vietnamese generals as to what should
be done, not their reactions to what they thought had been decided
in Washington, DC. This was well and good, but should have been
done before encouraging a coup. The president also had the right
to change course and to recognize dangers of his present course,
but he also must take responsibility for his decision's
consequences, and this swinging back and forth in resolution made
Vietnamese feel the Americans couldn't be depended on--they might
push for a coup today, and the South Vietnamese generals might
risk their lives to try one, but then Kennedy's administration
might change its mind and think that Diep could be worked with,
and then the South Vietnamese generals who had been plotting the
failed coup and surreptitiously gathering support would be marked
as disloyal and dangerous, and would probably be killed. That's
why Americans saw no support for a coup.
This was proven when McNamara went to South Vietnam and
interviewed a man who spoke the language and knew people in North
and in South Vietnam. Honey told McNamara that dissent was now
open, and that assassination or a coup was not wise. Yes, South
Vietnam was a police state, and the students and intellectuals
hated the state, and the common people were turning to the Viet
Cong or to neutralism, but if the US pulled out, no leader in Asia
would have confidence in the USA. So what to do? The Kennedy
administration didn't know, because they had asked their question
the wrong way. When dealing with East Asians, to prevent people
telling you "yes" when they do not mean "I agree with you" but
instead mean only "I hear you," the Americans should not have
framed the choices when they asked the question, but should have
simply asked, "What do you think should be done?" Such a method
involves more discussion and takes much longer, but is much
likelier to involve people taking ownership of the solution and
initiative in implementing the solution. Being out of touch like
this, Kennedy's administration didn't have creative alternatives.
They asked Diep to fire his brother, but had no suggestion for a
better alternative, and the new South Vietnamese government was as
bad as the previous. Ninth, France didn't help, but, after having
failed in Vietnam and turned matters over to the USA, suddenly in
nationalism and pride and not enjoying seeing the USA lead a
former French colony, dropped back into the deliberations and
suggested Vietnamese neutrality. Now some people felt Diep would
ask the USA to leave, then would make a deal with the communists,
since widespread discontent had already crystallized. Diep gave a
two and a half hour speech on his policies, rejected criticism,
and said his critics didn't understand. In fact, he said he'd been
too kind to his critics. A leader must consider the views of those
beneath and of those allied beside him. If a leader lets a
situation deteriorate, then the leadership brought in afterward
has to be stronger than the leadership before, in order to bring
order again out of chaos. Again, McNamara and friends, knowing all
this, disagreed on how well they were doing achieving these goals.
Three views;
- We're doing well with Diep. He's capable. Sit back and let
him do his work.
- We're not doing well. Let's leave Vietnam.
- We're doing well, but these things take time. Stay in there.
Now the tenth fault occurred: the situation deteriorated until the
USA was keeping a bad man in power simply to avoid "rocking the
boat". Meanwhile, the situation worsened and the enemy progressed.
McNamara says Kennedy received a dilemma but no solution handed
down from Eisenhower (the previous president), but that Johnson
got a far worse situation then Kennedy had inherited from
Eisenhower, which means Kennedy's administration colossally failed
in Vietnam. Johnson, feeling that Kennedy's emphasis on political
stability in South Vietnam was impractical, immediately switched
to a goal to "win the war," and to that end wanted expanded secret
operations by the CIA. Switching goals like this was not a problem
as long as the leader would commit necessary resources to it, but
Johnson had the old problem--the South Vietnamese officials
exaggerated reports of the results to USA leaders. McNamara says
that the South Vietnamese military had gotten into politics and
had found it easier and more lucrative and more glorious than the
battlefield, but McNamara doesn't seem to remember HOW they got
into politics--the USA had encouraged this with talk of a coup and
of Diep's power being distributed.
Faults of Johnson's administration are:
- He should have fired McNamara, since McNamara's goals were
even further from Johnson's than they were from Kennedy's.
- He should have fired Lodge for lack of communication, and
appointed someone as ambassador in South Vietnam who would keep
the USA government at HQ aware of what was really happening.
- McNamara continues to whine and pass blame part of the time.
He says the military never told civilian advisors that South
Vietnam wasn't working, but he also accepts blame for not forcing
an appraisal himself.
McNamara makes a good point: leaders were so busy--South Vietnam
wasn't the only thing on their plate. They also had Africa,
Central America and Europe. In the midst of everything else, they
were trying to keep the war localized in SE Asia, and not get
Russian or Chinese troops involved there or elsewhere, as they
had recently experienced in Korea.
- McNamara realized acutely by now that the main problems were
political and economic, not military. He did not realize, because
he did not speak to the Viet Cong, that a big part of the problem
was nationalistic. The lack of peace overtures made them miss
what the whole war was really about.
- The Johnson administration was now more gung-ho about the war
than the South Vietnamese were. The South Vietnamese wanted to
scale down the war, and were even ready for neutralization, but
in the midst of the Cold War the Americans had already invested
so much in the war that they couldn't countenance that result.
- The USA administration was unrealistic--they wanted to save
Vietnam from Communism or even from neutrality in the Cold War,
but at the same time wanted to avoid sending combat troops.
Meanwhile, the situation steadily worsened.
- The USA refused to give up and leave, so they decided to bomb
North from South Vietnam, but they needed US troops to protect
the airfields. They felt that they could defeat North Vietnam by
bombing, but they had enough proof to know in advance that this
wouldn't work. The British in World War II had been bombed
steadily, but had not surrendered. The Germans had been bombed
steadily, but did not surrender until Allied ground troops moved
in. The Japanese in World War II were firebombed many times, but
did not surrender until atomic weapons were used. In the 1960s,
the thought that one could win a war by bombing alone was not
realistic--the Korean example was too recent. Yet, because they
wouldn't accept the option of getting out, they stayed.
- Because America had encouraged coups and recoups and had so
destabilized the South Vietnamese government, South Vietnam by
this time was simply unable to take strong action against North
Vietnam--the South Vietnamese had less to fight for, and North
Vietnam seemed stable by contrast.
- While Westmoreland argued for attrition and firepower, the
Marines argued for counterinsurgency. These groups never fully
debated their differences, and McNamara admits he should have
forced them to.
- McNamara's "anguish and disenchantment deepened" as one
diplomatic initiative after another failed. This language shows
how unsuited he was to his job. His main focus was negotiations.
That's the State Department's business. He was afraid and
sleepless--temperamentally unsuited to his job: it was Kennedy's
mistake to appoint him, Johnson's mistake to keep him, and
McNamara's to accept, and to stay in, this job. He says enemy
morale hadn't broken. His own had.
- The South Vietnamese government did not respond to the
people, so North Vietnam ruled the night in the countryside
throughout the nation. Now the joint chiefs sharply disagreed and
contemplated an amphibious invasion a la Korea. The South
Vietnamese force were completely defeated in their own minds, and
the North Vietnamese were intransigent, believing they were
right, that the South Vietnamese government were puppets, that
the world was with them, and that they were stronger than America
was for the purpose at hand. Meanwhile, China was ready to
intervene at Hanoi's request or on her own initiative if China
believed Hanoi's regime was at stake. McNamara speaks of the
"larger Asian context," but what did the other Asian nations
want? Again, he didn't ask. Previously he'd said that America
couldn't pull out without a loss of confidence, but in hindsight
now he said we could have pulled out six years earlier with no
great loss to the nation, while still maintaining that the
situation in Asia had changed, making a pullout easier now than
it would have been before. These statements contradict each
other. Perhaps his own sense of being overwhelmed by events led
to his own confusion. Perhaps he also wished to exonerate
Johnson's administration and explain why Nixon could pull out of
Vietnam later after Johnson did not.
- The general were willing to risk nuclear war. McNamara
wouldn't countenance this, and said the war couldn't be done. The
president said it must, so the president needed a new secretary
of defense. Yet he couldn't invade North Vietnam because that
would invite China and Russia, and he wasn't willing to carry the
war that deeply, whereas at least China was willing. The Johnson
administration's commitment level wasn't high enough to achieve
its own stated goals.
By this time, the foolishness of America's presence in Vietnam had
become obvious to everyone but the Kennedy-Johnson administration
itself. American demonstrators cabled Ho Chi Minh, asking him to
negotiate, and saying they'd demonstrate to force the American
government to stop fighting. This encouraged Ho Chi Minh to keep
fighting to win, since a democratic government cannot forever deny
the will of its people. Nixon was elected on the promise to end
the war in Vietnam, and immediately started reducing US manpower
in Vietnam, meanwhile covering the retreat with bombing fire.
Nixon resigned in the wake of Watergate in 1974, but his
withdrawal had almost completed, and finished in the succeeding
presidency of Gerald Ford the next year. The long national
nightmare was over.
Today, the results of America's Vietnam failure continue. Vietnam
is united--North and South--but one of the few nations still under
Communist rule. When you lead, make sure you avoid McNamara's,
Kennedy's and Johnson's mistakes. Instead,
- Have a foundational set of beliefs in what you know is right
and wrong. Principles. Ethics. Faith.
- In tune with your foundational beliefs, set goals. Don't
wander aimlessly around.
- Appoint people only who are in tune with your same goals and
who are suited to the individual characteristics of the
responsibilities required.
- Keep all players in communication with each other. And allow
them to give you bad news. Tell them you want to know what's
going on, not just what they think you'd like to hear.
- Don't whine. That disgusts everyone. When you make a mistake,
admit it and do your best to correct it.
- Respect others. If you're going to work together, you'll do
well if you respect.
- Don't micromanage. Delegate.
- Try to get advisors whose experiences and perspective over
spans several camps so that they can see several different
viewpoints. Realize also that advisors are human--some things
they don't know. And when you ask them questions, don't state a
strategy and then ask a yes/no question such as "Do you think
this should be done?" Instead, ask, "What do you think should be
done?" Then you get their creative thinking in addition to your
own, instead of merely their response to yours.
- Don't shilly-shally back and forth after getting your advice.
Act decisively. Otherwise the whole situation can deteriorate far
worse and become much harder to fix.
- Fire:
- People working at counter-purposes to your goals.
- People who don't communicate with team members.
- People who don't accept responsibility for their mistakes,
and try to pass the buck. Whiners.
- Understand that only God does all things well. Multitasking
is often simply having too many irons in the fire. If you want
concentration on something, appoint someone to concentrate on it,
and leave that person free from many other, unrelated duties.
- Keep your eye on the big picture. You're the leader--if you
don't do this, who will? Is your effort connected with someone
else's? Coordinate with them if you can.
- Monitor morale. If no one thinks the effort's worth the
trouble, it won't succeed. If you can lift morale, do. Otherwise,
consider their view. Is the effort worth the trouble? Or is there
another way to achieve the same initial goal? And don't let your
pride get in the way so that you just keep on hammering at the
same thing simply because you've been doing that.
- If different team members cherish opposite strategies for
achieving the goal, each strategy might still have merit--they
are probably all cherished for good reasons. But make team
members coordinate their strategies. Otherwise, you--and
they--waste energy, money and time.
- Make sure your goals--if they change--and your resources
match. If commitment or finances are low or time is short, adjust
your goal or increase your resources and extend deadline on time.
- If burnout begins to confuse and discourage you, consider
stepping aside from leading the battle--either by leave of
absence or by resignation. The cause is not benefited by having
disheartened people in daily control. If your own morale is down,
you can't lift others' up. Do the cause a favor--either take a
break or quit. This might sound harsh, and taking a break is
often all you need, but let's remember that this Kingdom is not
ours, but God's. And if we need the money the job brings (a
consideration McNamara did not face) we can perhaps switch jobs
with someone else, or pass one particular responsibility to
another team member, or reshuffle jobs. Many solutions can save
the situation before you fire someone who loves the cause and the
team and is honest enough to know and to acknowledge his
duties--there's probably another job he does well.
Kennedy's and Johnson's administration's mishandling of the
Vietnam War provide us with a compass whose needle points south-a
perfect guide in how not to lead. Turning the example on its head,
and doing the reverse, provides a lesson in good leadership
Back to top
TEXT: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they
shall be called the children of God."
Many of you will at various times need to make peace to end
conflict between husband and wife, parent and child, minister and
saint, employee and employer, or between any of these and their
peers.
A. Peace With God
First, we must know that peace comes from God. A Hebrew blessing
says, "May the LORD make his face to shine upon you and give you
peace" (Numbers 6:26). Our God is a not a God of disorder, but of
peace (1 Corinthians 14:33). He brings spiritual peace this way:
"Unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government
will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful
Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"
(Isaiah 9:6). Jesus, through bringing justification by faith,
bought us peace with God (Romans 5:1) and hence guides "our feet
into the path of peace" (Luke 1:79). This message Peter told
Cornelius, "telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ"
(Acts 10:36). "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the
gospel of peace!"
The gospel is that Jesus brought peace by reconciling God with
man-destroying hostility (Isaiah 53:5). We keep remembering
Him-Jesus gives this peace: "The LORD gives strength to his
people; the LORD blesses his people with peace" (Psalm 29:11). "I
will listen to what God the LORD will say; he promises peace to
his people, his saints…" (Psalm 85:8). "…I will let them enjoy
abundant peace…" (Jeremiah 33:6). "I will make a covenant of peace
with them…" (Ezekiel 34:25) and "…in this place I will grant
peace…" (Haggai 2:9), "my…covenant of life and peace…" (Malachi
2:5). So let us wish all men well that God will be with them
(Romans 15:33; Philippians 4:9) and give us peace (1 Thessalonians
3:16) fully (Romans 15:13) and guard us by it (Philippians 4:7).
Jesus does this now. "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you"
(John 14:27). "I have told you these things, so that in me you may
have peace" (John 16:33). Since He is our peace (Ephesians 2:14),
let Christ's peace rule in your hearts. For this you were called
(Colossians 3:15).
This is His kingdom-righteous, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit
(Romans 14:17). We love His law because it brings great peace
(Psalm 119:165). Of course we obey it (Isaiah 48:18).
This is His fruit-love, joy, peace and the rest (Galatians 5:22;
Isaiah 32:17). The joy and peace go together (Isaiah 55:12;
57:19), and both with righteousness (Isaiah 57:2). If we do well,
we'll have glory, honor and peace (Romans 2:10). You have sweet
sleep-you rest in peace (Proverbs 3:24; Isaiah 26:3) as He
established peace for you (Isaiah 26:12) and you can shelter
others. This is spiritual life (Romans 8:6). This is spiritual
peace-peace with God.
B. Peace With Man
Social peace-peace between people, benefits us all, as we already
know from our own lives and from God's Word, which sometimes
eerily echoes our experience: "Better a meal of vegetables where
there is love than a fattened calf with hatred" (Proverbs 15:17);
"Better a dry crust with peace and quiet than a house full of
feasting, with strife" (Proverbs 17:1); "Better one handful with
tranquility than two handfuls with toil and chasing after the
wind" (Ecclesiastes 4:6); "Starting a quarrel is like breaching a
dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out" (Proverbs
17:14).
We know that social peace brings honor to those who practice it:
"It is to a man's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick
to quarrel" (Proverbs 20:3).
Not only does social peace benefit, but God also commands it.
Joseph told his brothers, "Don't quarrel on the way!" (Genesis
45:24). Jeremiah told the captives, "Seek the peace and prosperity
of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the
Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper"
(Jeremiah 29:7). Jesus said, "Have salt in yourselves, and be at
peace with each other" (Mark 9:50). Why? Because, as Paul said,
peace builds up everyone (Romans 14:19).
Since before salvation "the heart of man is desperately wicked,"
disagreements, quarrels and war will happen. Peace doesn't happen
accidentally or automatically. That's why God commands us
to seek peace (Psalm 34:14; Jeremiah 29:7; 1 Peter 3:10), plant
peace (James 3:17), make peace (Matthew 5:9), pursue peace (2
Timothy 2:22; 1 Peter 3:10), live in peace (Romans 12:18; 2
Corinthians 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:13; 1 Timothy 2:2) and
work to live in peace (Hebrews 12:13) and to keep it (Romans
14:19). Jesus said that the people who do these things will be
called God's children, will reap righteousness, and will enter
God's kingdom. All this is only reasonable and possible because
"He is our peace" (Ephesians 2). And Jesus commands us to
love doing these things (Zechariah 8:19). We become cheerful
givers of peace!
If we have this attitude and follow the Prince of Peace, we will
see peace: "I will grant peace" (Leviticus 26:6). Someday, we'll
have no more theft or attack (Job 5:23). This is especially true
to the righteous person (Proverbs 16:7). You can live such a life
that, when you die, even the undertaker will be sorry.
If you don't just be righteous, but actually promote peace, you'll
have joy (Proverbs 12:20), heritage (Matthew 5:9), righteousness
(James 3:18) and, as the shepherds watching over their flocks by
night could tell you, God's favor (Luke 2:14)-"Peace on earth,
good will toward men."
Instances of peacemakers in the Bible include Abraham (Genesis
13:8-9), Abimelech (Genesis 26:29), David (Psalm 120:6), and
Mordecai (Esther 10:3).
To be a peacemaker, you must first be peaceable yourself. "Be at
peace with one another" (Mark 9:50). "If possible, so far as it
depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:18). Behold,
how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity" (Psalm
133:1). Unity brings anointing, but first love must bring unity.
Disunity results frequently from Satan's old trick of
canceling out the witnessing, power and lives of several
Christians by tempting all to argue with each other instead of
working together to reach the lost people whom he wants to send to
Hell. When this trick works well enough to keep the Christians
preoccupied for months or years, he can laugh and leave to bother
someone else. He doesn't need to be omnipresent if he can
get us working for him.
Wise Christians understand what's going on because they "are not
ignorant of his devices." The wisdom they have, which comes from
above, is "first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason,
full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity"
(James 3:17). Peace is not only sweet, but also smart. Wisdom's
path is peace (Proverbs 3:17).
We need to want this peace, this prerequisite to anointing,
revival and reaching our world. "Too long have I lived among those
who hate peace. I am for peace, but…they are for war" (Psalm
120:6-7). Jesus rebukes the attitude that asks fire from heaven to
consume those who won't cooperate (Luke 9:54-55) because "the Lord
servant must not be quarrelsome, but…forbearing, correcting his
opponents with gentleness" (2 Timothy 2:24-25).
In fact, "when a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his
enemies to be at peace with him" (Proverbs 16:7). As the American
civil war drew to a close, Abraham Lincoln began to announce his
generous plan for reconstruction of the South. Someone else, on
hearing the plan, said, "How can you be so lenient? Those
Southerners are our enemies. We must destroy them!" Lincoln's
response: "Don't I destroy my enemies when I make them my
friends?"
A man who would not consider reconciliation killed Lincoln, thus
removing from the scene the one man with the political stature to
enforce a lenient reconstruction policy. The radical Republican
right wing took over reconstruction, with results felt in
North-South relations for one hundred years. Being "for war" can
bring much heartache on your own people as the blind lead the
blind and they all fall into a pit they themselves dig
If we're diligent and show constancy-"follow peace with all men,
and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (Hebrews
12:14), agree with each other and live in peace, the God of love
and peace will be with us (2 Corinthians 13:11) and we'll see the
great, powerful revival we have longed for and anticipated.
One of the ways to do this is to be quick to listen and slow to
speak (James3). This often results in being slow to anger either
self or other people. Also, it results in wisely receiving
information about the situation before responding to it.
When you speak, let it be pleasantly and with a flavor of wit, but
sensitive to the kind of answer each person requires (Colossians
4:6). Chase peace (Psalm 34:14). Look for chances and ways
to create it in your life. It won't always work-even Moses'
efforts between two of his people were rejected. However, God's
time and place will come, and you'll succeed.
C. Eternal Peace
Some day, an eternal and qualitatively different peace will reign:
"The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with
the goat, the calf and lion and the yearling together; and a
little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw
like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and
the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. They will
neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth
will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the
sea" (Isaiah 11:6-9). They gain this knowledge thus: "All your
sons will be taught by the LORD, and great will be your children's
peace" (Isaiah 54:10).
A person not valuing peace has neither wisdom nor knowledge, but a
peaceful, peaceable person has a future both in this life and
beyond (Psalm 37:37). Let's be people who work well with others
and lead them in peace, looking for it, investing in it, creating
it, pursuing it, and keeping it in fine fettle, following Jesus
and the fine example of peacemakers in the Bible, meditating on
these until we imitate their examples. This gift will open doors
for us and make sure we have places of prosperity and success.
Back to top
- Value of Hard Work. Maxwell quotes Ecclesiastes 2:10, "for my
heart rejoiced in all my labor." Also Proverbs 6:9: "How long
will you lie down, 0 sluggard? When will you arise from your
sleep?" Also Colossians 3:23-24: "Whatever you do, work at it
with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men...it is
the Lord Christ you are serving." As Maxwell says, "God doesn't
choose lazy people." As someone said, "It's not what a man does
that determines whether his work is sacred or secular, it's why
he does it." The Bible tells us not to despise the day of small
things or small places. Moses started in the wilderness. Jesus
started in Nazareth. Success has no short cuts, and the longest
distance between two points is the short cut, so, "take this job
and love it."
- Powerful, Sustaining Vision. Moses had heard his call
directly from God. I remember my calling in 1977. This is what
kept me going and gave me direction during discouraging times
until my appointment in 1987. I remember also my directing and
sustaining comfort in 1989, that helped me in the worst time of
my life to date, the death of my mother. The call and comfort
sustained me during the second worst time in my life, from early
1991 to early 1992. Finally, I remember also the new release to
my ministry in 1994, which has helped me to bring revival to
other people, especially in Nepal. Maxwell quotes Winifred Newman
saying, "Vision is the world's most desparate need. There are no
hopeless situations; only people who think hopelessly." Proverbs
29:18 says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
Bernard of Chartres said, “We are like dwarfs seated on the
shoulders of giants. We see more thaings than the Ancients, things
more distant, but it is due neither to the sharpness of our sight
nor the greatness of our stature. It is simply because they have
lent us their own” (from Giants of the Faith: Classic Christian
Writings and the Men Behind Them, by Raymond Edward Brown,
Crossway Books). Joshua was like this when God said to him, “Moses
is dead. Start moving.”
- Other People to Compensate For His Weaknesses. Maxwell tells
us, “Be honest with your people. Tell them what you don’t do
well.” Moses knew about his weaknesses, but God gave Moses
Joshua, Aaron, and Hur, who assisted him and held his hands up
when he was tired.
- All the Tools He’ll Need. God didn’t give Moses was Moses
expected, just what Moses needed. First, He gave Moses an
introduction, “tell them I AM has sent you.” Second, God gave
Moses a shepherd’s staff with supernatural power.which symbolized
all God would do for Moses later.
So God will give us a calling, spiritual giftedness, favor with
people, a passion for ministry, and His hand on us. We can develop
training, obtain tools, develop strategy, build a team and grow
partnerships with other ministers. Ministry’s getting harder and
we have a great commission, but we can succeed.
Back to top
|
