“While theocracy was preferable to monarchy, the last five chapters of the book [of Judges] reveal a tendency among the people rather towards a third and less desirable option: anarchy.” (96)
We know that reading the end of Judges is hard to stomach. People engage in raw brutality towards each other. The conclusion of the writer is, ‘In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.’ The implication is that the lack of leadership creates chaos. I would add to that: the lack of institutional structure that provides legitimacy for a leader creates chaos. People wanting to ‘do as he or she sees fit’ is a temptation and a sin as old as Genesis 3. It feels hardwired into the soul of humanity that we want to be our own leader. I would submit that even when we say we want a certain leader, what we really mean is that we want a particular leader who leads in the way I want to be led.
This is very much happening in the political world of the United States today. The institution of a two party structure that puts forth candidates for political office that represent coherent philosophies of governmental service is collapsing. Those political parties have become fractured into factions that can barely identify any commonalities. Because the functionality of the party is ineffective, the ability of the institution to vet and put forward trustworthy leaders is essentially useless. People want to do as he or she sees fit. They don’t really want a leader. They want someone who will do what they want.
However, leadership requires moving a group of followers towards a common goal in a way that is good for all of the followers, not just a few. Axiomatically, a leader must cast a vision that is greater than particular parochial desires. And the effect of that vision must be trust on the part of followers that this leader is ‘leading’ in a way that is deserving of our followership, even if an individual doesn’t agree with all the emphases of the leader’s leadership.
When Israel asked the prohpet/judge Samuel to give them a king, Laniak identifies three reasons that motivated the request: “[They recognized] the lack of a good successor to the current leader.” They wanted a king to lead such as all the other nations have. “The community was exposing its own belief that security could only be ensured by a human king.” And the third motivation was the Philistine threat. “Apparently Israel was no longer willing to accept an occasional judge leading by the power of the heavenly judge.” (97)
For the pastor who is called to be a shepherd leader, the desire of God’s people (emphasis intentional) to want a leader other than God, is a clear and present danger for the office we hold. Especially in the political and cultural climate of 2024. Good pastors (and most of us are) want to lead people to programs and preaching that will feel their souls. We want to be in their homes and families offering prayer and Biblical counsel. We want to exhort them to holiness, self-sacrifice, and love of neighbor. We want to do these things as in the spirit of incarnation, filled with the Holy Spirit, willing to ‘lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15b).’ Yet, in spite of our most humble and God-honoring efforts, there will be people (probably many) who just want to ‘do as he or she sees fit’ by paying lip-service to leaders and actually relishing anarchy.
ShepherdLeader.com
A safe place for shepherds to reflect together.