Kings, Killers, and Unlikely Lessons in Leadership

MS image library, royalty-free image. Photographer unknown. 

Leadership can be nebulous. Ask three people to define it and you may get five different answers. But everyone knows when they have a good leader. To borrow from Simon Sinek's vast wisdom, good leaders make their "people" feel safe, cared for, protected. They know that if something happens, their leader will go to bat for them, be in their corner, and speak to their defense. Everyone wants to serve under a good leader. 

Bad leaders are harder to describe. In a sense, they are all the things that a good leader is not. They do not have your back. They do not make you feel safe. They do not care for, protect, or go to bat for their people. Nobody wants to be under a bad leader. Yet far too many of us have horror stories about leaders who were (or are) very, very bad. 

Rather than recount recent examples of good leaders or bad leaders, join me on a journey through time to look at an ancient case study, from the land of Israel. We're going to look at two kings, one with obvious flaws, another with less obvious (but more fatal) shortcomings, and the biggest difference between the two. Let's start with Saul. 

Saul was Israel's first king. Chosen because of Israel's rejection of Samuel and God's theocracy (1 Samuel 8:7-9), he looked every bit the part of a king. He was tall, handsome, strong (1 Samuel 9:2)... perhaps even noble. 

On the surface, King Saul doesn't look that bad. He led Israel for decades. Men followed him into battle. He fought and defeated enemies.  He was (on occasion) empowered by the Spirit of the Lord. Yet, under the surface, problems lurked. While more examples can be pulled from the accounts in 1 Samuel, I want to focus on two. 

First, we'll look at Saul's "unlawful sacrifice." Directed by Samuel to wait seven days for a time of offering burnt offerings and sacrificing peace offerings (1 Samuel 10:8), Saul got antsy. It had been seven days. People were starting to leave. Rather than choosing to wait on Samuel, Saul took matters into his own hands. 

As a Gentile living in 21st Century America, I can't really appreciate the true significance of Saul's decision. But obviously, it was a big deal. When Samuel showed up (just after Saul finished), he confronted Saul, exclaiming that "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God... now your kingdom shall not continue..." (1 Samuel 13:13, 14). 

The really interesting part of this dialogue is Saul's response. Rather than humbling himself and confessing his disobedience, Saul defended his choice, blaming Samuel for not coming soon enough. 

Still, the choice to make a sacrifice on your own - doesn't really that big a deal in the grand scheme of failures, you know? 

The second choice Saul makes can even be seen as an appropriate decision. He doesn't kill someone! 

1 Samuel 15:9 says, "But Saul... spared Agag and... all that was good..." Doesn't seem so bad, aye? Not killing someone generally seems appropriate in our 21st Century "civilized" context. And good stuff? Why would anyone throw away good stuff?? 

The problem was, God had instructed Saul to kill Agag and destroy everything. Instead, Saul did his own thing. Again, he justified it. Not until it was too late did he acknowledge his failure and sin. 

Compare Saul's actions with David's. Most people who have been around church much at all are familiar with what David did to Uriah and Bathsheba. But let's be really blunt... David raped the wife of one of his close friends (while his friend was away at war), then had that man murdered?! Doesn't really matter how you look at it, the whole situation is a mess! You want to talk about bad behavior, what David did was VERY BAD! Yet, when Nathan confronted David, his heart was broken by the ugliness of his sin. His genuine spirit of repentance is captured in Psalm 51.

The brokenness of David's heart stands in stark contrast to Saul's excuses and justifications. That is especially significant since David broke multiple commandments and Saul was just impatient and independent. My question is why? Why did God take the kingdom from Saul for his seemingly innocuous choices but said David would always have a descendent on the throne of Israel, and that ultimately the Messiah would come through David's lineage? It doesn't seem to add up, until you look deeper. 

I want to suggest that the difference is a heart issue, not a behavior (or even a knowledge) one. David knew God's heart. He spent time meditating on God's Law. He knew where his strengths and gifts came from, and he didn't need to compete with God for power or control. 

Saul, on the other hand, did little to demonstrate a heart connected to the heart of God. Psychologists probably have a term to describe someone like Saul, but that is of little significance. What is significant is how Saul's perspective of God influenced his leadership. Samuel described his actions as rebellious and presumptive (1 Samuel 15:22, 23) both of which were much worse than our modern culture would suggest. If our hearts drive behavior, as Scripture suggests, then Saul did not guard his very well (Proverbs 4:23). 

We all have a choice. We can take a page from Saul's playbook, justify our sin, excuse our rebellious and presumptive behavior, and (in a sense) step into shoes that only God should occupy. Or, we can seek to know God like David did, to understand His character, to rest in His sufficiency. I want to be like David.