Introduction 

1. Service. The sine qua non (without which not) of leadership is service. We think of service in terms of meeting needs, helping the group achieve common goals, and enhancing the lives of the group. The group has come to find these goals desirable.
2. Abuse of Power. We have seen that abuse of power is one of the hazards leaders face. They may try to exercise raw power to gain their objectives. Jesus spoke against this and pointed the disciples to service. Let us read our text to remind us of the context of His words.
   
   20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, bowing down, and making a request of Him.
   
   21 And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left.”
   
   22 But Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.”
   
   23 He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”
   
   24 And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers.
   
   25 But Jesus called them to Himself, and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
   
   26 “It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,
   
   27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;
   
   28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (NAS)
3. Hazards. Now, we will consider two more hazards to leadership–compromise and manipulation. Jesus does not deal with these hazards in this story, but leaders commonly are confronted with them. When leaders are guided primarily by the motive of power, they are strongly tempted to manipulate others and to compromise in the wrong way. The prospective leader needs to be aware of these hazards. 

Compromise 

The goal of Christian leaders is to serve the people they lead. As they attempt to meet this goal, they will be faced with the issue of compromise

1. Meaning. As we will see, compromise can be either bad or good. The word compromise is used in several senses. A now obsolete meaning is “to bind by mutual agreement.” The concept of concession is not necessarily included here. We would use the word contract in this sense now. More current meanings include the idea of concession. For example, compromise can mean “to adjust or settle by mutual concessions.” Up to this point compromise is not necessarily bad. However, the word takes on a negative connotation when it includes wrong concessions. Compromise, in such situations, means “to make a shameful or disreputable concession.”
2. Life Situations. People in all walks of life face the issue of compromise. Let us consider, as examples, salesmen, politicians, and church leaders.
   • Salesmen. One of the maxims of sales work is “Find out what people want and help them get it.” Another way of saying this is, “Find out what the needs of the people are and devise some way to meet them.” Much marketing theory is built on these premises. Normally, people will not purchase what they do not want or need. Thus, selling people what they want instead of what we want for them is usually a wise compromise!
     
     However, we should not thoughtlessly heed these exhortations. Many times people want what is not good for them and even those things which endanger them. Moreover, people frequently put “felt needs” above “real needs.” The Christian leader is obligated to act in the best interest of the people. To do otherwise would be to compromise his principles and integrity. When this happens we become compromisers in a negative sense.
   • Politicians. Political life is filled with compromise. Indeed, without compromise, few laws would make it through national legislative bodies. Before votes are taken, much negotiation goes on behind the scenes. Strong drives are made to gather the votes for or against an issue. Some compromise is essential, moral, and legitimate, but on some issues strong stands must be taken.John F. Kennedy’s book, Profiles in Courage, is a tribute to men who did not compromise with regard to their convictions. They would not “sell out.” When politicians take a courageous stand, putting national interest above personal interest, we usually call them statesmen.
   • Church Leaders. In the church similar situations arise. Many issues arise in board meetings which require discussion, consensus, sometimes concessions, and in a word compromise. Much of the time this is a normal, creative, and acceptable process.
     
     Unfortunately, church leaders are sometimes tempted to compromise in a negative sense. When church attendance is low, a pastor may be tempted to forsake his basic principles in order to attract people. People raising funds may be tempted to forsake their principles of integrity in order to gather the funds. Sometimes evangelists are tempted to use methods which do not honor Christ. You can think of other examples.
3. The Leadership Dilemma. Very often leaders are confronted with a dilemma. Leaders who firmly stand for their convictions against the will of the people they lead are usually accused of being dictators. If they sense the will of the people and do it, they may be said to be weak and may be called compromisers.
   
   Between these poles, every elected leader lives, moves, and has his being. Ideally, every leader would stand fully and uncompromisingly for his essential, vital, and moral convictions. The leader would compromise only on non-essentials or matters that are not of moral importance. When the leader’s convictions match the convictions of the people he serves, the leadership task is not as difficult.
   
   As leaders, we must know when to yield and when to stand. Normally, we must stand on issues that will benefit other individuals and the group as a whole and yield on issues that will benefit only ourselves. Leadership that is selfish will not long endure. Moreover, we must aim more at helping people achieve their objectives than at control. Some control is necessary, but this control should enhance the group. As much as possible, we should allow freedom within broad guidelines.
   
   Because two people do not usually think alike on all issues, they are probably going to meet situations where compromise is necessary. Each leader must decide where to take a stand and where to yield. A leader who yields on everything, and changes with the wind, lacks moral force. On the other hand, a leader who will yield on nothing overvalues his opinion and will disrupt the harmony of the group.
4. Negotiation. Negotiation is the process by which compromises are reached. Some time ago, Joe Kilpatrick and I attended a Henry Calero seminar in Holland on negotiation. Calero had videotaped 2,000 negotiations in process and had made exhaustive studies of the process. The emphasis of negotiation should be on “win-win” rather than “win-lose.” If at all possible, everyone should come out of the negotiation a winner. Very often, this involves compromise.
   
   Calero said that the 19th century man stressed confrontation. This frequently led to war and the desire to fight to the finish. Mainly because of nuclear power, man in the 20th century put more emphasis on compromise. When both sides have nuclear power, war is not a viable option. This means that nations have to enter into negotiations to avoid war and settle their problems.
   
   Now, in the 21st century, we are faced with a new kind of war– terrorism. We hear little discussion of compromise. To some degree we have returned to a 19th century approach. The reason is clear. The terrorists are willing to die as deliberate suicide victims and believe they have the upper hand in causing pain to their enemies. Without compromise, we are back to a win-lose approach.
5. Approach. As Christian leaders, what should our approach be? Much depends on the issue which is being discussed. Let’s look at the options.
   
   First, Paul wrote in Romans 12:18, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” On some matters, where integrity and moral principle are not involved, we need not take a strong stand. Compromise may be necessary. Compromise reduces friction, helps us adapt to circumstances, and assists us in getting along with all people.
   
   Second, we as Christian leaders must avoid the hazard of compromise in a wrong sense. Sanders writes, “Compromise is the partial waiving of principle for the sake of reaching agreement. It is always a backward step when we consent to lower our standards, and all too often this is involved in arriving at a compromise” (120).
   
   Jesus is our highest example. When He taught, He spoke the truth without compromise. The scribes and chief priests knew this, but they tried to use it against him. When they questioned Jesus, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth” (Luke 20:21). They were trying to trick Him into answering the next question, “Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (Luke 20:22). Jesus avoided their trap by answering, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”  (Luke 20:25). Even though the scribes and the chief priests were being deceptive, they spoke the truth about Jesus. He did not compromise in His teaching of the truth
   

Manipulation 

Let us turn our attention now to manipulation. Like compromise, the term manipulation can be used in both a good and a bad sense. The Christian must avoid manipulation in a bad sense

1. Meaning. The word manipulate, in a good sense, can mean “to treat or operate with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skilled manner.” However, when this term is used in a more figurative sense, it takes on negative connotations. In a negative sense manipulation means “to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one’s own advantage.” Similarly, manipulation means “to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one’s purpose.”
   
   When a leader is manipulating, he may appear to be serving the interests of the group but is actually serving his own interests. When this is discovered, it is self-defeating. Although the group may initially be for you, they will turn against you. When the group is uncertain, they will live with a certain uneasiness about you as a leader.
2. Life Situations. We can illustrate manipulation with some life situations. All of us, probably, have either been manipulated or have engaged in manipulation, and perhaps both, at points in our lives. We are all guilty! Thus, we do not enter this discussion unaware.
   • Book Title. One well known book is titled, How to Win Friends and Influence People. Whatever the content of the book, the title sounds somewhat manipulative. You have the impression that we are to win friends in order to gain influence. To a degree we do not find fault with this because winning friends and gaining influence are a part of all social life. Both we who are being won and we who win others know this and do not object. When taken too far, and motives are hidden, then the winning for the sake of influence goes too far. It becomes a hazard.
   • Baseball. Although baseball is an American game, I will give you an illustration of manipulation from this sport. The idea could just as easily apply to soccer, cricket, or some other sport. The following story is told:
     
     “In the heyday of the New York Yankees, manager Joe McCarthy once interviewed a coach being brought up to the majors from a Yankee farm team.
     
     ‘How much do you know about psychology?’ McCarthy asked.
     
     The coach said he had studied it in college.
     
     ‘So you think you’re good,’ said McCarthy.
     
     The coach replied ‘I don’t know how good I am but it’s a subject I’ve studied.’
     
     ‘All right,’ McCarthy said, ‘I’ll give you a test.’
     
     McCarthy said that a few years before he’d had a problem and had gone to Frankie Crosetti, his shortstop.
     
     ‘Frank,’ McCarthy said, ‘I’m not satisfied with the way Lou Gehrig is playing first base. He’s too lackadaisical. I want you to help me. From now on, charge every ground ball. When you get it, fire it as quickly and as hard as you can to first base. Knock Gehrig off the bag if you can. I don’t care if you throw wild or not, but throw it fast and make it tough for him.’
     
     Crosetti demurred and said, ‘Maybe Lou won’t like the idea.’
     
     ‘Who cares what Gehrig likes?’ McCarthy snapped. ‘Just do as I tell you.’
     
     McCarthy then said to the coach, ‘Now that’s the story. What conclusions do you draw from it?’
     
     The coach considered the matter for a minute, then answered, ‘I guess you were trying to wake up Gehrig.’
     
     ‘See?’ McCarthy shrugged his shoulders in resignation. ‘You missed the point entirely. There wasn’t a thing wrong with Gehrig. Crosetti was the one who was sleeping. I want to wake up Crosetti.’”
     
     Obviously, McCarthy had not studied psychology. He did not know its real purpose, methods, and scope. He thought of psychology in “man on the street terms” as something manipulative. He did know, however, how to manipulate!
3. Man, the Manipulator. Everett L. Shostrom wrote a book entitled, Man, the Manipulator. In this book he contrasts manipulative behavior with actualizing behavior (pp. 23-24) . Manipulators are deceptive, are unaware of real values, emphasize control, and are cynical. Actualizers are honest, fully aware of true values and the interests of others, emphasize freedom and spontaneity, and have a deep trust in themselves and others.
   
   Shostrom’s book is filled with examples of manipulation. For example, he describes how parents sometimes manipulate their teen-age sons and daughters. One of these ways is to use illness. A parent may say, “If you don’t stop that, I’ll have a heart attack.” When this is not true, it is manipulation! Similarly, he describes how teen-agers manipulate their parents with illness. When asked to do something, a teen-ager may say, “Alright, but I’ll probably get sick.” Shostrom calls this a form of blackmailing.
   
   When writing about manipulation in business, Shostrom says, “A businessman who thinks of people only as customers or accounts or clients cannot help, to some degree, regarding these persons as things” (135). In our culture almost all businesses speak about their desire to serve our needs. Their advertising is filled with this kind of language, but sometimes the rhetoric is far ahead of the reality. Just shop in their stores and you will discover this. Paradoxically, when businesses do really care, they prosper because of it.
   
   If all this is true for business, it is even more true in the church. A pastor may regard the people as things who support the church rather than as individuals whose needs he serves. When this news is out, the attendance will decline. As Christian leaders, we must know that the paradox of service applies to us as well. The more we genuinely serve, the stronger our leadership will be. We must stay close to Christ and let His love for the people guide our lives.
4. Political Life. Many politicians are highly skilled in manipulation. Titus, in The Processes of Leadership, writes “The politician believes that worthwhile objectives can be realized through the exploitation of the less capable by means of the proper uses of assumptions, impelling motives, and political methods manipulated by the most skillful.” No doubt some politicians try to avoid manipulation, it does seem that there is a special temptation in political life to exercise this approach.
   
   Do we have politics in the church? As with many words the term politics can have a good meaning as well as bad. Clearly, we do have political life in the church. When the term is used in its good sense, politics are essential in the conduct of business. For example, we have agendas, resolutions, discussions, and elections. However, we should avoid politics in the negative sense. Unfortunately, this kind of politics sometimes creeps in as well. Because of this, manipulation can be found in the business life of the church.
5. Honesty. The real key to being of service is honesty. Let us not promise our colleagues more than we can deliver. We can, and should, develop a greater interest in others and their welfare. However, let us not profess a deep interest we do not have in order to gain something ourselves.
   
   Although some discussion can be stirred up over the normal polite exchanges of everyday life, these things are not excluded by being honest. When we are asked, “How are you” we can say, “Fine” without worrying about being dishonest. If someone really wants to know how we are, we can go further in our reply. These exchanges vary somewhat from culture-to-culture. What is nearly universal is our desire to have an open and honest relationship with our friends in matters that really count.
   
   The Psalmist wrote these words about a person we might call a manipulator, “His speech was smoother than butter, But his heart was war; His words were softer than oil, Yet they were drawn swords” (55:21). Similarly, Proverbs 29:5 says, “A man who flatters his neighbor Is spreading a net for his steps.” Underlying these forms of manipulation is a lack of honesty. Anything can be said to achieve one’s purpose.
   
   Contrast this with Jesus. Christ both upheld guilelessness in others and lived without deceit in His own life. Speaking of Nathanael, Jesus said, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile” (John 1:47). In I Peter 2:22 the apostle declared Jesus to be the One “who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth.”
   
   Guilelessness is a quality to be admired in all Christians and especially in leaders. In Psalm 32:2 we read, “How blessed in the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit!” Peter quotes Ps. 34:10 with these words, “Let him who means to love life and see good days Refrain his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile” (I Peter 3:10). Clearly, the Christian leader should seek to be without guile in serving the people.
    

Conclusion 

• Service. Our goal is to serve those who rely on our leadership with respect and good intentions. Two of the hazards are the wrong use of manipulation and compromise. The Christian leader must do everything possible to avoid these hazards.

• The Ideal. Because of our humanity, we do not always live up to the ideal. We must, however, be guided by the ideal and call upon the Lord to help us. Jesus Christ is our highest example. As leaders let us seek to conform to His manner in leading! He will help us in all things. 

For Further Reading 

    Covey, Stephen R. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Fireside, 1991.

    Sanders, J. Oswald. Spiritual Leadership. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1957.

    Shostrom, Everett L. Man, the Manipulator. New York: Bantam Books, 1967

    Titus, C. H. The Processes of Leadership. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1950.

© Copyright 2002 by George M. Flattery 

Translations are done by Dr. G Flattery, unless otherwise attributed.