17. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

GOD'S HAND IN HUMAN HISTORY

We cannot emphasize enough the fact that those who had the greatest influence on society, on history itself, were not bureaucratic fonctionnaires,^[1] but instead dynamic individuals of great charismatic character, able to inspire others – many others – to follow them step by step as they led ... even if the path they were taking the people down was highly dangerous.  And the word charismatic is key here. Charisma is an old Greek word χάρισμα (khárisma) implying a special anointing, a heavenly or divine grace placed upon a person, such as makes that person unusually gifted as a leader.  That divine grace as a gifting comes not from another person or social institution or material or physical property. It has long been understood as coming from above, above as in Heaven, the gods, or God himself (but possibly also Satan as well, if care is not taken in measuring or judging by ancient spiritual standards the voice of such a non-worldly or supernatural source).

The Chinese, for instance, have understood for thousands of years this phenomenon in the form of what they called since ancient times the Tianming (Mandate of Heaven).  Chinese Emperors gained the necessary respect and support from the Chinese nation in being able to demonstrate the many ways that Heaven had smiled on their rule.  Visible social success indicated clearly the approval and support of Heaven.  But the downside of that same idea was that when floods, famines, diseases or enemy raiders attacked Chinese society, that same respect and support among the people would melt away.  To the people this was a clear sign that the Tian (Heaven) had obviously withdrawn that special favor that Chinese society depended on so greatly.  And this change in political climate would be the signal to Chinese warlords to put forth their candidacy as the new Emperor.  And a violent round of civil war (often lasting centuries) would result, until it was clear that Heaven had once again made its choice: a victor, a Tianzi (Son of Heaven) would finally emerge to take charge of China.

Liu Heng (Wu) ruled as Chinese emperor during the amazingly lengthy period of 141 to 87 BC.  In that period the Chinese examination system for government officers was put in place, he had imperial universities built where Confucianism could be carefully studied,  he consolidated Han Chinese imperial power at home, and he extended Chinese influence abroad all the way west to the Mediterranean by way of his great Silk Road … and he prospered China greatly.

But other examples abound. Alexander the Great believed that he was actually the son of a God (or at least that's how he presented himself to the society that supported him) and went to the Siwa Oasis in the middle of the Libyan Desert to have the Amonite priests there attest to this fact.

Likewise, David was anointed at a very early age by Samuel as God's chosen leader of Israel, and David was willing to wait through very troubled times, even passing up opportunities to launch his own career, as he waited for God (and only God) to bring his kingship into being.

So also the Roman imperial candidate Constantine was vitally aware of God's appointment of him as future Emperor, moving against a much larger enemy candidate under the sign God had given him to conquer with: the Chi-Rho sign of Jesus the Christ.

And closer to home, we know that both Washington and Lincoln were men of immense Christian faith, drawing on that faith to keep them moving forward during very dark times, when others would have quit.

Of course there have been rulers who have operated apart from just such a sense of divine appointment.  But lacking such higher "legitimacy" they are driven to rule by force, often by sheer terror inflicted on a subject people – as paranoia and fear of losing their position (never really quite "legitimate" in the eyes of the people) drives them forward. Certainly Stalin and Mao fit this description.  And the manner and ultimately durability of the societies that they ruled over attest to the problems that soon enough develop for a society when it lacks a "higher" hand supporting it.

To be sure, such a "higher hand" is historically defined in different ways, with different versions of Heaven, different versions of God.  Or are they all that different?  What we humans can understand about the Realm of God can come only through human interpretation, and thus is going to come to us through different cultural versions.  But they all point to the same higher source of power, one existing above all human capability itself.

Christianity itself is built entirely on that understanding, not just through the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus but through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (and in the case of the Apostle Paul, a post-resurrection encounter with Jesus himself), God's very hand in getting Jesus's early followers up and running as a powerful people.

One thing also is clear about these key historical examples: Heaven's call on them to the task of leadership was always quite real to the leaders themselves.

Others, such as intellectuals, who operate only from their self-conceived world of pure reason (thus needing no God beyond their own personal intelligence), will mock those who put forward the claim of divine calling.  Why not?  No such calling ever came to them – and never will come to them, as long as they put huge material boundaries around their personal sense of reality.

As the opening chapters of the Bible put things, such scoffers have chosen to do what Adam and Eve did in cutting themselves off from God and his counsel (and provision).  They have eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil – so as to be themselves like God ... as the Deceiver himself beguiled them into believing would be the grand result of this act of disobedience to God.  

The renaissance artist Michelangelo's portrayal of that very temptation of Adam and Eve ... and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden because of their having fallen victim to that temptation

Such individuals can scoff all they want.  But they will never find the social significance that they so greatly crave in trying to be so reasonable.

Why is this connection with the higher power of Heaven or God thus so important to social leadership? Leaders are not your average person.  Your average person naturally wants to fit in, be an integral part of society.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with those instincts.  A strong society depends on exactly that very instinct being found widely among its people.

But leaders (at whatever level of society, all the way from the White House, to moms and dads at the family dinner tables) – in any circumstance in which they assume the responsibilities of leadership – must answer to a different voice than that of the immediately approving world around them.  Presidents and parents push ahead because they see in their respective world of great moral (and loving/caring) responsibility, whether to the many or the few under their care, something higher or more noble, something not yet attained, something that not even the society they are dealing with can yet see or understand.  And by answering to that higher vision, that higher calling placed on their hearts, they do not pull back from a social responsibility simply because the society they are supervising (from little children to jealous rivals) does not see things their way – although it does become an accompanying responsibility to help those in their care to see and understand exactly what the leaders require of them.

Thus it is that true leaders (and not just those occupying high political office) are designed to draw others forward to a higher task, even when the society itself is afraid or confused ... especially when it is afraid or confused. Leaders must lead the people to a higher call, a call that those under their care do not yet see or understand, yet one that is vital to the survival and growth of that society.  Leaders must lead.

For instance, Lincoln was so brave as to actually undertake the crushing responsibility of breaking the intention of the Southern states to abandon and thus cripple the American Union.  Presidents before him had seen the difficulty of trying to keep the Union together in the face of this horrible question of slavery, and had simply looked the other way, kicking the can of slavery down the road for someone else after them to deal with.

But Lincoln, in assuming the American Presidency, understood that the burden of leading the Union through this deadly challenge was his, by literally Divine appointment.  And to God, and God alone, did he increasingly look for comfort and support as he put the nation through this terrible crisis – in order to finally get this matter settled once and for all.

Keeping people with him tested every ounce of Lincoln's personal strength as a leader.  Yes, he had his supporters.  Great leaders do.  But he had also a huge number of whiners who complained about how all this killing of America's young men was way beyond the nation's ability to sustain.  They were ready to quit, to let the South be on its way with its slaves and all, and leave what was left of America to get on with things as best it could.  Even on his home front, with his wife, he faced the constant demand to "give it up" so that the Lincoln family could just get things back to normal.  But "normal" was not an option for America, and Lincoln knew this.  God himself had called America to greater things than just letting matters go.  America, after all, was a covenant nation, commissioned by God to give hope to the world by setting before the world the living, breathing human example of how the little people of the world no longer needed to live in bondage to the powerful of this world.  America had to live on as a light to the world showing the way to something we call true democracy.

As Lincoln himself put the matter at the memorial service for those tens of thousands of young men who had died in this horrible 3-day battle on the fields of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It is little wonder that for generations after this speech in 1863, it and the opening lines of America's 1776 Declaration of Independence would be the most memorized words in American history.  Lincoln, leading this nation, under God, was determined that this country would not quit in the face of the horrible sacrifice required of those answering the noble call that God himself had placed on the American nation.

And thus America answered its president's reminder of this high calling with a huge "yes!  Yes, we will so commit ourselves and our sacred honor to this most noble, this Divine, cause."

That is what Divinely inspired leadership achieves.  This is not what ordinary office-holders do.  They simply follow plans and programs placed before them.  Leaders however inspire others to take action, to take up the hard, even sacrificial, work together so that their society may move forward.  It is after all, the effort of the masses of "little people," not the fancy ideas of bureaucratic social planners, that bring societies their grand successes.

But the Puritans also realized that God's hand was just as available to those same ordinary individuals, doing the ordinary things that human life ultimately depends on.  That was the whole point of the Puritan experiment in America.  At a time when European kings were defending their positions against a rising middle class, the kings claiming special divine appointment, the Puritans answered back that the same God is just as much interested in and supportive of the "little people" – as clearly was Jesus in his time.  They claimed that what God truly wanted to see come to pass was a people who lived and worked together in harmony as equals before God.  And equals before God also meant equals before man. And thus the democracy concept was brought front and central in the Puritan experiment.  It provided a powerful moral legacy for a new America, one that carried the nation forward for nearly four centuries.

In America, this social dynamic actually has always found its foundation in the American home.  Family goals and social discipline – but ultimately the way the family looked above to God – developed repeatedly among the rising generations because of the moral-spiritual leadership the parents provided their children. Parents were/are the rising generation's first encounter with inspiring leadership. Children develop social instincts and social trust at a very early age, because of the leadership their parents provide. 

1906 - An American family at dinner

2006 - Another American family at dinner (my wife taking the picture!)

From there, such social inspiration was/is cultivated further through inspiring classroom teachers and inspiring pastors.  The high quality of the classroom, and the high quality of the pulpit, was always the key to American democratic success. That social pattern must never be replaced by the domination, even dictatorship, of the "enlightened ones" found in bureaucratic office or seated behind high judicial benches – or even in front of TV cameras offering 24-hour wisdom or comments on how they believe life should take shape in America – willing to assume, even to take away, such local responsibility from the community's families, schools and churches or synagogues.  In America, those in such high social position were long-expected to be there to inspire such grass roots development of the American family, school and church/synagogue – not replace it.