Is There A Place For Humor In Leadership?

Humor is essential to sound leadership. The ability to take the edge off of a sharp comment or the acknowledgment of a failure through a tactful jest can be both helpful and befitting to those around. Serious people can learn to be funny by prayerfully maintain dignity of character, while aptly poking fun at themselves. The ability to balance jest and retain character is a fine line. Many a preacher has lost his influence by too candid of humor. Likewise, many able men of God have minimized their usefulness unknowingly by being too serious. The man of God must keep humor in his tool chest; pulling it out only when needed and promptly replacing it so as to retain sound influence.

Leaders in any forum can be helped greatly by managing a good sense of humor. Dirty jokes, foul language, and racial overtones must be avoided at all costs. Whether in the business world, barber shop, supermarket, or the local city park, all leaders must be careful to use proper etiquette. Leaders need the respect of those they are leading. If they sever that cord, then they risk loosing the momentum they had in their project, hinder the potential of their subordinates, and lose credibility. Bottom line... leaders should tastefully use humor to their advantage.

Can A Leader's Vision Be A Hindrance?

A person who is a visionary can be so caught up in the “end” that he forgets the “now”. By this I mean that a leader who has vision must be able to see “it” in the end, but be able to clear a road for people to make it there. It is true that your best leaders were those who saw things others did not. Many times, however, a leader has made the mistake of forging ahead and leaving his subordinates behind. When this happens he has ceased to be a leader, and, in effect, become a loner. A leader can turn vision into a reality, but he has to adjust for the wind. Thus, vision can create a vacuum if one is not careful to balance vision with realism.

US Political Vacuum

Where is the leadership once demonstrated by the United States? It seems that whatever landscape you put us in, LEADERSHIP is not a description of the vista. We can blame Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. The fault does not necessarily lie in the party itself, but in the individuals that make it up. Just as we would conclude that guns are not evil, but people are, so we propose that the party is not the real problem, it is people. Yes, the ideology of the various political entities are vastly different and some are far behind enemy lines seeking to bombard the beachhead entrenched by our founding fathers. Yet, the people who line the rosters of these groups are the reason we are in this black hole!

Where is the resounding voice of a "Churchill" like leader? That lone voice in the evening that seemed to calm the restlessness of a wearied people. Where is that courage, and allegiance to the cause of freedom once espoused by Reagan? It seems no single leader is stepping forward. Yes, the swords rattle in the ranks, but no clear captain to rally the troops. Across the land people are polarized by various issues, but not solidified behind leadership.

Is it fear that has silenced the voice of reason? Has vice handicapped the man of the hour? Has bribery, and political favors rendered the choicest among us impotent? Maybe it is self preservation that has closed the mouths of those that would get on the stump and herald forth the message of deliverance to our nation's woes. Whatever it is, we are caught in a powerful vacuum in the absence of vital leadership.

President Obama is our nations leader, so-called. Where is the leadership? All one can see is that of tyranny. Yes, there are many who would follow him off of the cliff, but a growing majority just want to be led. Instilling fear, of varying stripes, into a populace is not leadership. Platitudes, pomp, prestige of image may get one into office, but leadership navigates a nation.

Leadership dictates that when seeking to move into difficult waters extreme caution must be the compass. At the same time, counsel must be sought by ALL resources available. Courage in the face of difficulty will either come from selfish interests or from the consensus of those surrounding you who are firmly embedded in the dictate of principle. In the absence of courage derived from principle, cynical, vindictive, and even tyrannical actions display themselves for all to ponder.

In summary, leadership is needed badly in this nation! Unanimity and solidarity around platitudes will not stop the political vacuum of this great nation. The guiding star out of this black hole is that of conservatism around the founding principles of this country! May someone stand against the grain in Washington D.C. like the bow of a mighty ship dividing the waves in the stormy North Atlantic! May someone rise to the occasion and be counted no matter the cost to their political future! We have no future unless we get some solid, tempered, and genuine leadership back into Washington!

Which Model Of Leadership: Peter Or Paul?

Leadership comes with a high price tag. In either case to pick from, both Peter and Paul’s model came through tremendous suffering, and hardship. If I had to pick one, I would pick Paul’s model. He seemed to have the intellectual capacity from his natural abilities that, when God saved him, were grafted into service for Christ. He tended to be an example of one who led without scandal. He led in such a way that he could say, in the words of the Holy Ghost, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Paul, indeed, was such a close disciple of Christ that you could say that as you were following Paul you were, in effect, following Jesus for they were “nose to tail” in the road to Glory. Paul led from principle and practiced what he preached, while Peter tended to be more failure driven. In other words, he had so many blunders from his “foot in mouth syndrome” that he led from learning from them. That is not bad, but Paul did not have many instances of that nature. Paul was leading remembering what he was before he was saved and what he had done previously to the church of God. I would like to follow Paul’s model, but I find myself being in a part of Peter’s model of leadership.

Natural Leadership Versus Spiritual Leadership

The key difference between natural leadership and spiritual leadership would be that a man’s natural abilities drive him and make room for him. He is driven to “success” by his abilities and desire to accomplish tasks, etc. On the other hand, a spiritual leader is driven by the Holy Ghost to lead. This inward pushing manifests itself in that believer’s life. The spiritual abilities, which may have been dormant for years, suddenly comes to life. They are refined through their use and dependence upon God for their fruitfulness.

I believe a spiritual leader’s natural abilities, which God initially gave him, can be transformed and used marvelously to the good of those with whom he ministers. The abilities in question are simply refined and modeled after the sanctification process carried out by the Holy Ghost. As the aspiring spiritual leader seeks to conform to the image of Christ and follow God’s will, the person of the Holy Spirit grafts the natural abilities in and the leader learns to depend upon God in their use instead of themselves and the ability. Their abilities are soon looked upon as instruments in God’s hands instead of a tool for self edification. The pride, which characterized previous use, soon becomes dormant and the meekness produced by God is soon the arena where the ability is displayed.