Category: Reviews

[rating:3.5]

(New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2012)

1182 pgs

I may as well begin this review by confessing that I am a major Winston Churchill fan. My children have another name for my condition! This book is the third in a trilogy on Churchill. William Manchester began this series in 1988. I thoroughly enjoyed his first two volumes. I felt they were the best biographies on Churchill that I had read or was aware of. However, health and age caught up with him and it looked like volume three would never go to print. In 2002 Manchester enlisted Paul Reid to take his notes and research and to complete the volume. I, and many others, are glad that he did. While perhaps not gifted with the same eloquence and turns of phrases as Manchester, I am glad volume three was produced so I could complete my set on the life of one of the most notable leaders of the twentieth century.

I won’t attempt to summarize a biography that runs over 1,000 pages. This book actually only covers Churchill’s life from 1940 until his death in 1965. This time period covers his rise as Prime Minister of Great Britain at its darkest hour in World War Two until his resignation as prime minister and his decline in his final years. Certainly what he is best known for is his leadership during World War Two when Britain stood alone against Hitler’s unstoppable military might. Churchill has often been designated the greatest leader of the Twentieth Century, and not without reason.

Rather than summarize over 1000 pages of biography, let me suggest why anyone should devote themselves to reading through roughly 3,000 pages studying the life of someone now dead for over fifty years.

I have studied leadership most of my adult life. I have shelves upon shelves of leadership books in my office. After a while, many of them are repetitive or they fail to offer anything new to the discussion. I discovered that, though I still read such books, I often gleaned more by reading biographies about leaders. In that context, I could see how they handled difficult situations and troublesome people. It was no longer theory but history.

There are some people, such as Churchill who capture people’s imagination. It is not because they were perfect, for most assuredly Churchill was not. What is intriguing is how they overcame their obvious shortcomings and changed their world in the process. The authors state:

“In many ways he was an alarming master. He worked outrageous hours. He was self-centered and could be shockingly inconsiderate. Because of his lisp. And because he growled so often, his speech was often hard to follow” (3).

Several things are evident with Churchill.

For one, he overcame a dysfunctional home. His father Randolph had no time or love for him. Churchill’s parents routinely spent Christmas on exotic vacations while leaving Winston with his nanny. Randolph ignored his son even when he begged for attention. It was Winston’s great ambition to one day serve in the House of Commons with his father, but that never came to pass. It does not take much speculation to consider that much of what drove Churchill was an insatiable desire to prove himself worthy of his father. What is most important is that Churchill overcame his painful past and numerous failures to become one of the greatest leaders in his nation’s illustrious history.

Second, Churchill seized his moment. He was a senior adult before he became prime minister. Yet when he rose to that office it was as if he had been destined for it all of his life. It would seem that God does not raise up leaders merely for their own benefit, but for a specific purpose. Churchill’s clearly was to save his nation from the Nazi war machine that destroyed numerous other countries in their path.

Churchill also grappled with some of the most basic and dramatic of leadership issues. He faced a challenge so difficult, no other leader had been able to successfully address it. He dealt with evil in its basest, most vile form. He dealt with other leaders who often believed they knew better than he did. He dealt with other world leaders who could be extremely difficult to work with and to understand. He also dealt with aging and knowing when to step down and to bless the next generation of leaders. To study the life of Churchill is to study most of the prevalent leadership issues of history as well as our day.

What makes Churchill particularly attractive is that he had so many shortcomings and moments where his humanity was evident. He also had a vast intellect, an impressive command of the English language and a memorable sense of humor. In the following paragraphs, I thought I’d list some of the memorable quotes from this period of Churchill’s life.

“I wish Stanley Baldwin no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived” (5) “Occasionally he stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened” (5)

“The Socialist dream is no longer Utopia but Queuetopia” (6)

“Almost all the food faddists I have ever known, nut eaters and the like, have died young after a long period of senile decay” (9)

“I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me” (11)

“This report, by its very length, defends itself against scrutiny” (13)

“It is conceivable that I might well be reborn as a Chinese coolie. In such case I should lodge a protest.” (19)

“I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat” (56)

“You ask what is our aim? I answer in one word: Victory” (57)

“If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us is choking in his own blood upon the ground” (82)

“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender” (86)

“People who go to Italy to look at ruins won’t have to go as far as Naples or Pompeii in the future” (91)

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” (147)

 “Remember this, never maltreat your enemy by halves” (179)

 “When my time is due, it will come” (192)

 “A Hun alive is a war in prospect” (200)

 “The inherent virtue of Socialism is equal sharing of miseries” (280)

 “Why do we regard history as of the past and forget we are making it?” (341)

 “Fate holds terrible forfeits for those who gamble on certainty” (403)

 “I would rather be right than consistent” (430)

 “The almighty in His infinite wisdom did not see fit to create Frenchmen in the image of Englishmen” (587)

 “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, the end of the beginning.” (591)

 “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy” (592)

“Nothing avails like perfection! . . . May be spelt shorter, ‘paralysis’” (623)

“There is only one thing worse than fighting without allies, and that is fighting without them” (715)

“I have always held . . . that the skin of the bear must not be distributed until the bear has been killed” (731)

“I would rather be taken out in the garden here and now and be shot myself rather than sully my own or my country’s honor by such infamy” (765)

“The truth is so precious that it must always be protected by a bodyguard of lies” (767)

“I believe God is on our side, at least I have done my best to make Him a faithful ally” (783)

“Trying to maintain good relations with a communist is like wooing a crocodile. When it opens its mouth you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile, or is preparing to eat you” (813)

“If I were the first day of May I should be ashamed of myself” (824)

“The idea that you can vote yourself into prosperity is one of the most ludicrous that was ever entertained” (871)

“There are few virtues that the Poles do not possess, and there are few mistakes they have ever avoided’ (931)

“When the eagles are silent the parrots begin to jabber” (932)

“Mr. Editor, I leave when the pub closes” (950)

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy” (987)

“I am ready to meet my Maker . . . Whether my Maker is prepared for the ordeal of meeting me is another matter” (981)

[Speaking of Clement Attlee} “A sheep in sheep’s clothing” (1007)

“I am for the ladder. Let all try their best to climb. They are for the queue. Let each wait in his place till his turn comes” (1014)

“I feel like an aeroplane at the end of its flight, in the dusk, with the petrol running out, in search of a safe landing” (1032)

“I would never have dared; and if I had dared, I would certainly never have dared to stop” (1044)

“Today is the twenty-fourth of January. It’s the day my father died. It is the day I shall die too” (1052)

I felt that Reid took on an unenviable task to complete what a master storyteller such as Manchester had begun. Comparisons are unavoidable. Overall I would conclude that Reid fell far short of Manchester. He does not have the same charm and delivery of a Churchillian phrase as did Manchester. He also seemed to get bogged down in certain aspects of Churchill’s life that could have been told more succinctly for brevity’s sake. Nevertheless, I far prefer the completed set with Reid’s contribution than an incomplete set, even if the first two volumes are superior.

Nevertheless, I found several phrases by the author that I felt were worthy of Manchester. Perhaps these were Manchester’s phrases, we have no way of knowing. I’ll list a few of them here.

“The furnace of war had smelted out all of the base metals from him” (4)

“It was the curious absence of interest or affection that may have helped make him a great leader” (8)

“Churchill cannot be an alcoholic because no alcoholic could drink that much!” (11)

“He could out argue anyone, even when he was wrong” (14)

“Churchill did not thrust and parry in such duels; he knew only how to thrust” (14)

“He was not a pillar of the church but a buttress. He supported it from the outside.” (19)

“He was an optimist, not a determinist” (20)

“He did not live in the past; the past lived in him” (24)

“Woe unto the typist who had to ask the Great Man to repeat a phrase” (29)

“Now the hour had come for him to mobilize the English language and send it into battle” (114)

“He put his pants on one leg at a time, but his valet held the pants” (276)

“Ambiguity was alien to the man” (313)

“He had a way of seeing gold when others saw dirt” (341)

[F.E. Smith] “Churchill spent his entire life rehearsing his impromptu speeches” (365)

“He had little time for family affairs, and little inclination to find the time” (412)

“Yet any gardener who has ever fled a swarm of wasps knows that size and maneuverability do not always carry the day” (432)

[George Bernard Shaw of the USA and England] “Two countries separated by a common language” (456)

“The tenth army would not so much assume a role as suffer a fate” (589)

“Churchill, always determined, was now confident as well” (671)

“He came, he saw, he consulted” (798)

[Marlborough] “The pursuit of absolute victory without slaughter will, in the long run, result in slaughter without victory” (851)

“In America, consumption was now a way of life; in Britain, consumption was still a disease that took off old people” (974)

This book is probably not for everyone. If you have not read volumes one and two of this series, don’t take on this one. If you are unfamiliar with Churchill, you probably want to begin with a one-volume biography. If you are a slow reader, you may also want to choose a slimmer tome. If you have little knowledge of World War Two, you may find the names and places listed in these pages to be overwhelming.

However, if you are familiar with these issues and you enjoy extensive biographies, then this might be a challenge worthy of your time. I for one feel as if no biography can do a major subject justice in under 1,000 pages. But that’s me. I am becoming an increasingly rare breed! So I share this book with you in this review knowing few will choose to undertake it. If you do, let me know what you thought!

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:4.0]

(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004)

512 pgs

Nancy Pearcey is one of the leading Christian apologists of our day. She has a long pedigree, including rejecting the Christian faith as a teenager herself and eventually finding herself sitting around the dinner table with Francis Schaeffer at his chateau in the Swiss Alps. Pearcey co-authored an earlier work with Chuck Colson. This book has become a textbook for many Christian universities and seminaries, and well it should.

Pearcey claims that her own story is descriptive of many North American youth today. She grew up going to church, but her Sunday School teachers and youth workers never taught her a Christian worldview. Nor did they prepare her for the rabid atheists she would be assaulted with in university. She states: “Training young people to develop a Christian mind is no longer an option; it is part of their necessary survival equipment” (19). She also argues that, “The best way to drive out a bad world view is by offering a good one” (58).

This book is over 400 pages long and written extensively enough to be a textbook. So I will not try and summarize all of her points. She cites much science as well as philosophy that at times stretched me and my limited background in apologetics. In fact, one of the reasons I read this book is because I have two children currently working on Ph.D’s in apologetics and they instructed me that every Christian ought to have a rudimentary background in apologetics and this book would surely provide me with that!

Pearcey argues that secular thought has pushed Christianity from the public square. Naturalists argue that religion, if it has a role at all, concerns morals and values. However, it does not deal with facts or science. Pearcey argues that too many Christians have accepted this false dichotomy and unnecessarily yielded the field of science and truth to secular Darwinists.

Pearcey goes into great detail outlining the course of history and various prominent philosophers who were intimidated by science and yielded the field without even challenging many of the secularist’s presuppositions.

An interesting section of this book is in the “false” evidence cited by evolutionists in defending and promoting Darwinism. She cites evidence where evolutionists promote and defend their view even when there is no evidence to support it. Pearcey shows the hypocrisy of evolutionists who denounce Christians for being unscientific, but then these same people promote science that lacks evidence. They make their own “leap of faith” even while ridiculing Christians for trusting in an invisible Creator.

Pearcey also makes a solid case for why Christianity provides a robust worldview that not only is supported by scientific evidence, but it also “works” practically in life when practiced. Pearcey demonstrates how evolutionary theory cannot determine what is “right” or “wrong.” In fact, it is impossible to practice evolutionary ethics because society could not sustain it. She also points out how evolutionary theory breaks down repeatedly when addressing ethics. For example, evolutionary theory suggests that traits survive in creatures because they serve a purpose. But then when confronted with such issues as rape or infanticide, Darwinian ethicists must conclude that nature sees a reason to have these practices survive through the generations. Such ethicists find themselves forced to find the “good” in rape etc. Pearcey points out that clearly an ethic based on evolutionary theory is unsustainable.

Pearcey seems to go off on something of an excurses where she examines how, historically, evangelicals conceded the field of intellectual thought to the secularists. I felt that this took up too much space in the otherwise captivating book. Her point is valid, that evangelicals too quickly yielded large areas of truth and were content to talk about spiritual matters and morality. Nevertheless, this might have been shortened to keep the book length somewhat more manageable.

Overall, however, I felt that Pearcey did a great job in making the reader familiar with the key issues. She certainly made me want to read more and to familiarize myself with the key apologists. While I had previously learned to be wary of naturalist interpretations of science, Pearcey gave me compelling examples of how they misuse evidence and remain blindly devoted to their naturalistic views regardless of where the evidence takes them.

Pearcey also made me realize afresh the great need for Christian thinkers and apologists. Historically, Christians have produced some of the most brilliant minds through the ages. But, as she points out, many of those minds today have left the field of science or apologetics and have confined themselves to talking to other Christians about matters of faith. This book gave assurance to this father that his children were on the right track by all three majoring in apologetics!

Pearcey concludes by saying: “May God give us grace to be world view missionaries, building lives and communities that give an authentic witness of His existence before a watching world” (378).

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:4.0]

(New York: Harper Collins, 2009)

276 pgs

Rodney Stark is well known for his politically incorrect approach to history. This book follows that tradition! In this book, he expresses concern for the revisionist approach to the Crusades that portrays Christian invaders as barbaric, imperialistic, greedy, proselytizers who invaded the lands of the peaceful, sophisticated Muslim peoples. He summarizes the popular view today this way: “During the Crusades, an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalized and colonized a tolerant and peaceful Islam” (8). He claims that many scholars today believe that “Far from being motivated by piety or by concern for the safety of pilgrims and the holy places in Jerusalem, the Crusades were but the first extremely bloody chapter in the long history of brutal European colonization” (4). Such a popular view today has been reinforced by Christian as well as government leaders such as US president Barak Obama, issuing apologies to the Muslim people for the barbarities inflicted upon them during the Middle Ages. Of course, anyone aware of current world events knows that Christian suffering at the hands of Muslims is much more current than the Middle Ages.

Pope Urban II sparked the First Crusade by a sermon on November 27, 1095 (2). Nevertheless, Stark argues that no one sermon could have instigated such a massive and expensive undertaking. Clearly there was far more at play than an emotional response to a well-delivered sermon.

Stark begins his presentation by examining the aggressive, often violent expansion of Islam into territory that had previously been Christian. Muhammad, in his farewell address had proclaimed, “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.’” (12). Stark notes that it was economic pressure and overpopulation that drove Muslims out of Arabia to conquer Syria and regions beyond (13). Stark cites numerous example of Muslim brutality as they conquered cities and beheaded all of the men and enslaved the women and children. Generally occupied peoples were told to convert to Islam or be killed. In more tolerant regimes, Christians and Jews were allowed to live but were to be treated to feel “inferior” to their Muslim neighbors (28-29). Often Christians were forced to pay fines in order to remain in the land under their Muslim overlords.

Stark goes into some detail to disprove the commonly held view that the Muslim culture was far more advanced and sophisticated than the backward Crusader culture that invaded it. Stark demonstrates that whether it was architecture, or medicine, or technology, the Muslim knowledge stemmed from the peoples’ it had conquered, not from its own advances. Stark argues that there never was a “Dark Ages” in Europe (54). Rather, it was during that period that Europe advanced in numerous areas of human achievement so that it was clearly more advanced than any other culture at its conclusion. The invention of the saddle and stirrups made European cavalry far superior to Muslim cavalry. The invention of the crossbow gave Europeans an enormous military advantage. The Muslim navy was always inferior to the Europeans and often relied upon Europeans to sail their ships.

Stark notes that two events incited Europeans to launch the Crusades. One was the desecration of Christian churches and relics in the Holy Land. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed which incited much Christian protest. A second grievance was the harassment and often the killing of Christian pilgrims. A plea was issued for Christians to subdue the Holy Land so pilgrims could travel to it in safety and so Christian holy places could remain unharmed.

It has been commonly assumed that the Christian knights were typically landless younger sons of the nobility, or adventure seekers, or people greedily seeking to colonize foreign lands for profit. However, Stark points out that it cost a fortune to finance or undertake a crusade. Many noblemen had to sell off lands and go into enormous debt to finance them. Likewise, wealth did not flow from the conquered lands back to Europe. Rather, Europe had to continually send support through additional soldiers and funds to sustain the Christian bridgehead in the turbulent Middle East. Stark also points out the piety of many of the Christian leaders. He cites a term, “penitential warfare” as a descriptor of the Crusades. (107) This combined the Christian knights who spent their lives training for warfare with an act of penitence. This enabled “laymen” to use their skills for religious purposes. It also helped them find a significant means for performing penitence for their numerous sins. This may explain in part the widespread zeal for undertaking such a dangerous and costly enterprise./p>

Stark challenges popular myths surrounding the Crusades, such as that the Christians were barbaric but the Muslims were civilized. He cites numerous examples of Muslim cruelty. At times they promised safety to citizens of a besieged city if they would surrender. However, once the soldiers marched out of the city, they were seized upon, contrary to the vows of the captors, and all the men were beheaded while women and children were enslaved. Stark challenges the view that Saladin was an enlightened leader, and recounts his pleasure in watching while captured Christian knights were beheaded (200). He also challenges those who criticize the killings and pillaging by Christians. He notes that it was a barbaric age and it is not helpful to retroactively judge the Middle Ages by the standard of the Geneva Convention 158). He also notes that, compared to Muslim atrocities, Christian excesses were typically more humane. He also points out that generally Christian rulers in the Middle East allowed Muslims to practice their own religion without penalty or persecution. This generally was not true of Muslim governments (171).

He concludes his book by stating: “The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The Crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions” (248).

Stark readily acknowledges that he is not a specialist in the Crusades (9). Nevertheless, he seeks to challenge the current revisionist approach to the Crusades. This faulty view of history motivates many Christians today to feel guilt for the “crimes” of their fellow Christians in the Middle Ages. Stark does not deny that atrocities occurred, but he argues that the Muslims were equally guilty and often more barbaric than the Christians they now seek to chastise. Stark believes that the Crusades have become a convenient excuse every time a Muslim seeks to kill a Christian today or to justify his own imperialistic ambitions.

Stark is an interesting writer who tackles relevant historical issues. I appreciate his effort to make history accessible and readable for the common person. I felt he was generally fair in his approach. He did not overlook Christian excesses but he tried to place them in the larger context of the times they occurred. He also has the courage to tackle widely held opinions, even if it makes him unpopular.

In light of the relevance of this particular topic and the continuing citing of the Crusades as a critique of contemporary Christianity, it behooves Christians to read books such as this so they do not blindly accept attacks on their history without being able to make a knowledgeable rebuttal. Surely it is time to put the Middle Ages behind us and to judge the actions and abuses of Christians and Muslims based in what they are doing today.

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:4.5]

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014)

208 pgs

While I am sure that most if not all of us have a sense of who we are, it occurs to me that I often don’t take time to consider the current state of who I am, much less give attention to the cultivation of the inner self. I am easily distracted by the stuff of daily living and if not careful, find myself living life from the “outside in” and losing touch with the things that really matter.

John Ortberg refers to this needed spiritual discipline as “soul keeping”, getting in touch with the destiny God has for us, not simply one day to come in Heaven, but in this day, today. Ortberg takes us on a journey into the inner life of the soul, challenging us to move beyond “reputation and appearance” to who God has made us to be, in His image, in constant fellowship with Him.

Early in the book is a story you should take time to Google – “The Keeper of the Stream”. I had read it once upon a time, but in the context of Ortberg’s focus on the soul, it took on new and deeper meaning. At the conclusion of the story is the following quote from Dallas Willard, a great influence on Dr. Ortberg’s understanding of who we are as living soul

Our soul is like a stream of water, which gives strength, direction, and harmony to every other area of our life. When that stream is as it should be, we are constantly refreshed and exuberant in all we do, because our soul itself is then profusely rooted in the vastness of God and his kingdom, including nature; and all else within us is enlivened and directed by the stream. Therefore we are in harmony with God, reality, and the rest of human nature and nature at large. – Dallas Willard

Ortberg’s working definition of the soul is perhaps stated most clearly in chapter 2 – “Your soul is what integrates your will (your intentions), your mind (your thoughts and feelings, your values and conscience), and your body (your face, body language and actions) into a single life. A soul is healthy – well-ordered – when there is harmony between these three entities and God’s intent for all creation. When you are connected with God and other people in life, you have a healthy soul.”

Sin is the great enemy of the soul, threatening our intimacy with God and our harmony with those around us. In an insightful way, Ortberg uses the parable of the sower to call attention to the constancy of the sower and the seed, but the variable condition of the soil, equating the word “soil” with “soul”. He describes the “hardened soul”, the “shallow soul” and the “cluttered soul” as aberrations of what God intends for us and as prelude to the heart of the book, chapters 6-15, where he addresses “what the soul needs” to be and become all that God desires.

The soul must orbit around something other than itself – something it can worship.  It is the nature of the soul to need. What the soul truly desires is God. We may try to fill that need with other things, but the soul will never be satisfied without God…our soul begins to grow in God when we acknowledge our basic neediness.

John Ortberg

Over the next chapters, the focus in on the key needs of the soul – a keeper, a center, a future, to be with God, rest, freedom, blessing, satisfaction and gratitude. These pages are filled with wonderful truths and statements that pierce to the heart of the matter – God has placed in each of us eternity as “man became a living soul” and we have a stewardship to live in such a manner that we place singular importance on our relationship with the one who gave us life. Here is a brief sampling of these statements:

    I am responsible to take care of my soul not just for my own sake. The condition of my
    soul will affect the people around me…

    When my soul is not centered in God, I define myself by my accomplishments, or my
    physical appearance, or my title, or my important friends.

    The soul seeks God with its whole being. Because it is desperate to be whole, the soul
    is God-smitten and God-crazy and God-obsessed. My mind may be obsessed with idols;
    my will may be enslaved to habits; my body may be consumed with appetites. But my     
    soul will never find rest until it rests in God.

    We were made to make a difference beyond ourselves…our lives were meant to be signs
    that point beyond ourselves to God.

    Significance is about who we are before it is about what we do.

    The space where we find rest and healing for our souls is solitude.

    God’s law was given to us not to force us to obey a list of rules, but to free our souls to
    live full and blessed.

    Jesus said if you devote your life to pleasing yourself, you will actually destroy your soul,    
    whereas if you place honoring God above pleasing yourself, then your soul will be
    truly satisfied.

At the conclusion of the short story, “The Keeper of the Stream”, is the statement “The life of the village depends on the health of the stream. The stream is your soul. And you are the Keeper.”

I commend this book to you and pray your soul will find its true resting place in God.

by Rick Fisher

[rating:2.5]

(New York: Harmony Books, 2014)

352 pgs

The day Arianna Huffington found herself face down on the floor with a broken cheekbone and a cut eye she knew she needed to re-evaluate her life. Thrive is the compilation of wisdom and experiences she acquired on her journey to a more balanced and healthier lifestyle.

Huffington was born in Greece, but was educated at Cambridge and eventually moved to the United States. She co-founded The Huffington Post in 2005 and serves as its editor-in-chief. By worldly standards, she is considered wildly successful. She has accumulated wealth, fame, and countless accolades. But her success came at a cost—long hours, sleepless nights, and diminished time with her daughters and friends. When she collapsed in 2007, she discovered that the accident was caused by a single factor: exhaustion. That was her wake-up call that there had to be more to life than money and power.

In her book, she describes what she calls the “Third Metric.” She writes, “We need a Third Metric, a third measure of success that goes beyond the two metrics of money and power; and consists of four pillars: well-being, wisdom, wonder, and giving” (4). Only when the Third Metric is integrated into our lives, she argues, can we experience truly fulfilling lives.

Huffington makes several good points:

1. We need to unplug. In a technology-crazed world, it’s easy to become so immersed in email, text messages, social media, Netflix, and 24-hour news cycles that we lose our ability to focus on what’s important. She writes, “Being connected in a shallow way to the entire world can prevent us from being deeply connected to those closest to us—including ourselves” (8).
2. Sleep is underrated. One of the most drastic life changes Huffington made following her fall was to take sleep seriously. She writes, “There’s practically no element of our lives that’s not improved by getting adequate sleep. And there is no element of life that’s not diminished by a lack of sleep” (74). She argues that, contrary to the common workplace practice of wearing exhaustion as a badge of dedication, taking adequate time to sleep significantly improves our competency and productivity.
3. Go-givers are happier than go-getters. Human beings have an innate desire to help others, and it is only when we give of ourselves that we feel fulfilled. Huffington writes, “If well-being, wisdom, and wonder are our response to a personal wake-up call, service naturally follows as the response to the wake-up call for humanity” (224). She cites various studies showing that the joy we feel from giving is similar to the joy of receiving a significant salary increase (239).  Huffington concludes, “Essentially, giving is a miracle drug (with no side effects) for health and well-being” (239).

While Huffington offers some practical insights, the book is shrouded in her New Age, semi-Buddhist worldview (despite her multiple assertions to the contrary). As a Christian reading Thrive, I couldn’t help but think that she identified real problems but frequently mislabeled the solution. For example, Huffington is a huge proponent of meditation. She writes, “What study after study shows is that meditation and mindfulness training profoundly affect every aspect of our lives—our bodies, our minds, our physical health, and our emotional and spiritual well-being” (42). While there are benefits of quiet contemplation, Huffington overlooks the true source of our peace, wisdom, and well-being. She looks inward for fulfilment rather than to God. But all the “mindfulness” and yoga in the world cannot fix a problem if the solution lies outside ourselves. She does not necessarily solve the problem; she simply shifts it.

While her Oprah-esque spirituality needs to be taken to with a grain of salt, her primary message is an important one. Essentially, she realizes that what the world has to offer—money and fame—ultimately leaves one feeling empty. She writes, “We now know through the latest scientific findings that if we worship money, we’ll never feel truly abundant” (259). Therefore, she argues that we need to redefine success and start focusing on what truly matters.

by Carrie Blackaby Camp

[rating:4]

(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014)

228 pgs

Sheryl Sandberg’s book offers remarkable insight into challenges women face in the workforce. Not only does this book empower working women, but it also offers an eye-opening perspective for their male co-workers, bosses, partners, or fathers who might inadvertently be holding them back. As the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook and the mother of two children, Sandburg speaks from personal experience as well as from her keen social observations and research when she encourages women to “lean in.”

She begins by looking at what she calls the “Leadership Ambition Gap” in the workforce (15). It is no secret that women in earlier eras were expected to have few ambitions beyond marrying well and raising children. Sandburg notes that in her mother’s generation many women believed the workforce consisted of “two career options for women: teaching or nursing” (13). However, even in today’s more progressive society very few women are reaching upper-management positions or making use of their full professional potential. Sandberg notes, “Girls growing up today are not the first generation to have equal opportunity, but they are the first to know that all that opportunity does not necessarily translate into professional achievement” (15). For example, even though women earn more than fifty percent of college degrees, men hold the overwhelming majority of high-level corporate positions.  Sandberg argues that one reason more men reach senior level jobs than women is because more men aspire to them (16).

Of course, one can point to a number of external factors that keep women from climbing the corporate ladder such as gender bias and family responsibilities. Sandberg does not downplay these issues. But her focus is on ways women often—though usually unintentionally—hold themselves back.

Sandburg contends that women often hinder themselves as a result of their self-doubt. She writes, “multiple studies in multiple industries show that women often judge their own performance as worse than it actually is, while men judge their own performance as better than it actually is” (29). When applied to the workforce, Sandburg argues that it is this lack of confidence that often keeps women from taking the risks necessary to receive promotions and better-paying jobs. Sandberg writes, “Like so many things, a lack of confidence can become a self-fulfilling prophecy” (33). She encourages women to break the cycle of insecurity.

Another challenge women face—and often a contributing factor to women’s self-doubt—is the prevailing bias that ambitious, successful women are unlikable. Sandberg describes a study in which two groups of people were given a case study about a successful female entrepreneur named Heidi Roizen (39). However, for one group, the subject’s first name was changed to Howard. Interestingly, while both groups rated the entrepreneur competent, those who were given the case study with the female name rated her much lower in likeability. The point Sandberg makes is that professional success in women is negatively correlated for women, but the opposite is true for men (40). Because most women desire to be liked, they often feel the need to “mute [their] accomplishments” (44). However, they often themselves in a catch-22, because “owning one’s success is key to achieving more success” (44). Sandberg acknowledges the difficulty of this situation, but she encourages women to communicate in ways that maintain their “likeability” without negating their success.

Perhaps the most poignant point Sandberg makes is that women should not “leave before they leave” (93). She writes, “Women rarely make one big decision to leave the workforce. Instead, they make a lot of small decisions along the way, making accommodations and sacrifices that they believe will be required to have a family” (93). Sandberg notes that many women begin worrying about the toll a career will take on their family before they even have a husband or children. As a result, women often pass up opportunities for advancement. She encourages women not to sabotage their career because of a situation that might occur in the future; rather they should take that time to “keep a foot on the gas pedal until a decision must be made” (103).

While the purpose of Sandberg’s book is to encourage women to “lean in” to their careers, it is important to note that she in no way belittles women who choose to focus on motherhood rather than career, nor does she propose that all women should remain in the workforce. She writes, “Not every parent needs, wants, or should be expected to work outside the home” (95). She also notes that many factors outside a women’s control can necessitate that she leave the workforce. On the contrary, Sandberg shows a great deal of respect for the immensely important work of motherhood. However, Sandberg does argue that far too many women are leaving the workforce—or settling for a sub-par career—for the wrong reasons.

Sandberg is writing from a secular standpoint that does not acknowledge God-ordained and gender-specific responsibilities. Therefore, some readers may find that her desire for equality between men and women at times veers over the line of biblically sanctioned gender roles. However, Sandberg raises some vital questions about an important issue that can only be addressed once both women and men understand the problem.

by Carrie Blackaby Camp

[rating:3]

(New York: Doubleday, 1992)

151 pgs

Henri Nouwen was a Catholic priest and scholar who taught at Notre Dame, Yale Divinity School, and Harvard Divinity School. In 1983, while taking a leave of absence to minister in a home for mentally handicapped people in Trosly, France, he became aware of Rembrandt’s painting of the return of the prodigal son. So enraptured did he become with the painting that he travelled to St. Petersburg, Russia to view it in person. By the close of that year Nouwen decided to leave the Harvard faculty and to become the chaplain to the mentally handicapped at L’Arche Daybreak Community in Toronto, Canada.

This book chronicles Noewen’s spiritual pilgrimage as he studied and meditated upon Rembrandt’s masterpiece. This short book is divided into three sections. The first examines the younger son. The second looks at the elder son, and the final section examines the father. In each section, Nouwen describes how he came to see himself in each person.

I enjoyed this book. Nouwen is a Catholic philosopher and artist. He helped me look at a painting with perceptive eyes and imagination. I enjoyed hearing his ruminations on the work of art and his applications to Jesus’ famous parable. Of course much is speculative, as we cannot know with certainty what Rembrandt intended. However that is the beauty of art. We can have our own experience with art that is impactful to us, regardless of what the artist might have originally intended. While I did not agree with all of Nouwen’s conclusions, I was inspired by his many insightful comments. It made me want to be a better-informed student of art.

Nouwen looks at Rembrandt’s life and early artistic work and demonstrates that in his youth, he was a talented, proud, confident, worldly man with a desire to win fame and fortune. However, he experienced numerous heartaches both in the loss of loved ones and in bankruptcy. Rembrandt painted this work near the end of his life. At that point he painted himself as the prodigal son who has been humbled by life and finally made his way home to his father. Nouwen examines the reasons we leave the home of our loving Father in search of love and happiness from the world. He notes: “Soon after Jesus heard the voice calling him the Beloved, he was led to the desert to hear those other voices . . . Those same voices are not unfamiliar to me. They are always there and, always, they reach into those inner places where I question my own goodness and doubt my self-worth” (40). Finally, Nouwen notes, the prodigal son “hit the bedrock of his sonship” (49). Nouwen suggests that the Beatitudes provide the most direct rout back to the father (54).

He then looks to the elder son. He believes that Rembrandt also identified with him. He points out that the prodigal son is not pictured at the center of the painting. To one side is the elder son. Though Jesus makes it clear that he was not present when his younger brother returned home, Rembrandt inserts him into the painting. It becomes clear that there are two lost sons in that household. Rembrandt painted a light on the father’s face and hands and also on the elder brother’s face, but not his hands. It is clear that he is unhappy with the return and with his relationship with his father. Nouwen suggests that each person must make his way back to his father’s arms where love and joy can be experienced. The younger son was humiliated to a degree that he realized that was his only hope. The elder son remains on the sidelines, missing his father’s love. Nouwen comments: “The lostness of the resentful ‘saint’ is so hard to read precisely because it is so closely wedded to the desire to be good and virtuous” (71).

Nouwen began to realize that he was actually the older brother. He lived a respected, dutiful Christian life. But he began to ask: “Have I already had my reward?” (79). He confesses, “Outside of the light, my younger brother seems to be more loved by the Father than I; in fact, outside of the light, I cannot even see him as my own brother” (81).

Finally, Nouwen examines the father. He observes that Rembrandt painted two very different hands on the father. One is quite effeminate, caring, and caressing. The other is strong and firm. Nouwen speculates that Rembrandt represented the father as both maternal and paternal, just as God is described in both ways. He also describes the presence of the father as a place of joy. He notes that joy has been the mark of the people of God (117). He notes that, “The joy of the father is vastly different from the pleasure of the wayward son” (138).

Nouwen explains that he came to realize that God intends for him to move from being a son to behaving like his father. To welcome people with love and to bless them. He concludes by saying, “As I look at my own aging hands, I know that they have been given to me to stretch out toward all who suffer, to rest upon the shoulders of all who come, and to offer the blessing that emerges from the immensity of God’s love” (139). Nouwen would spend the remainder of his life blessing some of the humblest people in society.

I enjoyed this book. Perhaps because it is written in a different style and from a different perspective than I am accustomed. I found many of his insights to be thought-provoking. While I did not agree with everything he said, I did appreciate that he made me think. I also appreciate the way he exegetes a painting. He made me want to spend more time with the masterpieces left through the ages. I also enjoyed reflecting on one of Jesus’ most famous parables. I enjoy having someone take something that is so familiar and then shedding fresh light and insight on it that I had never considered before.

I recommend this book. It might not be the style you normally read, but you may well find it thought-provoking and refreshing. Certainly a fresh look at the beloved parable could do us all some good.

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:3]

(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003)

623 pgs

Last year I had the opportunity to speak at a church located near the battlefield at Gettysburg. I had never had the opportunity to visit the site and had always wanted to. While there I picked up this book and was inspired to read about the epic battle that turned the tide of the Civil War. I have read a great deal on the Civil War but I had never read an in depth study focusing entirely on this battle. Because of the length and historic complexity of this volume, I’ll not try and summarize or necessarily critique the book in detail.

While touring the battlefield, I was struck by several things. For one, everywhere there are tour groups. Clearly 152 years after the battle, it still captures peoples’ interest and imagination. I was also struck by how many people came in period costume, both gray and blue. There were numerous readings, speeches, and services being conducted. I suppose what most impressed me was the sense of the courage that was required to have fought on that landscape. Standing atop Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge, I could not help but imagine what it was like to see 13,000 soldiers charging across the open fields during Pickett’s famous charge. To know that, for three days in a hot July, the fate of the United States hung in the balance in that relatively obscure town in Pennsylvania, compelled me to want to read this book.

I must add a quick preamble. There are those who are repulsed at battles and death, especially for a cause today viewed by many as unjust. I have had people criticize me for drawing leadership principles from Southern generals such as Lee and Jackson. However, one reason that so many books on leadership reference military exploits is because there is perhaps no greater field in which to exercise leadership than among people who may have to lay down their lives as a consequence of what their leaders do. The stakes are never higher than in the heat of a battle. It is when death is on the line that the mettle of leaders is clearly revealed. I would also add that great leadership can be exercised even when for a less than noble or misguided cause. It would seem foolish to discount the leadership brilliance of people like Robert E. Lee and Jackson simply because they fought on the losing side of history.

I enjoyed Sears’s style for the most part. At times the narrative grew somewhat tedious as he described the various brigades and corps commanders. For a thorough history, it is important to set the stage and to describe the main players. However, this part seemed to be a bit tedious. I far preferred it when he introduced us to officers and soldiers as their role was described in the actual battle. For the most part, Sears used the accepted style of military narrators in describing in vivid imagery the enormous import of the three days’ events. I suppose Winston Churchill is one of my favorite writers of military history and few can match his use of the English language. Nevertheless, Sears does a good job of describing the various events and introducing the reader to the wide array of characters involved in this epic battle.

Part of the allure of the Civil War is the cultured, gentlemanly manner in which people spoke and described the barbaric events that were occurring. Phrases such as, “Only battle could satisfy an objective so grand” (16). They “were compelled to make a retreat more rapidly than was consistent with dignity and comfort” (98), “The slaughter was mutual and assured’ (210); “. . . caused much strong language” (247). At times the gentlemanly way in which events are described shields the reader form the stark horror of the actual events being depicted.

I must confess that in other books I have read, particularly focusing on Robert E. Lee, the role of subordinates such as General Longstreet always seemed tarnished. Longstreet clearly did not endorse Pickett’s charge. As a result, he has been castigated by many who believe his reluctance may have cost Lee the victory. However, Sears is generally sympathetic to Longstreet. He makes it clear that Lee was not at his best at Gettysburg (237). Sears quotes a subordinate who declared of Longstreet: “I consider him a humbug . . . a man of small capacity, very obstinate, not at all chivalrous, exceedingly conceited, and totally selfish’ (262). Sears also acknowledges that, “James Longstreet could be a remarkably stubborn man” (347). Nevertheless, Sears argues that Longstreet was correct in his assessment that victory could not be won on the decisive day of the battle by a direct frontal assault and that Lee made a series of mistakes that ultimately cost him the battle.

Several things struck me as I read this book. One was the way some leaders valiantly rose to the occasion while others failed miserably. In an amazing contrast you see some men performing heroically and sacrificially while others flee at the first sign of danger. The same battle reveals the heroes and the cowards.

Several people stood out in Sears’ account. On the negative side were people such as General Dan Sickles. Of him Sears commented: “As corps commander Dan Sickles was operating at a level far beyond his talents, and most everyone realized it but Dan Sickles” (35). When he was ultimately wounded, his soldiers concluded that, “The loss of his leg is a great gain to us, whatever it may be to him” (301). Of General Robertson, Sears notes: “General Robertson was an excellent man in camp to train troops . .  but in the field, in the presence of the enemy, he lost all self-possession and was perfectly unreliable” (140). Of Colonel Edward O’Neal, Sears notes that his “talents were those of a politician he had been than the warrior he aspired to be . . . he remained safely in the rear rather than personally directing the assault, as was expected of any officer in Robert E. Lee’s army” (197). General William Mahone refused to advance even when his commanding general sent word for him to do so (317). There was general Dick Anderson. When a courier was sent to his post, he found General Anderson “back in the woods, where he found the general’s horse tied to a tree and all his staff lying on the ground (indifferent) as though nothing was going on . . . I am quite certain that Gen’l A. never saw a foot of the ground on which his three brigades fought on 2^nd July” (318). John Brockenbrough was to lead the left wing of the assault on July 3. Yet almost immediately his force was routed, leaving the left flank exposed (418). In reading of the shortcomings and skill of officers in both armies could affect the outcome of a battle. Sears makes much of Jeb Stuart’s misguided ride around the rear of the Union army. While he was out of contact with lee, Lee was left in the dark about the enemy’s whereabouts. It is safe to conclude that Lee would have approached Gettysburg much differently if he had been better informed of his enemy’s position and strength.

In contrast are Sears’ descriptions of heroism at Gettysburg. John B. Gordon had said to his men: “I ask you to go no father than I am willing to lead!” (53). During the battle of Gettysburg, it was said that Gordon “was a self-taught soldier with a talent for inspiring his men and personally dominating a battlefield. . . ‘Standing in his stirrups, bareheaded, hat in hand, arms extended, and, in a voice like a trumpet, exhorting his men. It was superb; absolutely thrilling’” (213). (53). It was said of Lee that, “We looked forward to victory under him as confidently as to successive sunrises” (59). Corporal James Kelly pled as he was dying from his wounds in battle, “Colonel, won’t you write to my folks that I died a soldier?” (179).

Of General Meade, Sears writes: ‘There was nothing in his appearance or his bearing . . . that might have made the hearts of the soldiers warm to him, . . nothing of prose, nothing stagy, about him. His mid was evidently absorbed by a hard problem. But this simple, cold, serious soldier with his business-like air did inspire confidence” (243). Colonel Joshua Chamberlain was riding with his two brothers when cannon fire exploded near them. “Boys” he said, “I don’t like this. Another such shot might make it hard for mother” (278). He therefore dispatched his brothers in opposite directions.

During the battle, four brothers from the Thomas family fought for the South. One of their brothers had been killed in battle earlier. At Gettysburg, three more would be killed (290). It was said of William Wofford that he was “a self-made, aggressive officer who on attack made himself highly visible” (302). Isaac Avery led his troops on horseback so he would be more visible to his men. Unfortunately he was also more visible to enemy sharpshooters. As he lay mortally wounded, he asked, “Major; Tell my father I died with my face to the enemy” (336-337).

General Hancock was everywhere in battle cursing and exhorting his men. When the Union cannons unleashed a devastating barrage toward his men, “General Longstreet felt obliged by this counterfire to show himself to his men to reassure them. ‘Longstreet rode slowly and alone immediately in front of our entire line . . . His bearing was to me the grandest moral spectacle of the war. I expected him to fall every instant. Still he moved on, slowly and majestically, with an inspiring confidence, composure, self-possession and repressed power” (404). It was said of Colonel Sherrill that he was “too brave a man to live” (435).

During Pickett’s charge, Lewis Armistead and Dick Garnett fearlessly led their men. Garnett rode on horseback despite the murderous fire fro the enemy. Armistead led twenty feet ahead of the line. Sears notes: “Finally, this leadership was inspired and inspiring. Dick Garnett, mounted and clearly visible to his followers, and Lew Armistead, marching resolutely twenty paces ahead of the line, hat on his upraised sword, were generals that men would follow to the death” (447). When his men began to waiver under the devastating fire of the enemy, Armistead shouted: “Come forward, Virginians! Come on boys, we must give them the cold steel! Who will follow me?” (449). Sears concludes: “It was his example, his coolness, his courage that led that brigade over that field of blood” (415). Reading of such courage and standing on the battlefield still inspires people today.

This particular battle continues to baffle military experts to this day. Should Lee have attacked the entrenched position of the North when he had a smaller force? Without proper intelligence, should Lee have allowed himself to become entangled in a battle he did not wish for? Should he have heeded the concerns of his senior general in Longstreet? Lee had confidence that led him to favor the offensive but this confidence could also lead him to assume he could will his forces to victory even against the odds. Sometimes he was successful. In this instance he was not. There were a number of lost opportunities on both sides that might have turned the tide of the battle. There were moments of failed leadership that cost men their lives. There were moments as well, when ordinary soldiers laid their lives down for their cause.

There certainly are other books on this battle as well as the Civil War as a whole that cover much of the same material. Clearly Sears is an expert on this battle and the people involved. I would encourage those who are interested in leadership to take some time to learn lessons that can be gleaned from America’s deadliest war. I was carrying this book with me into an airport lounge. A man noticed what I was reading and felt compelled to tell me that he had been to Gettysburg a dozen times and that he learned new lessons on each occasion. Certainly there are many leadership insights to be gained from a study of those three days in July 1863.

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:3]

(New York: Doubleday Religion, 1972)

109 pgs

I have heard much about Henry Nouwen over the years and had always wanted to read his work. He was a Catholic priest and scholar from Holland who served as a professor at Harvard University. He eventually resigned his prestigious post and ministered to mentally challenged people at L’Arche Daybreak Community in Toronto, Canada. He writes from a Catholic, somewhat philosophical perspective. The book is only 109 pages, so it is not a daunting undertaking, though his style forces you to think and ponder what he is saying.

The book was written in 1972 and so it is somewhat dated. Nevertheless, he raises some fundamental issues that are still extremely relevant to today.

Nouwen’s purpose is to examine the question: “What does it mean to be a minister in contemporary society?” (3). Of course, in 1972, America seemed ready to tear apart with the hippie movement, Vietnam, and the spread of communism. Long-held beliefs and morals were under siege and ministers correctly needed to address how to minister to a radically changing society.

Throughout this short book, Nouwen makes statements that are eye-catching. Had he written in the age of Twitter, many statements could easily have been launched into social media. Some of those quotes include the following:

“The future of humanity has now become an option” (11)

“Only when we feel ourselves responsible for the future can we have hope or despair” (13).

“Christianity is radically challenged to adapt itself to be understood by the modern world” (19).

“. . . we see humans paralyzed by dislocation and fragmentation, caught in the prison of our own mortality” (19).

“What is most personal is most universal” (20).

Nouwen describes “conversion’ as “the individual equivalent of revolution” (23). He also notes that, “Jesus did not offer an ideology but Himself” (25).

He suggests that there are three primary issues that modern ministry must address. These are: inwardness, fatherlessness, and convulsiveness (31). He suggests that modern society often has “parents but no fathers” (34). He claims that many people “. . . prefer failure to believing in those who have already failed right before their eyes” (36).

Nouwen charges that many Church leaders today “. . . have become unfamiliar with, and even somewhat afraid of, the deep and significant movements of the Spirit” (42). Interestingly, he suggests that, “Only those who are able to articulate their own experiences can offer themselves to others as sources of clarification” (42). He also charges: “But the danger is that instead of becoming free to let the spirit grow, ministers may entangle themselves in the complications of their own assumed competence and use their specialism as an excuse to avoid the much more difficult task of being compassionate” (46).

In urging ministers to reflect on their own experience, he says, “As contemplative critics they keep a certain distance to prevent becoming absorbed in what is urgent and most immediate, but that same distance allows them to bring to the fore the real beauty of the world and of humanity, which is always different, always fascinating, always new” (48). He also notes: “If anything has become clear in our day, it is that leadership is a shared vocation that develops by working closely together in community” (51). Additionally, he quotes Teilhard de Chardin who said: “To those who can see, nothing is profane” (51). In addition, he suggests: “None of us can offer leadership to anyone unless we make our presence known” (70).

Other interesting observations include:

“It is a paradox indeed that those who want to be for “everyone” often find themselves unable to be close to anyone” (77).

“Few listen to a sermon that is intended to be applicable to everyone, but most pay careful attention to words born out of concern for only a few” (79).

“Christian leaders are not leaders because they announce a new idea and try to convince others of its worth. They are leaders because they face the world with eyes full of expectation and with the expertise to take away the veil that covers its hidden potential” (80).

“The Christian way of life does not take away our loneliness; it protects and cherishes it as a precious gift” (90).

Nouwen urges throughout the book that ministers must minister to others out of their own woundedness. He notes: “They are each called to be the wounded healer, the ones who must not only look after their own wounds, but at the same time be prepared to heal the wounds of others” (88). He notes: “The painful irony is that ministers who want to touch the center of peoples’ lives, find themselves on the periphery, often pleading in vain for admission. They never seem to be where the action is, where the plans are made and the strategies discussed” (92). Interestingly, he also notes that “. . . suffering people are not helped by those who tell them that they have the same problems” (94). He goes on to suggest that, “Perhaps the main task of the minister is to prevent people from suffering for the wrong reason” (99). Finally, he notes: “. . . ministry is a sign of hope because it makes visible the first rays of light of the coming Messiah” (102).

This is not a book on methodology. Rather, it encourages readers to reflect on their approach to ministry. Nouwen is compelling, in part because the reader realizes that he abandoned a lucrative position on the faculty at Harvard to minister to those who were mentally challenged. In this humbling of himself he found peace as a minister of Christ. Nouwen does not tell us to do the same as he did, but he does encourage readers to consider their own spiritual journey as the ground upon which to minister to others.

For those accustomed to reading pragmatic books on leadership, this may be a refreshing respite. It is from a Catholic perspective. This fact might add to its ability to make the reader pause and reflect. Reading this book led me to read a second Nouwen book that I’ll review separately from this one.

Though this book at times seems a bit dated in its historic context and certain societal issues, his fundamental inquiry is still relevant to today’s minister.

by Richard Blackaby

[rating:2]

(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2014)

175 pgs

I like Joseph Stowell and his writing. I also consume leadership books. So I looked forward to devouring this one. As usual, he offered some helpful insights, especially into the Scriptures. However, I felt somewhat disappointed by this effort.

Stowell introduces the book by saying, “This book is about the challenge of ‘me’ in leadership” (13). He goes on to explain, “If, however, you have come to realize that the kind of person you are and how you navigate your leadership is at the core of your effectiveness, then join me as one who is passionate about leading the right way for maximum outcomes by getting ‘me’ in sync with the counterintuitive, countercultural ways of the world’s most unlikely leader, Jesus Christ” (13-14). So far I am with Stowell. He is correct in assessing that the greatest hindrance to effective leadership is most often ourselves and our unwillingness to address personal issues that hold us back.

Stowell claims he does not seek to denigrate those who merely lead for the purpose of achieving outcomes (14), though he does do that. Rather, he says he wants to make “character-driven leadership an intriguing, compelling and biblically necessary option” (14).

Stowell posits that there are two primary forms of leadership. These are Outcome-driven leaders and character-driven leaders (15). Interestingly, he suggests that instinctively we tend to gravitate toward achieving results. Yet, he confesses, “I came to realize long ago that given my fallenness, my first instincts are most likely wrong” (17). I realize what he means here, but I would also suggest that, for those filled by the Holy Spirit, their initial instinct may actually be correct. Interestingly, it is our residual, worldly thinking that can try and “talk us out of” what we sense the Holy Spirit is urging us to do!

I have two primary issues with Stowell’s presentation in this book. The first is his stark contrast between outcome-driven, and character-driven leadership. Stowell claims that outcome-driven leaders “primary focus is on motivating others to achieve great organizational outcomes” (24). Character-driven leaders, he argues, “whose exemplary lives influence and empower those within the sphere of their authority to achieve great outcomes personally, spiritually, communally, and organizationally” (24). Stowell goes on to state that a key choice leaders must make is “whether or not you believe that character counts. That if given the choice, character trumps outcomes” (25).

Stowell claims; “Warning! If you believe leadership is ultimately measured by how well you can deliver the goods, then in the end you will fail in your calling as a leader” (27). My fundamental problem with Stowell’s presentation is that he sets up a false dichotomy. He presents the issue as if the only two choices leaders make are to either be driven by character or outcomes. I believe this is a false scenario. Of course leaders are driven by outcomes. That is why they are enlisted to lead in the first place. When you hire a seminary president, you do so because there are certain results you want, and need, for him to achieve. If he fails to accomplish what you hired him to do, he has failed, regardless of how nice a fellow he was.

Stowell has mistakenly compared ends with a means. The end is not godly character; it is results. Organizations do not enlist you to be their leader so you can have a godly character. They enlist you to achieve certain results. I have known some of the godliest men you could ever hope to meet who served as pastors. Their integrity, love for God, and holy lives were above reproach. But they were mediocre leaders at best. Their churches remained small. They achieved little. They failed to raise up leaders around them. Everyone admired their character but suffered under their leadership.

The truth is, Christian leaders are called to live holy lives, just as are Christian followers. Jesus set a high standard for all of His followers. It is also true that leading with the character of Jesus is good for business. Stowell writes as if he has discovered a fresh insight into leadership, as if it is a new insight that character matters in leadership. He asks: “Does anyone seem to care about the internal dynamics of leadership?” (37). The fact is that even secular leadership authors have long recognized the importance of “internal” issues. Jim Collins in his seminal book, Good to Great, identified humility as a key trait of Level Five leaders. This is nothing new.

The truth is, the success of leaders is not ultimately based on their character, but by their results. If a woman is hired to lead a church youth group. It matters not if she was godly, if a year later attendance has plummeted, several teenage girls have become pregnant out of wedlock and several others have begun using drugs. Regardless of the woman’s character, you would replace her with someone who could achieve better results.

The means of good leadership is a good character, but the measurement of successful leadership centers on results. Interestingly, Stowell tries to make his case by arguing that Steve Jobs led at times without strong character (25). But I found his argument counterproductive to his argument. It is well known that Jobs was not a Christian and at times he struggled both with his temper and the truth. However, Stowell might be better served to use a different example to bolster his case than a man who ultimately built the most valuable company in the world! I suspect there would be other shareholders who would be quick to hire a flawed leader like jobs if he could build them a company worth as much as Apple! Clearly it is not acceptable to treat people like Jobs did, but at the end of the day, he built a valuable, and enduring company, and he was generally forgiven his human frailties in the process.

I also found that in this book, Stowell at times did not handle Scripture as carefully as I would have expected. For example, he uses Jesus’ parable of the talents to argue that character is what matters most (27). But the reality is that the two servants were called “good and faithful”, not because of their character, but because of their results. They doubled the assets their master entrusted to them. That is what generated their praise and reward. Likewise Stowell claims: “I am still in the hunt to find a passage that affirms outcomes regardless of character” (28). One passage that immediately comes to my mind is that of the unjust steward in Luke 16. This man was accused of wasting the goods of his master and was alerted that he would soon be dismissed from his position. The man realized he could not do manual labor and would be hard pressed to find another job. So he quickly called in his master’s debtors and wickedly slashed their debts, thus ingratiating himself to them. Clearly this man lacked character and honesty and was self-serving. Yet Jesus concluded: “So the master commended the unjust steward because he had acted shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light. And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon than when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home” (Luke 16:8-9).

Obviously Jesus is not commending unethical behavior, yet I think Stowell overstates his case to argue that the Bible diminishes those who are focused on achieving results.

I also felt that at times Stowell overstated his case. For example, he states: “A leader who has chosen to lead by character motivates a community of followers who gladly embrace the mission of the enterprise and who are happily motivated to deliver quality outcomes” (29). This sounded too rose-colored for me! “happily” and “gladly” sound a bit too overgeneralized. The fact is that you can lead with integrity and get fired by those who do no respect you as a leader. At times Stowell seems to paint a picture that if you just lead like Jesus, your people will gladly follow you. The truth is, people crucified Jesus when He acted like Jesus!

Of character-driven leaders, Stowell also claims: “They rejoice in giving credit to others and glory to God” (34). Again, this seems to be painting a rose-colored picture of character-driven leaders. He also says, “They use difficulty to look for signs of productive reproof so that they might repent and lead more effectively in the future” (34). No doubt they should do this, and no doubt some do. But clearly this is an over-generalization.

Stowell claims that “meekness would be a liability in most leadership profiles” (49). Yet clearly humility is something that even secular companies and leadership authors often promote these days.

Stowell also claims: “Leaders who self-identify as leaders get annoyed when people don’t treat them as such. Annoyed when people criticize and don’t honor them with respect” (58). Again, this is an over-generalization. I personally do not think it is wrong to see yourself as a leader if that is indeed what God has made and called you to be. It’s called self-awareness. To say that people who recognize they are leaders always get annoyed with people who don’t treat them as such is a gross overstatement. Certainly some people do that. But I fundamentally disagree with Stowell’s argument that it is wrong to see yourself as a leader. Certainly if you take matters into your own hands, like Moses did in Egypt, you may well find yourself a fugitive in a wilderness, but it is not wrong to see yourself as God has made you.

Stowell also claims: “Why do leaders fail? I have rarely seen a leader fail because they are not gifted to lead” (59). Clearly Stowell walks in different circles than I do! I have indeed seen people make classic leadership mistakes that cost them their position.

Stowell does make some interesting points. His discussion of leaders as shepherds is helpful (95). He also states: “When we lead as an act of love to Jesus, leadership becomes an act of worship” (166).

I understand the fundamental point that Stowell was trying to make. His focus on character is certainly not misguided. However, his pitting character against results is. God certainly does care about how something is done. One way can glorify Him while another approach can dishonor Him. That is true. But at the end of the day, leaders strive for results. Without them, you may be a nice person but you are not a successful leader.

by Richard Blackaby