“And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that [was] in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart.” (2Sa 6:3 AV)
David bears all the responsibility for what follows. Because the ark was transported on an ox cart rather than how the law required, a man lost his life. David, in this chapter, takes it rather hard. He should. It was his instruction and command that led to the death of a faithful servant. The ark was supposed to be transported by the sons of Levi. They were to bear it upon their shoulders using rods of wood plated with gold. The process of transportation was not obscure. It was spelled out in a specific way. What I was wondering is why no one said anything to David regarding his command to transport the ark. The Bible tells us that 30,000 men were chosen out of all Israel to transport the ark. The men were the best of the best. No doubt, there would have been priests involved. Yet, the Bible does not reveal one single individual who said anything to David as to the method prescribed by law to transport the ark. I have to believe if David knew, he would have done it the correct way. David is not Saul. He does not substitute his ‘better’ judgement for the law of God. So, part of the responsibility for the failure here are men who respected the office of king to the degree they would not confront the king when he was wrong.
I believe in the line of authority in the home, in the church, and in government. What I don’t like is when that line of authority is so stringent that no one feels the liberty to express to that authority figure when he or she might be wrong. Authority is a frightening thing. It is too easy for the ego to take over and the leader to shut all voices out but his own. It is too easy to take advantage of the responsibility of authority and make decisions without any contrary input. This is not a good thing. The Bible tells us counselors are a good thing for a leader. He needs to hear opposing views to test his convictions. Any leader who cannot entertain opposing views is a weak one! If he is so defensive that he cannot mull over in his mind other options than the ones he is considering, then he is weak of conviction. It is often seen as a strength for a leader to be unwavering in all of his thinking. This is generally so. But only after he has considered all points of view. To admit one does not know everything needs help in the decision-making process, or that he might be wrong, is seen as a weakness. But it is quite the contrary. To surround himself with people who add something to his ability to carry out his calling is wise, humble, and more successful than not.
We are not talking about rebellion here. Rather, the law was very specific. The ark was to be transported a very specific way. Any number of priests could have taken the law to David and pointed out his method was not according to God’s law. I don’t think David would have reacted defensively. His track record says otherwise. Putting up with Joab and his rash temper is a good indication. Listening to, yet rejecting, the advice of his men to take the life of Saul is another. Still more evidence is listening to the advice of his wife, Bathsheba, in anointing Solomon as king before he passed shows us David humbly took advice from those he led. A godly leader does not want ‘yes’ men. He does not want blind loyalty. He does not want quiet and submissive subjects who feel they cannot express what they think our how they feel. This makes for a short-sighted leader. Rather, a godly leader must be humble and listen to dissenting voices who add wisdom to his management. He needs voices who are not afraid to share a different insight as long as they do so humbly and with respect. I, for one, appreciate contrary voices. I could not lead without them.
No comments:
Post a Comment