1

Master Leader: Values

WHY we prioritize what we do

2017 was not a good year for moral leadership. No matter which side of the political

aisle or which side of the street socially, America is reeling under unethical leadership.

Hollywood praises people on the red carpet who represent the rights of the marginalized. Yet

Harvey Weinstein has more than 80 accusations in his industry for abusing his power for sexual

exploitation. Likewise, Bill Cosby, a name synonymous with family values was serially accused of

the most egregious forms of “date rape”. Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose, “trusted” news anchors,

Chef Mario Batali, Senator Al Franken and nominee Roy Moore, actors Kevin Spacey and Dustin

Hoffman all have multiple accusations.

That’s just the sexual misconduct. Financially fraudulent practices have been pandemic

in some of the most trusted institutions of America including Lehman Brothers, Wells Fargo,

Enron. The FBI indicted FIFA officials for racketeering and fraud. Pharmaceutical companies

have been racked with accusations of price gauging for some of the most vulnerable. The list is

long. Our culture (globally) is morally anorexic. That is discouraging for sure. Yet it can provide

moral organizations with a great advantage. We will stand out all the more if our values are

clear and clearly modeled.

Values create culture and culture drives the direction of your organization. It is all too

common, however, that the values we claim are not the values we demonstrate. For example,

many organizations and churches claim to value people. The question is whether people feel

valued in their organization. Many businesses claim to prioritize excellence. Yet the peeling

2

paint betrays their failing values. Many families claim that generosity is a value they want to

instill in their children. Yet their budgets provide no pragmatic training to their offspring of

what it looks like to be a giver.

Clearly it is not enough to post your values on a poster. Values are caught not taught.

This doesn’t mean that we don’t have a family meeting or a business meeting to explain why

these values are important and how we will measure their execution. What it does mean,

however, is that leaders must live the values they want to embody their organization. So, if you

are the leader and you want your values to be caught by your followers, have your followers

caught you following your values. This may require more access than you’re willing to give. If

your followers can’t walk with you then they can’t watch you live your values. This does not

mean that everyone in your organization has access to your personal life. Nor does it mean that

just anyone can pal around with you. It does mean, however, that those you entrust to

communicate and enforce the values of your organization must have adequate access and

ample examples of you living out the organizational values.

For example, a pastor who says he wants his people to be evangelistic should be visibly

evangelistic. He should be baptizing his own converts not those his parishioners bring to church.

A CEO who expects hard work should arrive early to the office. Parents cannot afford to say,

“Do as I say and not as I do.”

With that in mind what do we catch Jesus valuing? Though many could be listed, there

are three things that stand out as mountain peaks in Jesus values: love, mercy, and inclusion.

Master Leader Principle #8

IF YOUR FOLLOWS CAN’T WALK WITH YOU THEN THEY CAN’T WATCH YOU.

3

Each of these are intricately tied to the other and each of these falls comfortably in the shadow

of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in

him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Jesus’ Primary Value: Love

Love is a common parlance in pop culture. Movies, music, and talk shows wear it thin.

Love is romanticized and sexualized. So any discussion of Jesus’ value of love has to be clarified

to even be recognized. Clarification #1: In Jesus’ vernacular, love is a verb, not a noun. It is what

we are asked to do, not what we are expected to feel. Clarification #2: Jesus’ command to love

others is predicated on God’s action in Jesus Christ. This radical sacrifice God asks from us is the

only appropriate reaction to what Jesus did for us. To understand love, we start with God’s love

for us. Every other expression of love stems from that origin.

Clarification #3: Though the English word “love” encompasses friendship, family, lust,

and “like”, the Greek language differentiated each of these. Though Jesus did talk about

friendship an awful lot, his primary word for love is represented by the Greek word agápe

(representing the Hebrew word chesed which we will come to when we discuss “mercy”).

Agápe is unconditional and unmerited love. However, this particular Greek word did not carry

this theological freight until after Jesus. John, in particular, used it in his Gospel to describe

God’s sacrificial love by giving his Son. The nature of love as undeserved, unmerited,

unchangeable, and sacrificial comes from the description of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.

Prior to that it could not have held such a dense meaning because there was no living

description adequate to apply that meaning to. In this sense, Christianity created the idea of

4

agápe. The church highjack the word and then infuse it with meaning to adequately describe

what we had experienced through Jesus Christ.

According to John 3:16, God’s love runs well beyond mere emotion. It is an act of

unprecedented self-sacrifice. How such substitutionary atonement “works” is a divine mystery.

The consequence, however, is clear. Because God loved us with sacrificially, those who call

themselves children of God are morally obligated to behave similarly with their fellows. The

Bible calls that “love your neighbor.” To this extent, loving God and loving your neighbor is

inextricably bound. You can’t do either without the other.

The Question That Kept Coming

Twice in Jesus’ life, he had the same perplexing question thrown at him: What is the

most important command? Mark 12:28: “One of the scribes came up and heard them disputing

with one another, and seeing that he [that is Jesus] answered them well, asked him, ‘Which

commandment is the most important of all?’” On the surface that might seem to be a difficult

question. After all, the Jewish Bible had 613 recorded commands and that does not include the

myriads of oral traditions they held with nearly equal weight to Scriptures. However, there was

one command that towered above all the rest. It comes from Deuteronomy 6:4–5 and it is

called the “Shema” after the first Hebrew word in the sentence translated, “listen!” This

command was so famous that it featured in literally every synagogue service from then until

now. It continues to be a daily Jewish prayer, rolled in little scrolls and tucked into phylacteries

of the Rabbis and mezuzahs hung on door posts.

To illustrate how obvious is the answer, one need only slip back a year earlier in Jesus’

life. During his itinerant preaching tour, a lawyer approached him. He was not a lawyer like we

5

think of one but an expert in the Mosaic legislation. He asked a question designed to trip Jesus

up: “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus’ response was brilliant. He let the

lawyer answer his own question, knowing that most lawyers would rather talk than listen. Jesus

said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” The Lawyer took the bait, “You

shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength

and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:26-27).

Notice the lawyer’s answer in Luke 10 is identical to Jesus’ own answer in Mark 12:29-

31. The most important command, Jesus said was this: “‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the

Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and

with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor

as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Both answers identify two commands: to love God and to love our neighbor. The reason

the second command is always connected to the first is simple. One can hardly love God

without loving one’s neighbor. After all, you can’t really climb a stairway to heaven to give God

a hug or mail him a care package. Our love for God can only be enacted through our care for

our neighbor. Because God loved us, we are commanded, above all else, to love him. It is what

the Bible calls the greatest command, coming from Deuteronomy 6:5, “You shall love the LORD

your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” This verse is as

famous among the Jews as John 3:16 is among Christians. According to Jesus, this command

cannot stand alone. It is paired with Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus is right, of course. These are not two separate commands. You cannot love God

except by loving your neighbor. Oh, if love were a feeling, you could. One could worship at

6

church, pray in private, worship in a temple, or any number of others expressions of adoration.

However, Christian love is an outward orientation of action not an internal emotion of

affection. So how, pray tell, could one treat God with sacrificial love. He doesn’t pragmatically

need anything from us. You can hardly feed him, clothe him, or provide medical assistance.

How can we express our love for God practically? Every parent knows the answer: Love his

children. When we treat someone’s children with kindness, it is the highest expression of love.

To that end, Jesus enjoined us to love two broad categories of people.

Love your neighbor. At first, this may sound simple. People around us often share our

economic level, our cultural values, and common interests of safety and socialization. For Jesus,

however, “neighbor” was defined differently. When the lawyer approached Jesus in Luke 10 to

ask him how to inherit eternal life, the end of this discussion was a simple command: love your

neighbor. The lawyer, however, wanting to justify himself ask for clarification: “Who is my

neighbor?”

Jesus answer is both brilliant and overwhelming. He told the story we know as the good

Samaritan. Note: the phrase “good Samaritan” is never found in the text of the Bible.

Samaritans were hated by the Jews; that’s the punch of the story. By the end of the tale, which

is likely familiar to you, Jesus changed the question in two ways. First, the lawyer used a specific

word for neighbor which meant, “those living near me.” He could’ve used another word which

meant, “those living around me.” So it seems that the lawyer is already trying to truncate the

category of neighbor and limited to those in close proximity to him. One might expect that

Jesus would object to the narrower definition of neighbor. He does not! Rather, he allows the

narrow definition even limiting it to your arm’s length. Your neighbor is the one you can reach

7

out and touch. However, according to Jesus story, you had to take your arms with you. So the

neighbor becomes anyone you can touch but it includes everywhere you go!

A second change Jesus made to the lawyer’s question is that he turned it on its head.

The lawyer asked, “Who is my neighbor?” By the end of the story, Jesus asked, “Who was

neighborly?” In other words, neighbor is a noun; neighboring is a verb! Eternal life, according to

this parable, is not about who the other person is. Eternal life is about the action you take on

behalf of your fellow human beings.

This particular story was so effective that it literally transformed Western culture.

Because of the contagious nature of this idea, our society seeks to help those in need. We are

the only nation in history that rebuilt the enemies we destroyed after World War II. As a culture

we put special parking places in the front of the lot for those with disabilities. We offer special

protection to refugees and poor billions of dollars into peacekeeping efforts of other nations.

This is not to suggest that we are a Christian nation or the Western society honors Jesus in

every way. It is to assert, however, that many of the noble attributes of our modern Western

world are directly linked to Jesus and value of caring for our neighbor.

Love Your Enemies. This is likely the most offensive thing Jesus ever said (Matt 5:44). In

the Middle East, then as well is now, loving your enemy is not theoretical theology. It is not a

“liking” terrorists or oppressors. It is practically and pragmatically carrying for the needs of

those who may threaten the welfare of your family. In Jesus day, loving your enemy might have

included housing a Roman soldier, feeding a Samaritan, clothing a thief, or harboring a refugee.

There is simply no way to sugarcoat this. There is no way to make it more easily digestible. And

8

there is no way to explain it away as if we no longer have the responsibility to care for those

who may do us harm.

Without getting into a political or sociological discussion, suffice to observe here that

loving enemies in the real world has done more historically to create peace, and peace that

lasts, than all of the power moves combined. Love is more constructive than bombs will ever

be. Compassion is more compelling than rhetoric or regimes. Jesus’ advice is not merely

religious propaganda. It is valuable practical advice for nations, churches, companies, and

families. Loving enemy is disarming. It is empowering. It is God-honoring. It costs less and

endures longer than war, slander, or litigation. Loving our enemies is pragmatically the most

effective way of making peace on earth.

Furthermore, there’s no wiggle room to weasel out of this. For less than two years after

Jesus said these words he enacted them while pinned to a cross. The first thing he said at his

public execution was this: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” One who

forgives his enemies in the middle of a crucifixion has the moral authority to order us to do the

same. As difficult as that was for Jesus, it paled in comparison to the sacrifice of the Father to

offer his own son to the disobedient and rebellious. That’s all of us not just the Jewish leaders

and Roman soldiers at Golgotha. We are all undeserving beneficiaries.

If we are to claim to be Jesus’ followers or master leaders then his value of loving God

by loving others is of paramount importance to our own agendas. Whether we are building a

church or a company, a community or a family, sacrificial love is the hallmark of a life well lived.

9

Jesus’ Secondary Value: Mercy

Where did Jesus get his primary value of love? It began in the Old Testament with the

concept of mercy. This Hebrew word chesed represents God’s covenant loyalty to his people.

Specifically, Jesus seems to have been impacted by Hosea 6:6, “For I desire steadfast love

(chesed) and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” After all, Jesus

quoted this text twice. The first time was in Matthew 9:13. The religious leaders accosted him

about including Matthew, a tax collector, in the circle of his followers. Jesus retorted, “Go and

learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous,

but sinners.”

The second time Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 was in Matthew 12:7 when he was defending

his disciples for picking heads of grain on the Sabbath. He said, “And if you had known what this

means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.” Notice

that both times Jesus was defending a disciple so that they could be included in his entourage.

This brings up an important point. Mercy can be savage. It is not simply about being nice or

showing compassion. Mercy has a ruthless bent to defend the oppressed. This is thoroughly

Jewish. Throughout the Old Testament, particularly in the prophets, mercy was mandated by

God through practical acts of justice.

For example, the prophet Zechariah demanded, “This is what the LORD Almighty said:

‘Administer true justice; show mercy (chesed) and compassion to one another” (Zechariah 7:9).

Likewise, Micah 6:8 says, “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD

require of you but to do justice (chesed), and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your

God?” This prophetic traditions hails from Samuel himself, the most ancient of the major

10

prophets, “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the

LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel

15:22).

Jesus sounded a lot like one of these prophets of old when he criticized the religious

leaders of his day. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a

tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters

of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without

neglecting the former” (Matt 23:23; see also Luke 11:42).

Jesus’ followers kept catching him in the act. He was perennially practicing mercy.

Twice, two blind men pleaded for mercy and Jesus healed them (Matthew 9:27; 20:30-31). On

another occasion a Canaanite woman pleaded for mercy for her demonized daughter. After a

clarifying conversation Jesus accomplished it (Matthew 15:22). Later a father pleaded for his

demonized son and likewise received God’s mercy through Jesus’ healing (Matthew 17:15). In

Mark 5:19 a recently exercised Gentile asked Jesus to allow him to join his band. Jesus declined

with this instruction, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for

you, and how he has had mercy on you.” A band of 10 lepers were granted the mercy of

cleansing they requested (Luke 17:13). Furthermore, in two separate fictitious stories, Jesus

featured a tax collector and a debtor receiving mercy (Matthew 18:33; Luke 18:13). In yet

another parable of Jesus, a Jewish lawyer recognized the good Samaritan as a man of mercy

(Luke 10:37).

Is it any wonder, then, that both Matthew and Luke record a similar beatitude from the

lips of Jesus? “Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy” (Matt 5:7) and “Be

11

merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). Notice a similar theme here to Jesus

valuing love. We don’t just love because it’s right nor give mercy because it is just. In both

instances we are imitating what God has already done for us.

This leads to a final observation about mercy. If Love is the constant left-hand

companion of Mercy, then Justice is his constant companion on the right. This trinity is a regular

feature in the Old Testament and the New. There is no way to execute mercy without love. Nor

can we execute mercy without justice. As we have seen, this robust connection is constant in

the Prophets. Yet it also introduces one of the deepest theological truths: atonement for sin.

Just as the Old Testament mandated sacrifice for sin; so the New Testament describes Jesus as

that sacrifice.

In fact, the specific location of atonement in the Old Testament was the golden lid of the

ark of the covenant, ornamented with two winged cherubim. This was where the blood of bulls

and goats was sprinkled. It was called the “Mercy Seat”. In Greek it is spelled hilasterion. The

specific ending erion identifies a place in the Greek language. Thus the hilasterion was the place

of atonement. The same Greek word is used in Romans 3:25 to refer to Jesus. Though the

translation, which is helpful for clarity, nonetheless, obscures the fact that Jesus is the place of

atonement (i.e. the Mercy Seat): “God put forward [Jesus] as a propitiation [hilasterion] by his

blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25).

What this means is that Jesus is not merely the model of mercy, he is the place we find

mercy. As his representatives, it behooves us to not only speak up for mercy, but to suffer for

those who cannot find mercy without our sacrifice. This inevitably leads to the third value of

Jesus: Inclusion.

12

Jesus’ Tertiary Value: Inclusion

Jesus never traveled outside Israel. He never openly fellowshipped with a Gentile. As

near as we can tell he spoke minimal Greek. He said himself that he was sent to and for Israel

(Matt 10:5; 15:24). Even so, his ministry was centrifugal. In other words, Jesus’ teachings and

actions demanded an outward orientation. You can’t follow Jesus’ example without continually

pushing the boundaries ever outward. This is not only true for individuals but as leaders, we

apply the same centrifugal principle to our entire organization.

Here is a whirlwind summary of Jesus’ centrifugal orientation. It begins with Jesus’ belief

that God ruled the whole world including every tongue, tribe, and nation. Anything less is

beneath his dignity. He didn’t make that up; it’s in black and white of the Old Testament

prophets. Isaiah 42:6, “I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the

hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations.” Simeon

applied this passage directly to Jesus in Luke 2:32. Again, Isaiah 49:6, “It is too light a thing that

you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of

Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the

earth.” Herein lies Jesus’ centrifugal self-consciousness. It leaches out into his parables.

Matthew 13:38, “the field is the world” and Matthew 13:47, “Again, the kingdom of heaven is

like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.”

Master Leader Principle #9

MASTER LEADERS LAY DOWN THEIR LIFE FOR THEIR FOLLOWERS.

13

Because of his centrifugal self-consciousness, Jesus promised that Gentiles would enter

the kingdom. Furthermore, it is not just the good Gentiles that gain access to God but Israel’s

traditional adversaries. Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba (Matt 12:41–42/Luke 11:31–32);

Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt 10:15/Luke 10:12; Matt 11:24); and Tyre and Sidon (Matt

11:22/Luke 10:14) would all gain entrance into the kingdom. The circle widens further. All

nations would stand before the throne at judgment (Matt 25:31–46). In fact, he reversed the

objects of judgment/reward so that Israel would be judged and Gentiles rewarded (e.g., Matt

11:20–24/Luke 10:13–15; Matt 8:11–12/Luke 13:28–29)! That went over like a hot-dog at

Hanukkah!

This could certainly explain why so many Gentiles were attracted to Jesus (Mark 3:7–

10/Matt 4:24; John 4:7-42; 12:20-22). It also explains why he healed a handful of them

(Centurion’s servant [Matt 8:5–13/Luke 7:1–10], Syro-Phoenician woman [Mark 7:24–30/Matt

15:21–28], the Gerasene demoniac [Mark 5:1–20/Matt 8:21–34/Luke 8:26–39], and the leper

[Luke 17:16]). Jesus believed the Gentiles were part of his flock that currently stood outside his

fold (John 10:16). In fact, Jesus “cleansed the temple” to make room for the nations, according

to Isaiah 56 (Mark 11:17). Hence, the Evangelists are correct in portraying Jesus as a missionary

to the Gentiles (Matt 4:15–16 [=Isa 8:23–9:1]; 12:18–21 [=Isa 42:1, 4]; Luke 2:32; 3:6 [=Isa 40:5],

38; 4:25–27; John 4:1–42; 10:16; 12:20).

It is true that Jesus never openly reached out to the Gentiles. This makes sense since he

clearly he intended for salvation to pass through Israel to the nations. Yet he set a trajectory

through his ministry that made ethnic inclusion inevitable. One of the main ways he set the

14

wheels in motion was through meals which form a substantial part of the gospel tradition.1 For

the Jews, meals were social tools for establishing and maintaining status and equilibrium within

a group.2 One was obliged to eat with his/her kinship group on normal occasions and on special

occasions (banquets and festal meals) with one’s social peers.3 Meals were conservative and

highly ritualistic in that everything was mapped out: Who eats with whom and who performs

what function(s); what is eaten and how it is prepared; when the meals take place and when

the various elements are served; where the meal takes place and where individuals sit. Hence,

when Jesus “broke the rules” of meals, he was accosting a social system, not just personal

prejudices.

Part of the problem was that Jesus ate with “sinners” not merely as an act of

compassion, but as an invitation to repentance and a subsequent declaration of their

acceptance into the kingdom of God. In fact, he was declaring “impure” people to be model

citizens of the kingdom of God. It was not, apparently that their impurity was ignored, but that

1 More than a dozen meals of Jesus are mentioned in the Gospels and are found in every stratum: with

sinners (Luke 15:1–2); and tax collectors, Levi (Mark 2:14–17/Matt 9:9–13/ Luke 5:27–32) and Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1–10); but not with family (Mark 3:20–21, 31–35); with women, wedding at Cana (John 2:1–11); Mary and Martha (2x, Luke 10:38–42 and Mark 14:3–9/Matt 26:6–13/ John 12:1–8); with crowds, feeding 5,000 (Mark 6:32–44/Matt 14:13–21/ Luke 9:10–17/John 6:5–13); feeding 4,000 (Mark 8:8/Matt 15:37); with Pharisees, Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36–50); unnamed Pharisee (Luke 14:1–14); unwashed hands (2x, Mark 7:1–23/ Matt 15:1–20; and Luke 11:37–52); and with his disciples, washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:1–17); Last Supper (Mark 14:12–25/ Matt 26:17–29/Luke 22:7–20); post-resurrection in Emmaus (Mark 16:12–13/Luke 24:13–32), in the upper room (Mark 16:14/Luke 24:36–43/John 20:19–23); and by the lake (John 21:12–13). In addition, meals are often used as sermon illustrations especially in Matthew and Luke (e.g., Matt 11:18–19 [/Luke7:33–34]; 15:20; 22:2–14 [/Luke 14:16–24]; 24:38 [/Luke 17:27–28]; 25:1–13; Luke 10:7; 11:5–12; 12:36; 13:26; 17:8; John 6:25–59). To this multiple attestation might be added double dissimilarity as an argument for the authenticity of the gospel tradition of Jesus’ inclusion at table. Neither Jews nor Christians (nor the broader Greco-Roman world) practiced indiscriminant inclusion at table. While Christians were known for ethnic inclusion, there is no record of “outsiders” having open access to table fellowship.

2 Mary Douglas, “Deciphering a Meal,” Daedalus 101 (1972): 61–81 and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts (ed. Jerome Neyrey; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 364–68.

3 This kind of exclusion is expressed in both the Qumran community, reserving meals only for full members after two-years (1 QS 6.16–17), and the Christian community in excluding non-Christians from the Eucharist (Did. 9.5). Even in 1 Cor 5:11 Paul orders the excommunicated to be excluded from table fellowship.

15

Jesus effectively “healed” sinners through his table fellowship as summarily as he did the sick

by his touch. Luke 19:9 expresses this as clearly as any text: “Today salvation has come to this

house, because he too is a son of Abraham.” A “sinner’s” acceptance of Jesus was tantamount

to repentance.

Those “invited” to the table were the very ones Jesus promised the proclamation of the

good news of the kingdom and the very ones excluded in Jewish texts: 4

Luke 4:18 Luke 14:13, 21 Lev 21:18–19 LXX 1QSa 2:5–6

Poor (ptwco,j) Poor (ptwcou.j)

Prisoners (avicmalw,toij)

Crippled (avna,phroj) Crippled (su,ntrimma) Crippled

(נכא[ה רגלים] או ידים)

Blind (tuflo,j) Blind (tuflo,j) Blind (tuflo,j) Blind (עור)

Lame (cwlo,j) Lame (cwlo,j) Lame (פסח)

Oppressed (teqrausme,nouj)

Dwarfed (kolobo,rin)

Disfigured (wvtotmh,toj)

Deaf/Dumb (חרש/אלם)

Blemished (מום)

According to Luke 4:18 and 14:13, 21 Jesus was welcoming to table the very ones the

priests were to exclude from the showbread (cf. Lev 21:17–23) and those the Qumran

community would exclude from the Messianic banquet (1QSa 2:5–6). This turned normal

boundaries on their head. Jesus’ table fellowship could be interpreted as the initial step in

establishing a community of the dispossessed. Such a move would not be broadly applauded as

compassion but criticized as irresponsible eradication of purity boundaries.

The problem, of course, was not merely that Jesus ate with the wrong sorts of people. It

was that he also excluded the “right” sorts of people. His biological family was ousted in favor 4 Philip Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology,

SNTSMS 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 186.

16

of a new fictive family comprised of the hoi polloi who followed him (Mark 3:20–21, 31–35).

Furthermore, on a number of occasions he threatened the eschatological exclusion of those

who currently occupied the chief-seats around the table (cf. Matt 8:10–12; 22:2–14; Luke

13:28; 14:15–24; John 3:1–3).

Jesus’ subversive meals opened the door for early church to open their table to ethnic

inclusion.5 That is precisely the point of the Cornelius episode of Acts 10 (Acts 10:10–13; 11:3).

While there are some intimations of openness to Gentiles in Jewish literature (e.g., Jonah; Isa

49:6; Testament of Levi 14:3; Sibylline Oracles 3.195) the overwhelming attitude toward

Gentiles was exclusion. Hence, their inclusion among kingdom people could be risky business

(e.g., Acts 15). Jesus’ table fellowship turned the social tables of insiders and outsiders.

There is one final peculiarity worth mentioning. Jesus said something quite strange,

“The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they

repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The

queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she

came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something

greater than Solomon is here” (Matthew 12:41–42).

Jesus is greater than two persons: Jonah and Solomon. This is a fairly odd couple. They

have a different vocation, different biography, different geography, and a different historical

5 Scott S. Bartchy, “The Historical Jesus and Honor Reversal at the Table,” in The Social Setting of Jesus and

the Gospels (ed. W. Stegemann, et al.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002), 180.

Master Leader Principle #10

MASTER LEADERS ARE CENTRIFUGAL.

17

setting. Why do they stand here next to each other? Both represent Gentile mission. Jonah was

sent to the Ninevites in the Northeast. Queen of Sheba came to Solomon from the Southwest.

If Jesus is greater than this noted preacher as well as this famous kingly sage, then his ministry

would, indeed, have far-reaching impact.

Building your Mission as a Leader

The values of your organization will drive the direction of the organization. That is

unquestionable. The question is whether you recognize the real values your team enact and

whether those align with those of a master leader. This is not to say your values must be

identical to Jesus’ or expressed with similar verbiage. However, anything not driven by love that

drives us outward will inevitably be less effective and less permanent whether we lead a

church, a company, a restaurant, or a school. To that end, here are several exercises that will

help you clarify, advertise, and reward your values.

Exercise #1: Read Simon Sinek’s, Start with Why. This is one of the most powerful

books on identifying values (also well summarized in his TED talk). People aren’t motivated by

“What” but by “Why”. The more you are able to articulate your “why” the more traction your

organization will gain in people’s lives. The clearer you are on “why” the more innovative your

team will become. The more understood your “why” the more sacrifice and loyalty your

constituents will give you. To summarize Sinek, “People don’t buy what you do, they buy why

you do it.” Most organizations, churches included, start with their goals—growth or profits. Yet

the most visceral response of the human being is not the logical or rational but the emotional

response of values that we share.

18

Exercise #2: Secret Shopper. Find someone in the community who is not familiar with or

aligned with your organization. Invite them (or even hire them) to mystery shop your services. If

it’s a church, ask them to attend a service. If it is a business, asked them to engage as a

customer. If it’s a school, asked them to come and take a tour. If it’s a team, ask them to watch

a game or stand along the sideline. After their visit, have them write down their perspective of

what your priorities are as an organization or team. If they are not able to pick up on your

values, it is likely that the values you think you have are not the values your team lives out.

Exercise #3: Identify, wordsmith, advertise your values. Gather your team for a retreat.

This will take an entire day. If you have data from exercise #1, share those findings. Identify the

gap between your perceived values and your actual values. As a team, list your values. Although

there is no ideal number, they should land somewhere between five and eight values. Sharpen

these to a laser point. Then prioritize them so that everyone on the team is clear what your

primary, secondary, tertiary values are. Once you have that list, its time to wordsmith your

values to make them sticky. Think in terms of a bumper sticker not a tweet. Your initial list

should strive for exacting clarity. Your sticky list should strive for memorability. Reshape and

rework the wording until it is memorable, even impossible to forget. The goal here is that these

sayings become slogans across your organization. When a visitor comes and asks about your

organization, everyone from the CEO to the back row consumers should spit out the same

slogans.

For example, Life Church in Oklahoma has evangelism as its primary value. Here is how

they articulate it: “We will do anything short of sin to reach people who don't know Christ.”

Northpoint Church in Atlanta wants to be “a church that unchurched love to attend.” Christ’s

19

Church of the Valley in Phoenix values teamwork on their staff. The value is promoted as

follows: “We celebrate teamwork over talent.”

Once those values are identified and then made sticky, it’s time to advertise and reward.

The advertisement is the easy part. Print them on posters, put them on the live feed of the

website or TV screens, make them available through promotional materials or messaging. Say it

over and over until it becomes part of the DNA of the conversation of your organization. This

will only happen, however, if you move from PR to HR. You can’t just talk about it. You have to

reward it. People repeat what you reward. Raises should be contingent on moving the

organization forward according to the values you profess. People get promotions, bonuses, and

public recognition for modeling the values of the organization. When advancement in the

organization is tied to alignment of her values, you will then embed them into the culture.

This can be tricky because you may have highly talented people who are effective at

contributing to and moving the organization yet are out of alignment with your primary values.

This cannot and should not be rewarded. Sometimes the highest performers are the most toxic

to an organization. This is not because they are evil. Rather, it is because their effective

contribution is at odds with the primary direction the organization needs to move. If you are

leading an organization, this highly talented and effective person may even be you. If you as a

leader have values different than the board of directors, your efficiency may be a deficiency.

For example, you might introduce a product line out of alignment with the goals of the

company. If you are minister, you may have very noble ministries you start that distract the

energy and focus of the church from its primary mission. If you are a coach, you can turn the

team from offense to defense.

20

Notice, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these. The problem comes with

alignment. We are only as good as our team. Remember, team trumps talent every time. This is

why the Master Leader is crystal clear on the values of the organization. He doesn’t always

come up with the values; many times they are inherited. Yet he or she will always be the

champion of the values in a successful organization. If you are a highly skilled or productive

leader who has had success in another organization but seem to be bumping against a brick

wall in your current organization, this is an area to investigate first. It is one of the hidden

roadblocks of success to the most competent and creative leaders.