jQuery Slider

You are here

New Orleans, Munich, Nehemiah and Lencioni - David Holloway

New Orleans, Munich, Nehemiah and Lencioni

by David Holloway
September 27th 2007

29 September 2007 is the 69th anniversary of the signing of the Munich Agreement, also called the Munich Betrayal. This agreement allowed Hitler to continue rearming until the Nazis had sufficient strength to wage the Second World War and, at the start, on Hitler's terms. Had the Munich Agreement not been signed and Chamberlain not given his "peace in our time" speech, but had Churchill then been in power with his resolution and firmness and with what he called "martial vigour", millions of lives might have been saved. Certainly the result could hardly have been worse.

"Winston Churchill denounced the Agreement in the House of Commons:

'We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi regime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.'

Hitler now regarded Chamberlain with utter contempt ... Hitler had been heard saying: 'If ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella, I'll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers'."

Do we want a "Munich" attitude in the Church when the gospel is at stake?

On Sunday, 30 September, by coincidence (or providence) I am to be preaching on Nehemiah 6 and Nehemiah's refusal to talk with Sanballat and Tabiah and Geshem the Arab - in the plain of Ono (6.1-2). Nehemiah refused to talk four times. Then Sanballat tried another trick to get Nehemiah to "confer" (6.7). Nehemiah was resolute. He would have nothing to do with Sanballat whom Nehemiah already had seen as corrupt and an enemy frustrating the work of God Nehemiah had been called to do.

The pro-gay leadership in the Western Churches, especially in TEC, is doing untold damage to the cause of Christ world-wide and frustrating the work God has called us to do. So surely the talking must now stop and action must be taken as a consequence of the current reality. To repeat, the Primates have said that a failure to give the reassurances required would "at best" continue the existing damage and this "has [not will have] consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion". Communion is broken. Does it not, therefore, mean that it is quite inappropriate for TEC Bishops to be represented at the Lambeth Conference 2008 or on other Anglican bodies? As soon as there is an unambiguous change of heart and mind, immediately, representation could again take place.

What happens now to some extent will be a test of our current leadership. It will be a test of the credibility of the Primates now evaluating this American response. Hooker said that the church is "a society and a society supernatural". Since it is a human "society", the requirements for good leadership need to be met in the church as well as in the wider society.

Perhaps the bestseller The Five Temptations of a CEO by Patrick Lencioni says something that is relevant not only for business leadership but at this time for the Church's leadership.

Lencioni's "Temptation 3″ is "choosing certainty over clarity":

"Many CEOs, especially highly analytical ones, want to ensure that their decisions are correct, which is impossible in a world of imperfect information and uncertainty. Still, executives with a need for precision and correctness often postpone decisions and fail to make their people's deliverables clear. They provide vague and hesitant direction ...

Simple advice for CEOs: make clarity more important than accuracy. Remember that your people will learn more if you take decisive action than if you always wait for more information. And if the decisions you make in the spirit of creating clarity turn out to be wrong when more information becomes available, change plans and explain why. It is your job to risk being wrong. The only real cost to you of being wrong is loss of pride. The cost to your company of not taking the risk of being wrong is paralysis."

---David Holloway is the Vicar of Jesmond in northern England

Subscribe
Get a bi-weekly summary of Anglican news from around the world.
comments powered by Disqus
Trinity School for Ministry
Go To Top