Until or unless God makes people able to live for him by causing them to be born again by the Spirit, faithful leaders work in vain to modify external behavior to mimic it. Yet Nehemiah does not teach us that all leadership is pointless; instead, Nehemiah helps us to set our sights more on faithfulness to God than on control over what happens with those whom we are tasked to lead.

Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign, and I established the duties of the priests and Levites, each in his work; and I provided for the wood offering at appointed times, and for the firstfruits. Remember me, O my God, for good. – Nehemiah 13:30–31 (ESV)
The Book of Nehemiah is set in the time of the return of Judah from exile in Babylon. It recounts the trials, travails, and triumphs of Nehemiah, the Persian king’s cupbearer-turned-governor of Judah who does his best to put things in order in Jerusalem. The special emphasis is on the repair and rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem.
The Big Idea of Nehemiah
The Big Idea of Nehemiah can be expressed this way: God is faithful even when his people are not (cf. 2 Tim. 2:13). Over and over again in Nehemiah, the people’s faithfulness wanes and corruption and/or complacency takes root. Nehemiah’s faithfulness is a clear demonstration of God’s preservation of his people, not only in returning them to the land from their exile but also in providing Moses-like leadership to establish them in it.
An Outline of Nehemiah
1-6: Restoration of the Wall
The Book of Nehemiah begins in Persia. It is a story told in the first person, making it one of the very few autobiographical books of the Bible. It begins with bad news. Nehemiah learns that the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are destroyed. In response, Nehemiah weeps, mourns, and confesses sins to God in prayer.
We learn that Nehemiah was a cupbearer to the king of Persia. Seeing his downcast countenance, the king asks Nehemiah what the matter is. Nehemiah tells him, and in response, the king grants all of Nehemiah’s requests and more.
So far, so good. But very quickly we meet Sanballat and Tobiah, two men highly opposed to the Jews’ welfare and well-positioned to hinder progress.
After inspecting the wall by night, Nehemiah rallies the people to rebuild the wall. Chapter three describes the work. In chapter four Sanballat and Tobiah do what they can to discourage the work. When words fail, they plan an attack. But the people arm themselves and make good progress.
In chapter five, Nehemiah becomes aware of complaints from some Jews that they are being forced into servitude for debts to their fellow Jews. Nehemiah becomes angry and formally rebukes the nobles and officials for charging interest and taking the people’s inheritance from them, which is prohibited by the Law of Moses (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:36-37; Deut. 23:19-20).
We learn that Nehemiah serves as governor during this time. During a twelve-year span, Nehemiah claims that he leads with integrity and fairness. More than that, he relinquishes some of his claims on the people to lighten their burden. Nehemiah concludes this note, and chapter five with it, with a plea to God to remember the good that he has done for the people.
In chapter six, Tobiah and Sanballat make another concerted effort to stop the rebuilding project. They gradually escalate their misinformation campaign from lures to open threats and lies. Nehemiah does not give in, but even his own countrymen seek to lead him astray with false prophecies. Nehemiah is beset by enemies from without and within who want to discredit him and make him afraid. Nevertheless, Nehemiah perseveres and the wall is finished. As a result, it is the enemies who fear. Yet still, all the time Tobiah continues to send letters and send his cronies to wheedle at Nehemiah and cajole him into approving of Tobiah. This is in many ways a study in how a godly person may engage in the political process and what he or she might expect in it.
7-13: Restoration of Worship
In chapter seven, Nehemiah transfers the power of governorship to other men and records a genealogy at God’s prompting. Following this, in chapter eight Ezra the scribe reads and teaches the Law to all the people. The people recognize their disobedience and are grieved. Many leaders come on the second day for Ezra to teach them more from the Law.
Read More
Related Posts:

We must find leaders who choose the better path presented by Paul in this epistle. When they speak, we should hear words of life from our loving Father. And we must seek out those who do not demand submission to their authority, chafe when they are disagreed with, or wield church censures when they are crossed—but ones who lead by Christ-like example, embodying our gentle Savior in speech and in conduct.

There is much talk in the church today about oppressive leadership and spiritual abuse, and for good reason! We can certainly be thankful the conversation is finally above the fold and the church is talking about some much needed issues that have plagued her for far longer than we’d like to admit.
That said, there is a good deal of course-correcting taking place and putting off negative behavior, but we may be wanting for positive articulation of what we should be looking for in our spiritual leaders. What type of leadership qualities ought we be seeking—not just the types we should be avoiding or removing? How should those in authority be conducting themselves when it comes to care for the flock? The Apostle Paul in the book of Philemon gives us just such an example of winsome, gospel appeal, as compared to legal demands and dictatorial authority.
You recall the book of course. Onesimus, a runaway slave from the Colossian Church, fled from his wealthy land owner, Philemon, and ended up in Rome to find safe quarter. There he encountered an imprisoned Apostle Paul, came under his evangelistic efforts, and as a result was converted to Christ. Onesimus is then sent back to the church in Colossae, which met in his master’s home, with letter in hand from the Apostle to Philemon.
Pause here for a moment. Onesimus’ life is forfeit. In a best case scenario, he would be thrown into prison until he was able to pay back the value of everything stolen and defrauded from Philemon. Far worse consequences than that could be justified under the law at such a time. It is into this context that Paul pleads for Onesimus to be forgiven his debt and for Philemon to receive him, not as a runaway slave forever indebted, but as a brother in Christ, a fellow heir of the Kingdom, and as an equal member of the church!
Instead of making demands, and without appeal to his apostolic authority, this letter reads as a gentle entreaty to a friend and brother to exhibit the grace of our infinitely forgiving Father in Heaven.
Notice Paul writes not as the authoritative “Apostle” in verses 1 and 2, but as “a prisoner” and places himself shoulder-to-shoulder with Philemon, his wife, and their son by calling them brothers, sister, fellow workers and fellow soldiers. He then reminds them how thankful he is for their love for all the saints and how they have refreshed the hearts of so many—of which Onesimus would now be one (vs. 4-7).
Read More
Related Posts:

The institutional church is comprised of individuals who gather on the Lord’s Day and then scatter into the world to live out their respective callings before God. Consequently, the institutional church’s primary ministry on Sunday is not to reform the institutions of this world, or even reach the world for Christ, but to build up the saints in their worship of God. To that end, it is primarily on Sunday that the church’s members become equipped to fulfill their respective callings in the world, which includes (a) the mission work of the institutional church as well as (b) bringing biblical precepts to bear upon the ideologies of political, economic, and social institutions.

This interview conducted by Crossway caught my attention. It has to do with the institutional church, its spirituality, and Christian nationalism. My interest is limited to how the institutional church, which is made up of many members, is to relate to temporal yet lawful institutions in the world.
I find two quotes from the interview to be a bit puzzling.
“No other institution is called to go into all the world and preach the gospel. The family? No. The state? No. The university? No. The publisher isn’t called to go into all the world and preach the gospel. That call is given to the church. And if the church becomes chiefly a political, economic, or social institution, it becomes an institution that is just one more form of kind of shouted political slogans in the cacophony and all the noise of our very polarized politicized age. If the church just becomes that, it loses that voice. It loses its proper agency. It loses its grip and its grasp on the gospel. And if the church loses the gospel, who has it? Where is the gospel? The church is called to preach the gospel to the world.”
It is one thing for the institutional church to become a political mouthpiece from the pulpit, and quite another thing for the institutional church to posses a proper political zeal in the world. It seems somewhat obvious that one size doesn’t fit all.
A Christian congressman who spends fifty hours a week embroiled in the political battle for the life of the unborn, or defending the rights of the oppressed, can be running God’s errand. Yet it’s hard to apply the same balance of work and life to the institutional church’s pulpit ministry. Consequently, phrases like “the church becomes chiefly a political…”, and “the church is called to preach the gospel” should connote different meaning, with vastly different contextual demands, depending upon the respective callings of the many members of the one institutional church.
Back to Basics:
The institutional church is comprised of individuals who gather on the Lord’s Day and then scatter into the world to live out their respective callings before God. Consequently, the institutional church’s primary ministry on Sunday is not to reform the institutions of this world, or even reach the world for Christ, but to build up the saints in their worship of God. To that end, it is primarily on Sunday that the church’s members become equipped to fulfill their respective callings in the world, which includes (a) the mission work of the institutional church as well as (b) bringing biblical precepts to bear upon the ideologies of political, economic, and social institutions.
Institutional church members hardly can avoid interacting with, if not even being members of, other institutions such as family, civil government, and education. Accordingly, the institutional church’s members must be equipped to pull down the philosophical strongholds of the age lest they become (a) fideistic (b) impotently silent in her witness and / or (c) taken captive by the elementary principles of the world. To that end, there is a Christian duty to be able and willing to disarm the enemies of God, not just with kindness but a winsome word in season that has the power to tumble the institutional gods, if not at least silence their idolatrous worshippers.
Leaving aside how a minister of the gospel might train its congregation to think biblically in all areas of life (yet without hindering the church’s spirituality), as a general rule we might hope that the minister’s Sunday sermon would be heavier and more exhaustively focused on exegesis and indicatives, and perhaps lighter and more generally focused when it comes to personal application and imperatives regarding influencing the institutions of this world. That should be a given.
Admittedly, men like Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy likely lapsed into seasons of spiritual amnesia regarding their gospel-calling by turning their focus toward civil and political interests. Notwithstanding, such spiritual infidelity does not so neatly apply to the church’s members who on Monday morning scatter into the world in the service of the church militant. Indeed, when all is well, we can expect the church’s message on Sundays to look vastly different from its members’ message(s) the other six days of the week. Need it be even said that the minister who is preaching to his congregation the riches of the first fourteen verses of Ephesians has a different set of providential constraints and freedoms than the Christian plumber who is changing out a hot water tank, or the Christian businessman who accepts an invitation for a beer after work with his politically minded and irreligious colleagues?
Read More
Related Posts: