by Thomas Scarborough

Nehemiah, apart from Jesus, may be the most studied leader of the Bible. He receives the attentions of many familiar leadership authors  ¢â‚¬“ among them Oswald Sanders, Bobby Clinton, and Chuck van Engen.

There is the  ¢â‚¬Å“standard model ¢â‚¬  of Nehemiah, which is epitomized by Ted Engstrom. While this is not the only view, it is the dominant view. Engstrom lists  ¢â‚¬Å“three facts [that] stand out ¢â‚¬  about Nehemiah:

 ¢â‚¬Å“We see how great he was as an administrator. He knew what he wanted to do, how it had to be done, and who was to do it  ¢â‚¬ ¦ ¢â‚¬ 

 ¢â‚¬Å“He also succeeded in a program of total mobilization after he determined the plan. Everyone in Jerusalem was involved  ¢â‚¬ ¦ ¢â‚¬  And

 ¢â‚¬Å“We see how Nehemiah achieved perfect coordination … ¢â‚¬ 

Thus Engstrom considers that Nehemiah  ¢â‚¬Å“stands forever as a model for would-be leaders who aspire to the heights of success, because he organized the nation and fulfilled his role as leader. ¢â‚¬ 

There are two things we may notice here:

A very great responsibility falls on the man, Nehemiah. Nehemiah  ¢â‚¬Å“knew ¢â‚¬ , he  ¢â‚¬Å“determined ¢â‚¬ , he  ¢â‚¬Å“succeeded ¢â‚¬ , he  ¢â‚¬Å“achieved ¢â‚¬ . In fact,  ¢â‚¬Å“how great he was ¢â‚¬ .

However,

The model is a daunting one. In previous papers and articles, it is precisely this problem of the demanding model which I identified as a major cause of dropout from ministry.

The purpose here is to explore an alternative model of Nehemiah  ¢â‚¬“ call it the Other Nehemiah. With this in mind, three features of his leadership would seem to stand out:

1. It might seem rather too obvious to point out that a feature of Nehemiah’s leadership is prayer. However, its significance may be overlooked:  ¢â‚¬Å“I sat down and wept  ¢â‚¬ ¦ and prayed … ¢â‚¬  (1:4).  ¢â‚¬Å“The king said to me, What is it you want?  ¢â‚¬ ¦ Then I prayed … ¢â‚¬  (2:4).  ¢â‚¬Å“They all plotted together  ¢â‚¬ ¦ But we prayed … ¢â‚¬  (4:8-9). At its heart, such prayer is a confession of helplessness  ¢â‚¬“ for the reason that it is an appeal to God. My late wife Mirjam obtained her PhD on the subject of the call. She wrote:  ¢â‚¬Å“A true calling must over and over again return to the point where we realize our total poverty in the hands of the Almighty God. ¢â‚¬  The Other Nehemiah, therefore, may not be the great man as much as he is a helpless man.

2. A key feature of Nehemiah’s leadership, as Engstrom notes, is  ¢â‚¬Å“total mobilization ¢â‚¬ . Yet there would seem to be a mechanism behind this which often goes unrecognized:  ¢â‚¬Å“I told them of the gracious hand of my God  ¢â‚¬ ¦ [Then] they replied, Let us start … ¢â‚¬  (2:18). We shall see more of this in Nehemiah in a moment. Here are some parallels in Scripture. In Exodus:  ¢â‚¬Å“[I said,] The God of your fathers appeared to me  ¢â‚¬ ¦ [Then] when they heard that the Lord was concerned about them … ¢â‚¬  (Exod 3:16, 4:30). In Acts:  ¢â‚¬Å“Paul and Barnabas told about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done  ¢â‚¬ ¦ [Then] when they had finished … ¢â‚¬  (Acts 15:12-13). The Other Nehemiah, therefore, may not be the mobilizer as much as he is a man who invokes God.

3. This is further seen, not so much through Nehemiah’s proactive leadership as through his reactive leadership. When faced with challenges, Nehemiah does not so much address the challenges themselves as to point to God. It is his pointing which galvanizes the nation:  ¢â‚¬Å“[I said,] The God of heaven will give us success  ¢â‚¬ ¦ [Then] Eliashib the high priest and his fellow priests went to work ¢â‚¬  (2:20, 3:1).  ¢â‚¬Å“[I said,] Hear us, O our God, for we are despised  ¢â‚¬ ¦ [Then] we rebuilt the wall ¢â‚¬  (4:4,6).  ¢â‚¬Å“[I said,] Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome  ¢â‚¬ ¦ [Then] we all returned to the wall … ¢â‚¬  (4:14-15). In fact, while one might call this a  ¢â‚¬Å“mechanism ¢â‚¬ , it would seem to be in good agreement with the helpless Nehemiah, who effectively appeals to God.

But Nehemiah apparently lost his helpless roots. His appeals to God became less, and his personal interventions more. One sees this in his later leadership:  ¢â‚¬Å“I threw all Tobiah’s household goods out … ¢â‚¬  (13:8).  ¢â‚¬Å“I warned them and said, I will lay hands on you  ¢â‚¬ ¦ ¢â‚¬  (13:21).  ¢â‚¬Å“I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair … ¢â‚¬  (13:25). Also, we find that this shift in Nehemiah’s behavior is accompanied by self-recrimination and pleas to God for mercy:  ¢â‚¬Å“O my God, do not blot out what I have so faithfully done … ¢â‚¬  (13:14).  ¢â‚¬Å“O my God, show mercy to me according to your great love … ¢â‚¬  (13:22).  ¢â‚¬Å“Remember me with favor, O my God … ¢â‚¬  (13:31).

In the later chapters of the book, Nehemiah has changed. There is not a good dynamic here. In fact, the Mishnah takes a dim view of Nehemiah’s later leadership. Nor does the Bible record that Nehemiah  ¢â‚¬Å“finished well ¢â‚¬   ¢â‚¬“ like Moses, or David, or Paul  ¢â‚¬“ not to speak of countless others. Rather we are left hanging, with the last words of Nehemiah echoing in our heads:  ¢â‚¬Å“Remember me … ¢â‚¬ 

Therefore four phases may be seen in Nehemiah: an initiatory phase (in Babylon), a proactive leadership (on his arrival in Jerusalem), a reactive-proactive phase (in the face of opposition)  ¢â‚¬“ and finally an end phase (an irascible Nehemiah, apparently).

What is it, then, that characterized Nehemiah’s later leadership? Perhaps he sought not so much to appeal to an awesome God as he did before, but to seize the personal initiative  ¢â‚¬“ to be the man who  ¢â‚¬Å“knew ¢â‚¬ , who  ¢â‚¬Å“determined ¢â‚¬ , who  ¢â‚¬Å“succeeded ¢â‚¬ , who  ¢â‚¬Å“achieved ¢â‚¬ . In short, the Other Nehemiah may have drifted towards the  ¢â‚¬Å“standard model ¢â‚¬ . Nehemiah was undoubtedly an extraordinary man. Yet the Other Nehemiah would not seem to be the seer  ¢â‚¬“ rather, the helpless man of prayer. He would not seem to be the mobilizer  ¢â‚¬“ rather, the man who talks about a wonderful God. He would not seem to be the trouble-shooter  ¢â‚¬“ rather, the man who calls to faith.

There is an interesting historical parallel. Stephen Phillips debates the issue:  ¢â‚¬Å“Why do religious and spiritual movements grow? ¢â‚¬  He suggests that one may put it down to a belief in a  ¢â‚¬Å“less intellectually rarefied, omniscient, interventionist God ¢â‚¬ . A Church is of course a spiritual movement, and this would imply that such belief is manifested in a growing Church. Perhaps, one might add, in much the same way as it was manifested in the leadership of Nehemiah.

Thomas Scarborough is the minister of an urban Congregational Church in Cape Town, where he has ministered for 18 years. He holds Master ¢â‚¬â„¢s degrees in Church Leadership from Fuller Theological Seminary and the South African Theological Seminary.