A man who says I'm not a leader and acts accordingly is either uninformed or he's living in rebellion against God's design. Men were created to lead in a culture that is intent on limiting and even destroying male leadership. Obedience to Christ requires you and I to swim hard against that tide for the benefits of our family and the church and for the glory of God.

Why did God create you as a man and not a woman? In short, it is, it was to be a leader, to be a provider, and to be a protector. That's not everything, but at its base, the foundation and core of what you are to be as a man before everything else is a leader, a provider, and a protector.

You can do a lot of other things in life, but you will never find contentment outside of God's perfect design and fulfilling his most basic purposes and role for you and I. To understand your fundamental role on the earth, we must, and we will, go back to the beginning, to Genesis.

Man being created a leader is central in the beauty of creation, the perfection of the Garden of Eden, as short as that was, and then it is central to the fall of mankind. Romans 5, 12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." You've probably heard that verse before.

That verse tells us that Adam sinned first, doesn't it? It was through Adam that sin entered the world. There's a verse in 1 Timothy, chapter 2, verse 14, that says, "It was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression." These verses have been pitted against each other by those with an alternative agenda to claim that there's some kind of confusion.

Some have used 1 Timothy 2, 14 to indicate that Adam was not deceived and therefore Eve sinned first. But as Romans says, sin entered the world into the world through Adam. Are these in conflict? Which is it? Was Eve the first to sin or was Adam? And that question is critical because, first of all, the Bible's not contradictory, but the reconciliation of the apparent conflict that is presented in these verses explodes with import and meaning for every man on this earth, including you and me.

If you understand that the first sin in the Garden of Eden was not eating of the tree, it all falls into place, and the obligation of every man to lead jumps off the page. Conversely, if you believe that the first sin was eating of the tree, you cannot reconcile these two verses and you miss God's purpose for man.

We learn from Genesis, chapter 3, and if you have your Bible, you may want to turn back to Genesis 3, that we learn there that in the race to sin first, it was almost a tie. But Adam won or lost. He sinned first. Adam's sin was this. He failed to lead his wife and to protect her from the snare and the trap of sin.

That was the first sin in the garden. Adam's sin is explicitly described in Genesis, chapter 3, verse 17. When God is pronouncing the curse on the woman, the serpent, and the man, and in verse 17 is the indictment, and after that is the punishment. The indictment is to Adam he said, "Because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying you shall not eat from it, cursed is the ground because of you, in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life." What does that mean?

What happened? Well, Adam didn't lead, and he joined Eve in her sin. See, that word "listen," the word "because you have listened to the voice of your wife," that means to hear, to obey, to yield, and consent. Adam did all of that. He yielded to the will of his wife Eve, and as you read the devastating passage at the beginning of chapter 3 in Genesis, the account of the first sin, you see what happened.

And as I read this, I want you to ask yourself the question, "Where is Adam?" Verse 1, "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, and he said to the woman, the serpent said to the woman, 'Where is Adam?' Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?' The woman said to the serpent, 'Where is Adam?' From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat, but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it or you will die.'" Verse 4, "The serpent said to the woman, 'Any sign of Adam yet?

You surely will not die, for God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Verse 6, "Where's Adam? When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took," where's Adam?

"She took from its fruit and ate." Ah, here's Adam. "She gave also to her husband with her and he ate." Adam is mentioned for the first time in verse 6, but the answer to the question, "Where is Adam?" is clear. He was right next to Eve the entire time.

He allowed Eve to be deceived and to act on that deception, and then he joined her. And sadly we know from 1 Timothy 2, what I already read you, is Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. He watched his wife act on what he knew was a lie. He did not protect her, he did not lead her, exactly as it says in Genesis 3 17.

He failed in his role as the spiritual and physical leader and ceded his leadership, the leadership of his wife, to Satan. In Adam's original sin is a profound lesson and a warning and an explanation, if you will, of God's design for man. Every man is to lead. That is what we were created to do and be.

You and I were not all created to be presidents, the CEO, a military general, head coach, elder, whatever the titles are, not all of us were created to do that, but you were created to lead a woman. With rare exception, every one of us was created to be a husband, and should the Lord provide children to be a father.

There was one time in the creation account in Genesis 2 when God said, "It is not good." You all know what that is, right? It is not good for a man to be alone in all God's men said. Oh man, that was weak. We'll work on that. A few more sessions, we'll work on that.

It is not good for a man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him. Marriage is not optional. Leadership is not optional. If you're single, prepare accordingly. If you're married, it's already a reality. For those who are single, 1 Corinthians says you've either chosen or you've been called to singleness, to devote yourself to ministry without encumbrance or distraction.

The only context for that ministry is in the church. You are not relieved from being a leader if you're single. That is why every man in the church is called the biblical spiritual leadership. By the way, this is not to say that women don't lead. I want to clear that up, of course.

The Bible describes many women in leadership roles. History provides many examples, innumerable examples of effective female leadership. However, in this series, we're going to be exploring the context, the qualification, and the demands on you and I as a man to lead. One more time, leadership for a man is not optional, but we must be and we will be careful to explain exactly what that means in this session and in coming sessions.

There's a handout, and it's designed for you to take notes, to fill in some blanks, and one of the blanks there that you need to fill in that you've probably gotten by now is male equals leader. A man is a leader, and in this world, the connection between male and leader is purposefully and regularly tangled up in cultural and practical challenges.

Brad mentioned that situation that we live in in our current culture. The concept of leadership, as with everything else, is clear in the Bible. It's muddled, confused, and twisted by the world, and this shouldn't be a surprise. Satan is the ruler of this world, and he commenced his attack on manhood almost immediately in the Garden of Eden.

We just read about it, and that attack led by Satan has not ended. Satan is the father of lies, and as with everything else, he has sustained the battle to defeat biblical manhood armed with lies. Many of those lies are accepted and adopted by men in the church without even realizing it.

I'm going to give you a list here of common beliefs about leadership that are in fact not true. First, the most skilled man is the leader. The wealthiest man is the leader. The most popular man is the leader. Popularity is a necessity for leadership. In fact, it's a qualification.

It's not true. The best communicator is the leader. Or said another way, a man that is not a great communicator cannot lead. That is not true. The strongest man physically is the leader. Said another way, physical weakness disqualifies a man from leadership. That's not true. A Christian man has an obligation to seek promotion in leadership roles outside the church.

That's not true. Here's one of the most insidious deceptions even in the church, and it's this. Home is the one place where a man can relax and put the leadership stuff in neutral. After all, the pursuit of leadership at work allows us to provide for our family, and goodness, isn't that what we're called to do?

Therefore, when I come home at the end of the day, I'm going to let my wife take care of all of that. None of that is biblical. None of that is true. Leadership success outside the church is a qualification for leadership in the church. That's not true. Another deception is that a leader must never show humility.

Humility is another word for weakness, and weakness is the death of leadership. That's not true. And I could go on. There's a lot of things we believe about leadership that the Bible says are diametrically opposed to God's design for leadership. All these false concepts of leadership are dispelled by the Bible, and we're going to be addressing these in coming sessions.

These falsities confuse and diffuse the clarity and the simple truth of the Bible, and that's to our peril. One of the factors that's confusing is the two types of leadership that we see, particularly those of us in the church, that we see in front of us all the time -- secular leadership and spiritual leadership.

And understanding the difference between those two is important, and we're going to spend the rest of our time addressing that. I think it helps both in understanding what the Bible has called you to and to recognize the difference between that and secular leadership, and let's define terms. This is my definition.

A biblical spiritual leader is a Christian who loves, serves, and directs those in his care in accordance with what the Bible says about the appropriate exercise of leadership. A secular leader is a secular man directing those in his care in accordance with his education, his training, the latest fad in management theory, or his own desires and goals.

And just a footnote, there are secular leaders in churches all over the world. It's one of the greatest dangers to the church. The distinction between a biblical spiritual leader and a secular leader is important. We're called -- you and I are called to biblical spiritual leadership. For many here tonight, what we know and understand about leadership is almost entirely secular, and we get into a lot of trouble taking what we learned at work about leadership in terms of thinking and methods and principles, and we take that to our home or we bring it into the church.

Many men have an understanding of leadership that they know from work or observation in the secular world, and they bring that to their leadership in the church, and this can be dangerous since biblical spiritual leadership required by the head of the church is very different from the principles of secular leadership.

And one way to understand the vast difference between those two is to consider how successful leadership is measured in the secular world compared to how the Bible describes successful spiritual leadership. Successful secular leadership is measured almost entirely by results, and if you work in the world or you observe the world, you know this is true.

Successful secular leadership is not measured by effort, just win. Results such as profit for a CEO, wins for a coach, a military victory for the military, or any other metric you can think of is generally how secular leadership success is defined. A coach in the NFL who delivers four wins in a season will likely be unemployed at the end of the season and will not be considered to be a great leader.

That same coach a few years later wins a few Super Bowls. The assumption is that's a great leader. Similarly, a CEO either delivers the profits or he'll be replaced by someone who will, a better leader. Successful secular leadership is measured by results. Biblical spiritual leadership is entirely different. The results are the Lord's.

Successful spiritual leadership is faithful effort and work, not the results. First Corinthians 3, 6, and 7, "I planted, I watered, but God was causing the growth." Do you see it? We plant, we water, God causes the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything but God who causes the growth.

You see our role as biblical spiritual leaders is to plant and to water and to pray for God to take it from there, to do what he will. In fact, taking credit for the results is stealing the glory of God. Secular leadership is not measured by effort. It is measured by results.

Spiritual leadership is measured by effort and not results. There's another example of the difference between secular and spiritual leadership, and that is personal morality. A secular leader that delivers results is successful regardless of the state of his personal life. Secular leadership is rarely, if ever, evaluated based on personal or private morality.

The current crop of politicians in this country is evidence enough of that, isn't it? If a field general in the military wins the war, his personal life matters to nobody. He's called a successful leader. His personal life can be a complete wreckage, and he's still considered a great leader.

This is not so for biblical spiritual leaders. This is a very big difference. Secular leaders hide their personal life. They're expected to hide their personal life. Biblical spiritual leaders are called to live life in a fishbowl, under the spotlight, for everyone to see. Your life, men, as a leader is to be an example, not in private, but in private and in public.

And this is best described in Hebrews 13, 7. "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you, and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith." Your personal and public life are the same. They should be the same, and the faithfulness and fidelity demonstrated in your life is that measure of success.

This is the result that matters in biblical spiritual leadership, the consistency, the integrity, and the fidelity of your life. Why? Because those who follow you, you want them to say, "I remember him. He led me. He spoke the word of God to me, and considering the results of his conduct, I was able to imitate his faith." That's spiritual leadership.

So, we've seen dramatic differences between how successful secular leadership is evaluated and how spiritual leadership is defined, and there's one more difference to think about, and that is this. The methods of good and successful leadership, secular leadership, are constantly changing. If you're one of those men who loves to read leadership books, you know there's always a new book to read, and it always says something a little bit different.

That industry is massive, and it's driven by successful people and their new ideas. The successful businessman, usually designated such because of his wealth, is asked to write a book or speak at a conference or teach a class in a university on leadership. His personality and experience define and animate his explanation of how he achieves success and how you can lead just like him.

This creates a large amount of material out there on leadership, and I can make the case from the leadership body of knowledge that successful leadership is either emotional or stoic. I can make the case from the body of knowledge that successful secular leadership is angry or that it's gentle.

I can make the case from books that it's intense or that successful leadership is laid back, hands-off, all kinds of contradictory evidence. The contrast is that biblical spiritual leadership success, if you will, and methodology is simple, it's clear, and it never changes. It's not subject to changes in culture, nationality, language, politics, or personality.

Effective and biblical spiritual leadership is always based on exemplary character, a faithful life, and doctrinal fidelity. That's it. Hebrews 13. "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you, and considering the results of their conduct, imitate their faith." That's biblical spiritual leadership. So secular leadership is measured by results.

Spiritual leadership is measured by faithfulness in mission and in life. Let me illustrate it this way. You've heard the saying, I think, maybe I'm going to date myself here, that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Have you heard that? Well, let's not talk about horses.

Let's just say you can lead people to water, but you can't make them drink. Same principle. A secular leadership expert will tell you that the success of your leadership is to get them to the water, and the measure of success is whether they drink it. If they do, you're successful.

If they don't, you're not successful. Spiritual leadership, using that same story, is saying you get them to the water, you drink it yourself, and you pray that they follow your example. That's the significant difference between secular leadership and biblical spiritual leadership. And of course, what we're dealing with here is not drinking water, but you're leading them, let's say, to the truth of God's Word.

You're explaining it to them. You're showing them by your own life, and that's the line, and you pray that the Lord takes it from there, to the praise of Christ and to the benefit in their own life. There may be no better illustration. Again, continuing in this theme, I want you to understand there's a difference between secular leadership and biblical spiritual leadership, and I think there's a great illustration of this contrasting secular worldly leadership with biblical spiritual leadership in the life and experience of one man with two names, Saul and Paul.

He's the same guy. He was saved. Before he was saved, he was referred to in the Bible by his Jewish name of Saul. He was a religious leader in a fairly young age. He was appointed a Pharisee, and his leadership is described in some detail in the Bible. He was radically saved.

You can read about that in Acts chapter 9, and was thereafter known as the Apostle Paul. His leadership as the Apostle Paul of the new church is well documented in the New Testament. Same guy, entirely different leadership, and I want to look at that contrast tonight. Saul's leadership was natural.

He was a natural leader. His leadership was unbiblical. It was incredibly effective, and it was violent. Paul's leadership had some similarities to Saul's. He was the same guy, but now he's saved. Paul's spiritual leadership was biblical. It was in accordance with God's design. It was appropriate in the context, and as a result, it was significantly different and amazingly effective.

Let's look at several passages where Paul compares and contrasts his leadership before Christ and after Christ, and I'll let Scripture provide the biography of Saul and Paul. Same guy. We start in Philippians 3, and on your handout, there is a box with two squares. On one side, it says Saul, and on the other, it says Paul, and as we go through these passages pretty quickly, I would encourage you to just note what are the characteristics of Saul's leadership?

What are the characteristics of Paul's leadership? I think you'll see the dramatic difference. Philippians 3, starting in verse 4, Paul says about Saul, same guy, "If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more circumcise the eighth day of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, as to the law of Pharisee, as to Zeal, a persecutor of the church, as to the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless." Those are the bonafides of Saul.

Paul is saying that Saul's leadership was confident, it was qualified, it was recognized, it was passionate, and he even says he had a good reputation. It was qualified. He talks about confidence in the flesh. He was a confident leader. He talks about his qualification. Saul had the right pedigree, the right education, the right training.

He came from the right family. He was an intelligent man. He had the right friends, the right social standing, all of it. Saul had the package. He was even circumcised on the eighth day, and he puts that in there basically to say he was qualified on every level. He was appointed a Pharisee.

Other people recognized Saul's leadership and put him in to a very coveted role. His leadership was passionate. He talks about zeal, and we'll see more about this in another passage, but that word "zeal" in verse 6 is a word that's used to describe the highest virtue ascribed to religious Jews of that day.

If you wanted to lead the Jews, you needed to lead with zeal. All of that describes a strong, natural leader. He was highly effective, and he was a very successful leader in a false religion. Yet none of those skills impressed God. This is Paul's point in Philippians 3, by the way.

If you look at the context of this later, that's Paul's point. None of those impressed God. All these great qualifications did nothing to qualify him for spiritual leadership. Success outside the church does not qualify you for leadership in the church. Throughout Paul's account of his life, there's another stark contrast that I think we need to look at.

Saul's actions, his actions and his leadership were motivated by a love for the mission and an absolute hatred for the people that got in the way. And we want to see this in Acts 7, 8, and 9. The end of Acts chapter 7 is a description of the murder of Stephen.

Stephen had just confronted the religious leaders. You can read it later. We don't have time. I think you'll get the point here in a moment. They didn't really like what Stephen had to say. In Acts chapter 7, verse 54, it says, "Now when they heard this," these are the people that Stephen had just confronted with the truth of the gospel, "they were cut to the quick and they began gnashing their teeth at him." Can you imagine that scene?

Verse 55, it goes on to say, "Being full of the Holy Spirit, Stephen gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.'" They did not like that response.

Verse 55, or 58, 57, excuse me, "But when they cried out with a loud voice and covered their ears, and they rushed at him with one impulse, when they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him. And the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul." It's the first mention of Saul in Scripture.

We learn a few things in that short phrase. He was relatively young, and yet he was already a leader. The fact that people would lay robes at his feet indicates he was one of the leaders, if not the leader, of the murder. "Stephen dies," goes on in Acts chapter 8, verse 1, "Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death.

And on that day, a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." Verse 2, "Some devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentations to him, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.

But Saul," it says in verse 3, "began ravaging the church, entering house after house, dragging off men and women. He put them in prison." Saul was a hater. He was an incredible leader. He loved the mission, and he hated the people that got in the way. And Acts chapter 9 says, "Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the way," which is a way of saying Christians, "if he found any Christians, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem." Saul was driven by hatred.

His leadership was an extreme of strong, effective, we don't like it, but it was effective, godless, and secular leadership. Now the contrast. We're going to look at Paul. Remember, same guy. You can read later in Acts 9, the amazing transformation of Paul on the road to Damascus. Now you know what he was going to Damascus to do.

And Christ saved him. And later, Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians chapter 2 about his leadership that was motivated and marked by love. You can't miss this contrast. Verse 7, "But we prove to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her children. Having so fond an affection for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us.

For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day, so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaim to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and so is God. How devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behave towards you believers, just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children." What a difference.

Gentle, fond affection, imparting his life. He's describing how he's giving himself up for them. He's laboring on their behalf, his blameless behavior towards them, exhorting them, encouraging and imploring. That's biblical spiritual leadership. How many of us in this room have a wife who would describe our leadership that way?

How many of us with children might agree with that description of our leadership? That's what biblical leadership looks like. And as we'll see, the theme of Paul's loving and purposeful leadership of the same people he once tried to exterminate is a dramatic illustration of the power of the gospel and what biblical spiritual leadership looks like.

First Timothy chapter 1, starting in verse 12, the autobiography of Saul and Paul, same guy, written by Paul, describing his leadership before Christ, his leadership after Christ. "I thank Christ Jesus, our Lord, who has strengthened me because he considered me faithful, putting me into service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent aggressor.

Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance that Christ Jesus came in the world to save sinners, among whom I'm foremost of all.

Yet for this reason I found mercy." What does this have to do with leadership? You'll note the ungodly leadership of Saul describing his pride, his zealotry, his credentials, his hatred, contrasted with the biblical leadership of Paul, same guy, who was humble, expressing gratitude and recognition that God empowered and drives his leadership.

Saul, the hater, the very effective leader, was a blasphemer, a persecutor, a violent aggressor, and he calls himself ignorant and godless. Paul, the biblical spiritual leader, was thankful and humble. He understood that God strengthened him. God considered him faithful. God put him into service. God extended him mercy and grace, and God was patient with him.

He says all of that. It was all about Christ for Paul, not his own skills, not his own knowledge, his experience. He understood that Saul did not do God any favors by switching sides. Paul understood that in spite of his history and his weaknesses, God picked him up and used him, and any and all of us would do well to regularly remind ourselves of that truth.

Our leadership, yes, it's commanded by God, but it's motivated and animated by God. In 2 Corinthians, starting in verse 11, we're not going to look. It's a long passage. It extends into chapter 12. You can read it later on. There's an extended description of Paul's leadership that can be summed up as sacrificial service.

That's biblical spiritual service. He describes imprisonments, beatings, enduring 39 lashes five different times, being beaten with rods. He was stoned. He was shipwrecked. There's a long list of dangers that he endured. All was endured for the sake of Christ and for the building up of Christ's church for the people that he once wanted to kill.

What a contrast from aggressive violence to strength and courage in the face of unspeakable persecutions. His leadership was once animated by hatred. It became driven and sustained by love, and it manifested itself in service to the people he was called to lead. In Galatians chapter 1, it's another autobiographical passage where Paul, in the context of a larger point, is describing two types of leadership, Saul's and Paul's.

Same guy. It's very clear, "For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries, among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions." That's a description of Saul's leadership.

It was mission-oriented, it was successful, and it was an example to other people who wanted to be like him. He was advancing beyond anybody else. Verse 15, those amazing words, "But God changes everything. The God who set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through his grace was pleased to reveal his son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles." Saul's leadership was mission-oriented, it was successful, it was an example.

Paul's leadership was very different. It was humble. It was a different mission. He talked about preaching Christ now. It's a completely different mission. It's hard work. You can read later in Galatians 1 and into chapter 2 that Paul had to study and learn and prepare for leadership. It took work.

You know, he was exceptionally well-trained and learned it as Saul, and none of that qualified him for spiritual leadership. He understood he knew nothing. Leadership takes preparation and training. He speaks of a zeal, a different zeal, an unbending fidelity to truth and holiness against the backdrop of love, not hate.

And he was courageous. I love this. Galatians 2.11, "When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned." And you may say, "Whoa, what's the context there?" Don't worry about it. Just think about this for a minute. This is Paul. You can see that Paul hasn't changed in personality or leadership skill, right?

He's not afraid to call somebody out to their face. You can see a bit of the old Saul and the new Paul. The difference is the old Saul probably would have done what to Cephas? Killed him or wanted to. The new Paul addresses the issue in a biblical way, still deals with the issue.

But verse 11 says that Cephas stood condemned, and that wasn't Paul's condemnation. It was condemnation before the Lord where there is a sense of Paul's motivation to warn others, but also to correct Cephas so that he would avoid the consequences of that condemnation. That's biblical spiritual leadership. Paul's leadership was different from Saul's.

Same guy, new heart, different leadership. And this section of Galatians ends with a very important verse that is a reminder. Biblical spiritual leadership is not about the advancement of our agenda. Secular leadership is about agendas, goals, missions. Our agenda is about somebody else's goals, somebody else's mission. Galatians 2, "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me, in the life which I now live.

I live in the flesh. I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me. Why would I not give myself up for those who the Lord has put under my care that I've been called to lead?" Once again, you see the repeated themes of humility, gratitude, faith, service, and submission to the aims and the agenda of somebody else, Jesus Christ.

Saul was successful based on social standing, his credentials, and the example of his hateful and violent zealotry. Paul was transformed. He had a different mission, different motives, and an entirely different mode of leadership. Let me close the circle. Men, brothers in Christ, you are a leader. You may feel like you're not very effective, you may be a bit confused, and perhaps you've never considered the non-negotiable nature of that calling, but it's your burden to lead in a biblical way.

It's also your joy to know that God has put you into service and he will bless faithful leadership. It's also your confidence that successful leadership is not measured by results, but in your fidelity to truth, your own submission and obedience to Christ, and in your love for those who are in your care.

A lot of men listen to something like this and they conclude, "I can never do this. I'm not Paul. I'm not eloquent. I'm afraid. I'm weak. You tell me I'm supposed to lead my wife, but you don't know my wife? You tell me I'm supposed to lead my children, but my children don't want me to lead them?" I want to encourage you with Paul's description of his own leadership as we close.

First Corinthians chapter 2, verse 1, "When I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God, for I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but it was in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." You may feel like you have all the weaknesses that Paul has and more.

You need to understand that biblical leadership is a demonstration of the power of God, the Spirit of God, and the gospel. So men, be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong, lead. Every man in this room was built to lead. Let me close this in prayer.

Lord, thank you for your word again. Lord, I pray for every man in the sound of my voice, that you would capture their hearts, that you would use your scripture to inspire their leadership, to inform their leadership. And Lord, as we go through this series alongside our studying Ecclesiastes, Lord, it's our desire that when it's all said and done that we fear you and we obey you, and that our leadership is a picture of what you would have it to be.

Lord, be with these men now as they go to discussion groups. Lord, I pray that it is a fruitful time. It is a time of reflection on your word and the truth of it and the application to each of our lives. We pray this in Christ's name. Amen.