Adversity Shapes Christian Leaders
As we look at the decisions that Nehemiah took, we should not see his actions in isolation to his social situation. None of us ever takes decisions totally independent of the milieu around us. Worse, many of us fall victims of the prevailing thought-patterns and end up opting for things that are not biblically sound. It is in this light that we should study Nehemiah and the decisions he made.
Nehemiah was in a highly elevated civil position in Persia. He could easily have continued in that job without getting his hands dirty in the task of reconstructing the city of God. He could easily have managed with “concern and prayer”, hoping that God would someday provide a solution. This kind of ‘detached commitment’ is very common among evangelical Christians. They frequently reason that they cannot fix what they have not broken. Nehemiah could easily have reasoned that way because the current situation in Israel and Judah was not his creation. The Jews of his time were mere nominals, paying only lip service to the Scriptures, and often more paganized than than the pagans.
Perhaps the root of it all can be traced to the time of the judges. Eli failed to be a model judge, and people were totally dejected. Still they felt they had some hope in Samuel, who looked a very promising judge. Eventually it became clear that he was no better than his predesessor. As a reaction, the people of God rejected Theocracy, the rule of God, because the key representatives of Theocracy had failed them. They felt that the solution now lay in Monarchy, the rule of a human and visible king. This was a serious error, for they attempted to solve a spiritual problem in a political manner. That led to the rule of Saul, David and Solomon.