The story of Moses is rich with lessons of leadership. As a leader, Moses exemplifies, patience, grace, justice, discipline, charisma, theological stimulation, fidelity, and the list goes on. There are other critical dynamics of Mosaic leadership, however, that commonly go overlooked. Namely, Moses’ story clarifies the critical leadership dynamic of calling and its connection with self-actualization. Through the story of Moses, it is evident that the nature of the leader’s call directly reflects one’s own personal testimony of redemption and coming to self-actualization.
In considering calling, it is not merely the fact that Moses is obedient to his call to deliver the people of Israel from Egypt that makes him a successful leader, rather, it is that Moses’ call and commission directly reflect his very own testimony of redemption that is worth noting. Moses is called to lead Israel through the very kind of deliverance that he himself first experienced as an individual, and that deliverance being distinctly characterized by Moses taking on an identity that was rooted in a personal relationship with Yahweh. Yahweh brought a new Moses into existence by inviting him into a relationship with himself. In this sense, Moses is called to accomplish in the life of Israel mirrors that which Yahweh accomplished in Moses’ very own life first as an individual. Moses’ testimony of redemption, in principle, is the same as Israel’s testimony of deliverance from Egypt and desert wandering. Moses leads the people of Israel out of their slavery and into their identity as a nation via a covenantal relationship with Yahweh the same way he himself was led out of being into a desert wandering nomad into a nation-creator.
Moses’ identity problem that dominates Exodus 2 sets the context for better understanding his call to leadership in chapter 3. Moses, while being born an Israelite, was adopted into the family of Pharaoh (irony). These circumstances that characterize Moses’ upbringing resulted in a double rejection and absent of national/religious/familial identity. First, Moses was not entirely Egyptian because people knew that he was of Hebrew descent. The stigma that would have come from having the blood of a slave would have hung heavy over Moses’ daily interaction with the royal family. Moses’ violent attack of the Egyptian found in Exodus 2:11-12 probably demonstrates not only a passion for the Hebrew people, but also a resentment for Egyptians. If Moses was fully accepted as an Egyptian, he probably would have found a more diplomatic way of treating the problem of Hebrew abuse (especially since he had influence that came from being a member of the royal family). Second, as demonstrated in Exodus 2:13-14, Moses was also rejected by his own people. These events together suggest that Moses was never considered to be fully Egyptian by the Egyptians, nor Hebrew by the Hebrews, thus leaving Moses with no identity in the desert. Also underlining Moses’ identity problem is the name he gives his son, Gershom, meaning “foreigner”. Moses has no family and no home and no land.
This is the context for both Moses’ redemption and calling. It is in the midst of the desert, struggling with who he is, that Yahweh appears and commissions him to deliver the very people who rejected him. It’s also interesting to observe that Moses’ circumstances, prior to being called, also describe the circumstances of the people he is called to lead out of slavery. Israel, as slaves, have no national identity. I would suggest that what Moses experiences as an individual in Exodus 3 is what the people of Israel must experience as a nation in order to reach self-actualization: an encounter with the Holy, Living God who publicly challenges the paradigm of deity by demonstrating his unique power and earning the trust of witnesses.
Calling being connected to personal testimony and self-actualization is found in other Scriptural call narratives as well. The prophet Isaiah’s testimony of deliverance recorded in Isaiah 6 correlates directly to his commissioning as a prophet. That which Isaiah experiences in chapter 6 is exactly what the people whom he is called to minister to must experience in order for their deliverance from judgment. Yahweh’s prescription for redeeming Isaiah is exactly the prescription for deliverance for the people Isaiah is called to minister to. Isaiah witnesses the power and holiness of Yahweh (Isaiah 6:1-4), which is a catalyst for humiliation, forgiveness, purification (Isaiah 6:5-7) and servant-hood (Isaiah 6:8). In the exact same manner, in order for the people of Judah to go from judgment to hope they must share Isaiah’s experience; they must see and understand the power and holiness of Yahweh, repentance, be forgiven and purified and become servants of the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah’s testimony is directed reflected by his calling. Equally important to note is Isaiah’s ontological calling versus his functional calling. This model not only demonstrates a direct connection between calling and commission, it also demonstrates a change in identity for both prophet and nation. That is, what Isaiah and the nation of Judah are called to be (servants of Yahweh) are inseparable from what they are called to accomplish.
The life and ministry of Jesus also exemplifies this very principle. From the baptism of Jesus, to his death, burial and resurrection, Jesus first experiences that which is necessary for the people to whom he is called to deliver must also experience. Jesus is called to bring people through that which he has been through. Jesus first experiences obedience and deliverance by the hand of God in order for his followers to be delivered into a life of disobedience. So, there is a common theme of the leader’s testimony being reflected in the nature of his/her calling as exemplified in Moses, Isaiah and Jesus Christ (others as well).
Coming back to self-realization, it is clear that at the center of Moses’ and Israel’s testimony is the receiving of an identity. Both Moses as an individual, and Israel as a nation, went from having no identity to being a central entity in the history of civilization. Yahweh first delivered a rejected and lost Moses, then commissioned him to help deliver a rejected and lost Israel. The nature of that deliverance is the act of Yahweh creating a leader (Moses) and a nation (Israel) out of nothing via a personal relationship with Himself. Deliverance for Moses first, and then Israel, meant the realization of their identity being wrapped up in an intimate relationship with their Sovereign Deliverer King via a covenant.
The principles of calling and identity of both the leader and organization scream out
at us in these passages of Scripture. Calling is absolutely necessary both for the leader and the organization. Without calling there is no identity. Calling and self-actualization are inseparable. God’s call to Moses to be a deliverer and call to Israel to be His nation of deliverers imputes an identity to be the individual and the nation. The successful leader and organization, then, is to demonstrate that they are what God has called them to be within the parameters of covenant. At this point, there is power released among the people for cohesiveness and performance that is activated via faith in the truth of the calling. It is in the process of fulfilling the call that everything (organization, members, leader) is transformed.
Very interesting!