Sacrificial SuccessionA BIBLICAL SOLUTION TO TRANSITION CRISIS

PAUL RATTRAY

Copyright

Sacrificial Succession: A Biblical Solution to Transition Crisis

Published 14 April 2014

By Paul Rattray

Published by Sacrificial Succession

26 Spring Myrtle Avenue

Nambour Queensland

Australia

www.sacrificialsuccession.com

This material is provided free-of-charge by the author for the purpose of researching and promoting the ideas presented in this work. This material is made available by the author for the purpose of researching and promoting the ideas presented in this work. You are permitted to share, copy, distribute and transmit this work provided you attribute the ideas in this work to the author and acknowledge that derivative

works should not in any way suggest endorsement of you or your use of this work by the author. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the

resulting work only under the same or similar copyright agreement to this one. i

PrefaceSuccession crisis is a part of many leader-ship transitions today. There are simply not enough leaders ready to hand over or take over leadership. According to Barna Group research the main reason for succession crisis in churches is that self-interest dominates many leadership transitions . Two main succession out-comes result from this self-interest.

First, many predecessors fail to hando-ver leadership in a timely manner to suc-cessors. They either move on before they should or hang around for too long. Second, few successors are prepared spe-cifically as successors by incumbents and those that are tend towards selfishness like their predecessors.

Despite numerous professional plan-ning, management and leadership devel-opment programs, many of which are borrowed from the secular world, succes-sion crisis continues to occur. While there are mitigating factors, such as an aging population, especially in the west and a younger generation prone to avoid corporate leadership, they are peripheral problems.

Rather, the core crisis is that selfish, worldly leadership orientations are obsta-cles to the biblical solution: sacrificial succession. The message of this book is applicable to all who are facing leader-ship transition crisis and want to have more successful successions. This book shares what I am learning about Sacrifi-cial Succession, the altruistic handover of leadership by predecessor for succes-sor success.

Now I know that many of you strive to serve others and minister to them sacrifi-cially. In that sense most of you are good--even great--leaders and manag-ers. However when it comes to the han-dover of leadership to successors, many of your successions are in crisis.

The reason I can say this with certainty is that most of you are either being suc-ceeded by family members or in corpo-rate reshuffles. These worldly leadership successions are, however, challenged by the radically sacrificial succession of Je-sus. It is his sacrificial succession that is the main theme of this book.

ii

By way of background, for the past ten years or so I have had the privilege of be-ing part of growing churches in the Asia Pacific. During this time, thousands have come to Christ and hundreds have been baptised. Now, many of these con-verts have been or are being prepared for Christian leadership.

Personally, I have learned much from the sacrificial ministry of many of these great church leaders, especially those evangelising Muslims and Buddhists. Yet when I asked many of these leaders about their transition plans and reflected on my own leadership successions, there was a strong sense of unease.

The truth is most of us acknowledged that we are largely unprepared for succes-sion. Research shows that we are in good company. Even in the wealthiest and most well resourced secular organisa-tions, successions are some of the most difficult transitions to deal with because they are so politically and emotionally charged . (Due to some of the leadership transitions shared in this book being on-going, exact names and places are with-held to ensure that the identities of these individuals and organisations remain confidential.)

There is no doubt that many leadership transitions are in crisis! Personally con-firming this problem to me is the head of a large and rapidly growing mission with hundreds of full-time workers in the field. He shared openly with me about their aging leadership with few apparent successors.

Another top mission leader lamented that his succession candidates were not yet ready as successors. This was despite their desperate need to transition to a na-tional leadership. Their failure to hand over responsibilities to potential leaders was particularly obvious despite the clear need to do so.

Unfortunately, most of those better pre-pared for a succession have either the dy-nastic handover of leadership to a family member or the corporate reshuffle of top leaders in mind. Anecdotal evidence of dynastic and familial trends comes from the pastors I know who have handed over or are planning to handover leader-ship to their children.

A corporate example of leadership suc-cession comes from the head of an inter-national Christian media organisation. He has prepared a capable local succes-sor yet has his succession plan routinely deferred by a foreign Board of Directors

iii

who prefer maintaining his leadership to the risk of handing leadership over to a younger successor.

With strong corporate governance and relative stability, this sort of managerial leadership transition is widely accepted as best practice. Despite these assump-tions, there is actually little evidence to show that such corporate succession planning is solving the current succes-sion crisis.

Instead, many of the worlds top corpora-tions and leaders remain change-adverse . Unfortunately, they are headed for transition problems, even cri-sis, unless they radically change tack. Given the obvious need for an alterna-tive, I took Solomons wise words to heart and adding one thing to another set about finding out the scheme of more successful successions.

In brief, here is what I am learning about the sacrificial succession of Jesus based on Matthew 20:28. This passage reads in the English Standard Version (ESV): Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (The ESV and the New International Version (NIV) are most often quoted in this book.) From reading this verse in context (Matthew

20:1-28) and studying its original Greek and Aramaic words, there are three must dos for incumbents to help en-sure a sacrificial succession:

> Ministry of successor preparation

> Mediatory sacrifice of leadership

> Mastery of advocacy for successors

Sacrificial successions start with a minis-try of sacrificial service by incumbent and successors. Incumbent preparing al-truistic successors for succession is its primary focus. Following this is the me-diatory sacrifice of leadership by incum-bent for successor success. Making the greater sacrifice and sacrificing mid-tenure are key success factors.

Sacrificial successions end with an ongo-ing mastery of advocacy by succeeded leader for their successors. Preparing a new generation of sacrificial successors is its key post-succession objective.

Please prayerfully consider what I am about to share with you regarding sacrifi-cial succession. Because sacrificial suc-cession is such an unnatural method of succession opposing both dynastic and corporate Christian norms, makes it con-troversial. The fact that Jesus did it

iv

makes sacrificial succession both practi-cal and possible.

My prayer is that you are blessed and challenged by this book about sacrificial succession. It is a work-in-progress for me as I learn more about these spiritual and practical truths and try to put them into practice in my own life and work. As you endeavour to apply these truths may your next succession be even more sacrificial and successful!

Your brother in Christ,

Paul Rattray

v

DedicationThank you, Lord, for inspiring me through your word, especially from Matthew 20:16, about the last coming first and the perfect example of the sacrificial succession of your son, Jesus Christ, that is the basis for this work. Without my na-tional colleagues sacrificing successionally in the difficult mission fields of Indonesia, Myan-mar and East Timor, there would not be the great contemporary examples of sacrificial suc-cession supporting this story. The support of my family during my many extended travels overseas is also invaluable.

In choosing to share about sacrificial succession thanks must first be given to those who have been willing to honestly share their struggles and victories about their handovers of leader-ship. The personal stake that these leaders have in their transitions and the pain, joy, conflicts and victories associated with most leadership successions can really only be related to by those that have been personally through them.

Therefore, special thanks must go to those lead-ers who personally and honestly shared of their often-failed attempts to enact more sacrificial successions in their own organisations. Many lost out in the process. The truth is that the un-natural nature of sacrificial succession is mostly unforgiving of leaders. Jesus forewarned of the risks with sacrificial succession by saying in John 13:16 that no servant is greater than his master. This animosity against those who act sacrificially is especially obvious in organisa-tions that allow the natural selection of kin and position to dominate.

Anyone who has every researched and written anything of substance, and has a family to care for and nurture at the same time, as I do, knows the sacrifices made by them for any writing goal to reach fruition. A big thank you to my

wife, Riani and my four children: Dian, Joshua, Amali and Miesha who have patiently, for the most part, accepted my regular absences during the writing of this book.

To those who willingly set aside time to critique and discuss this book: Simon and Keith, thank you. As another group of contributors, your work is also invaluable. Lastly to you, the reader, thanks for taking the time to read my musing. May your next succession be sacrifi-cial! ~ Paul Rattray

vi

IntroductionIn writing about sacrificial succession, it needs to be clear from the outset that I am talking about the sacrificial transi-tion of leadership from incumbent to suc-cessor. As such, this is book not a study of leadership or even servant leadership per se, except where sacrificial succes-sion is regarded as its logical outcome. In so much as leadership is the art of leading and managing people succession is ultimately the act of giving up leader-ship. Sacrificial succession is the willing-ness to do this sacrificially rather than selfishly.

Before continuing, it is worth briefly ex-plaining seven key definitions about lead-ership succession and transition that will be used and expanded upon in the ensu-ing chapters. They are Succession Orien-tations, Succession Relationships, Lead-ership Successions, Authoritarian Transi-tions, Sacrificial Successions and Sacrifi-cial Successors.

Defining Succession

Succession Orientations represent the al-truistic to authoritarian paths that leader-ship transitions tend to take depending on whether (or not) predecessors and successors act selfishly or sacrificially. Succession Relationships are the direct to indirect relationships between prede-cessors and successors that normally oc-cur during leadership transitions.

Leadership Successions usually involve the transfer of managerial or familial con-trol directly or indirectly from incum-bent to successor. In this context Authoritarian Transitions are character-ised by top leaders authorising a succes-sion and their successors exercising this authority over their subordinates.

In contrast, incumbents ministering al-truistically, sacrificing their leadership early then staying on as advocates for their successors defines Sacrificial Suc-cessions. Similarly, Sacrificial Succes-sors are characterised by their altruistic ministries of service and submission to incumbent's mediatory sacrifice and on-going advocacy on their behalf.

vii

Successions nearly always involve three transitional phases: 1) Ministry of prepa-ration for leadership, 2) Mediatory nego-tiation of leadership and, 3) Mastery through leadership. Each phase is com-mon to leadership transitions and succes-sion outcomes are most dependent on the degree to which each phase is sacrifi-cial or selfish.

Similarly, successors tend to be minis-ters, mediators and masters depending on their personalities and positions in an organisation. Their succession orienta-tions range from being sacrificial to self-ish and are usually mediated by self-interest unless they deliberately act to combat these natural tendencies by be-ing sacrificial.

Sacrificial Succession

In introducing sacrificial succession these key definitions should highlight im-portant differences between selfish and sacrificial succession and leadership. Sacrificial succession is the logical out-working of genuine servant leadership. It is where a ministry of sacrificially serv-ing others dominates.

Note that logical does not mean natural. A ministry of servanthood and sacrificial succession are, in fact, unnatural. They

stand in sharp contrast to the self-interested dynastic and corporate succes-sions commonly observed as succession norms today in many churches and min-istries.

Yet it is exactly this unnatural quality that makes sacrificial succession so pow-erful. In Matthew 20:28 Jesus explains this truth to his immediate successors, the disciples. He came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ran-som for many.

For all Christians, the spiritual truth of this statement should be clear: Jesus came to serve us sacrificially by giving his life as a ransom for our sins. Through his resurrection and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Christ lives forever to intercede for us. He is our eternal advocate before the Father (He-brews 7:25).

Why these spiritual truths so evident in the humanity of Jesus have not been practically applied as often to sacrificial succession as they have to servant leader-ship is surprising. This is especially strange given their obvious and intimate seminal connection and liminality. By seminal, I mean that one, servant leader-

viii

ship, should beget the other, sacrificial succession.

In other words, the latter is the outwork-ing of the former. Liminal means thresh-old, the bridge between one thing and an-other, where an apparently chaotic event, such as death leads to a rebirth that brings life . The death and resurrec-tion of Christ are the perfect spiritual ex-amples.

An instance from nature is fires that kill are also necessary for certain plants such as the Australian cycad to germinate. The liminality of sacrificial succession is that predecessors who sacrifice their leadership for successors are likely to forge the strongest relationships possible with their inheritors for generations to come.

Though obviously much broader in scope than succession, sacrificial Chris-tian martyrs down through the ages are evidence of this truth. For example, Paul and his successor Timothy were mar-tyred, as were Pontianus, bishop of Rome and Anteros his successor, etc. Similar stories from China and Africa and India , to the present day emphasise that altruistic sacrifice, particularly by leaders for followers, strengthens rather than weakens their relationships and suc-

cessions. Even secular research strongly supports this truth .

Possibly our reticence as Christians to ap-ply such an important spiritual truth as the life-giving death of Jesus Christ to a practical, far less spiritual activity as suc-cession, is a fear of devaluing Christs sac-rifice. This caution is understandable. Another reason may be that many Chris-tians are uncomfortable with equating the perfect propitiatory sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world with the obviously imperfect sacrificial handover of leadership in human successions.

Given that the servant-orientated minis-try of Christ was mainly an exercise of his humanity, seeing the human side of Christs propitiatory sacrifice and apply-ing it to sacrificial succession does not di-minish but enriches its spiritual signifi-cance. Christs explanation, in John 15:13, for example, that a man can show no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends adds weight to this point.

From this brief introduction to transi-tions, it should be obvious that a differ-ent sort of succession than the current naturalistic corporate and dynastic tran-sitions that have crept into some churches and ministries is needed. In-deed, most Christian leaders acknowl-

ix

edge that a succession crisis is occurring and that a reorientation from the current status quo is needed.

Similar to the spiritual Good News that Christs sacrifice is sufficient for saving sinners is the practical good news that a sacrificial succession can save leadership successions from crisis.

Making these comparisons between the spiritual and practical nature of the sacri-ficial succession of Jesus should be en-couraging. By the power of the Holy Spirit we can become more sacrificial successors. That these spiritual truths cherished by Christians for millennia can be practically applied to contemporary successions should be promising and ex-citing!

This book is laid out in seven chapters. To help with studying and applying sacri-ficial succession, it is written in easy-to-understand English that is meant to be particularly helpful to those who do not speak English as a first language. In the first chapter some examples are given of successions in crisis to explain why so many leadership transitions are in such serious trouble.

Then, in Chapter 2, the biblical basis for the succession of Jesus is presented as the radically unnatural alternative best

suited to solving current succession cri-ses. From there, the next three chapters explain the ministry of preparation, me-diatory sacrifice and mastery of advocacy modelled by Jesus. These three succes-sional phases are the foundational truths and characteristics of sacrificial succes-sions and successors.

Following that, in Chapter 6, the unnatu-ral nature of sacrificial succession as a di-rect outworking of genuine servant lead-ership is explained. Contemporary ver-sions of servant leadership are also cri-tiqued. In the final chapter, the key truths of sacrificial succession are reap-plied as practical solutions to the case studies reviewed in the first chapter that are equally relevant to the transition cri-ses faced today.

x

From the leadership successions in crisis shared briefly in the previous section I now want to return with more detail in this chapter. Along with these current successions, some historical ones from the Bible, namely those of Moses, Joshua and David are also reviewed. As the above verse succinctly explains, suc-cession is about one leader replacing an-other with its ultimate meaning going be-yond hereditary succession.

My main purpose in this chapter is to point out the main reasons why so many successions are in crisis. Some of the most commonly offered solutions to suc-cession crises are also critiqued. When I first started asking my friends about their successions, I was surprised that so many honestly admitted they were unpre-pared for such an important event.

Then again, when I reflected on my own lack of preparation for succession, it con-firmed that being unprepared for a suc-cession is actually quite a common prob-lem . Reasons cited for succession crises are mainly attributed to top leaders not being made responsible for managing a transition, a lack of leadership develop-ment of future leaders and not enough systematic succession planning and man-agement .

As I shared my concerns with other lead-ers they admitted the personal reality of their own succession challenges and fail-ures. For example, the director of a big, international Christian organisation ad-mitted that leadership succession is something we do badly. He went on to tell me candidly that he had made no concrete plans for a leadership successor

Successions In Crisis

11

CHAPTER 1

In place of your fathers shall be your sons; you will make them princes in all the earth (Psalm 45:16).

and neither have most of his counter-parts in the organisation.

Another top leader, in this case the head of a large and rapidly growing mission to Muslims, made similarly candid com-ments. While their harvesters in the field are preparing and appointing suc-cessors reasonably well, their top leader-ship is aging. No successors have been intentionally prepared to take over these top jobs. In terms of future sustainabil-ity, he admitted that the lack of succes-sor preparation was one their gravest threats to longer-term sustainability.

A lack of successor preparation

Actually, the failure of these leaders to personally prepare successors to take over leadership is a common problem with leadership transitions. In fact, fail-ing to prepare successors is probably more common than failing to plan for succession per se. Historically relevant examples of this issue are found when comparing the transitions of Moses to Joshua and Joshua to the Judges.

Both Moses and Joshua were great lead-ers. Of that there is no doubt! Joshua is one of my favourite Old Testament char-acters and his book has probably in-

spired me more than any other. Yet I cannot, in good faith, emulate his succes-sion plan. This is because Joshua fails one of the most basic criteria for success-ful succession: to intentionally prepare successors then handover leadership to one of them.

Failing to handover leadership

Therefore, in terms of succession Moses was a better leader than Joshua. For ex-ample, Moses prepared both Caleb and Joshua as potential successors by send-ing them to spy out the land of Canaan and report back to him (Numbers 13:1-2, 14:6-9). Due to their faithfulness, the Lord honoured both Caleb and Joshua by allowing them to enter the Promised Land. Moses formally handed over lead-ership to Joshua before his death. The people recognised this succession of authority by obeying Joshua (Deuteron-omy 34:9).

The Lord confirmed the appointment of Joshua as Moses successor on a number of occasions (see for example, Deuteron-omy 1:38, 3:28, 31:14). Similar to Moses, Joshua had a detailed plan for his succession that formally ended his leadership with a renewal of the cove-nant of friendship between the tribes

12

and promise of faithfulness to the Lord (Joshua chapters 22-24).

However, there is no evidence that Joshua prepared successors or ap-pointed anyone specifically to replace him (Joshua chapters 22-24). Confirm-ing this conclusion are regular refer-ences to everyone doing as they saw fit following his death (see Judges 21:25 and chapters 17, 18 and 19, for exam-ples).

Now you may be thinking that I am be-ing too hard on Joshua. While he appar-ently did not appoint a specific successor Joshua was succeeded by the first Judges who led the people corporately. This included his faithful colleague, Caleb who remained true to his calling. Interestingly, this sort of corporate struc-ture is quite common in leadership to-day.

Indeed, some of the Judges, like Gideon and Deborah, led well. There are simi-larities between the corporate structure of the judges and those of Chief Execu-tive Officers (CEOs) and pastors today. It is worth noting, however, that most of the Judges successions, including Sam-uels, ultimately failed. Unfortunately succession crisis was also the norm

throughout much of the royal dynasty of David.

Similar conclusions can be drawn about many contemporary corporate and dy-nastic successions. More detailed rea-sons for these problems will be one of the main topics of a later chapter. How-ever, before continuing, it is important to reiterate the primary nature of the problem with these successions. Per se it is the failure to prepare sacrificial suc-cessors and handover leadership to a suc-cessor in a timely manner rather than a failure to plan for a succession and de-velop leaders that is their main weak-ness.

Distinguishing between planning for and managing a succession and preparing successors then actually handing over leadership to a successor is critical. So is the difference between leadership and succession.

As previously mentioned, leadership fo-cuses more on leaders leading now, whereas succession, as the headline verse Psalm 4:16 states, is future focused on successors. Unfortunately, many so-called succession solutions emphasise succession planning and successor prepa-ration that is more about leader develop-

13

ment than predecessor sacrifice for suc-cessor success.

Therefore, while aging incumbents hav-ing difficulty handing over to an uncer-tain next generation of leadership is a genuine problem, especially in the west, it is not the cause of succession crisis. It is a symptom. Instead, the primary cause of succession crisis and transition disas-ters is the failure to prepare sacrificial successors then hand over leadership sac-rificially.

Thus, where most successions get into trouble is in the handover of leadership. More often than not this transfer of authority is to a managerial successor. As a rule, these bureaucratic leadership techniques and management technolo-gies work well enough until the succes-sion. Then, due to the intensity of the competition, self-interest instead of sacri-fice kicks in.

Sometimes, these succession troubles oc-cur because of conflict over who should be the next successor. In other cases it is about when a succession should occur. At other times, succession crises are sim-ply caused by incumbents unwilling to have others take their place. The result-ing crisis often ends in succession fail-ure. Despite these risks, our headline

verse of Psalm 45:16 shows the critical importance of successions occurring from one generation to the next.

Dynastic to corporate successions

To avoid these succession risks, most leaders who are prepared for successions have either the dynastic handover of lead-ership to family members or the corpo-rate reshuffle of top leaders in mind. An-other option is a mixture of both. Many of the non-western leaders I know have prepared for succession by handing over leadership to, or are planning to be suc-ceeded by, their children.

For example, one pastor has already handed over the leadership of two churches to a son and daughter respec-tively. In another case, two thriving mis-sions have chosen dynastic succession from father to son. Others have opted for the corporate oversight of a board.

Family first policies

Worldwide, dynastic or familial succes-sions are probably the most common leadership transitions. Dynastic succes-sions prefer kin as successors. King Davids succession to Solomon is repre-sentative of many dynastic transitions.

14

Typical of most familial successions it was relatively well planned. Davids po-tential successors, his sons Adonijah and Solomon, were the main contenders. They would have been well prepared, in fact groomed, during their lifetimes in anticipation of being potential succes-sors.

Amidst the manipulations of Adonijah, Davids favourite wife Bathsheba and, other interested parties such as Davids general, Joab, Solomons succession was finally confirmed by his father, then by God. Whether or not this was a succes-sion allowed rather than approved by God, is pertinent. Certainly the resulting succession outcomes are questionable.

Solomons succession resulted in a di-vided kingdom. The poor quality of most Davidic successors and Gods ap-parent disapproval of this system in 1 Samuel 8:1-18, strongly suggests that God does not favour dynastic succes-sions, royal or otherwise. That Israels dy-nastic system came about as a result of the people rejecting, by negatively react-ing to, the poor corporate oversight of the Judges and bad priestly dynasty of Samuel should also not be overlooked.

The pertinence of these issues applied to current transitions points to the inade-

quacy of both corporate and dynastic suc-cessions and the perfection of sacrificial succession. These factors will receive more attention later. Around the world, even in the West, dynastic and familial successions continue to dominate. De-spite the pre-eminence of corporate best practices such as formal succession plan-ning, the reality is that family succes-sions are far more common, especially in smaller firms.

Most of the issues highlighted by the dy-nastic succession of David to Solomon are found in familial successions today. The favouring of kin over all other con-tenders, conflicts between competing family members, the failure to appoint a successor and continuing to lead after be-ing succeeded are all problematic issues common to family succession in particu-lar. Dynastic successions are potentially the most authoritarian or autocratic of leadership transitions, because they in-volve direct next-of-kin or indirectly re-lated family members.

It is important to note that family mem-bers can be part of the extended family related by birth or relationally due to hav-ing a close relationship with and to the dynasty. Given these non-genetic factors in dynastic relationships, I prefer to use the term familial successions in that

15

family, particularly in the East, is much broader in scope than immediate kin.

Furthermore, familial successions are sel-dom exclusively dynastic. For example, in dynastic transitions the family often retains ownership and allows its manage-ment succession to be professionally managed . Research shows that one of the main risks to family business succes-sions in the United States is this discon-nection between ownership and manage-ment in succession planning.

Whatever professional and technical fac-tors are combined with a dynastic transi-tion, family successions are fundamen-tally threatened by the risk of their ten-dency to put family first. Even where ser-vant leadership is practiced by succes-sors, it seldom changes the ineligibility of non-family members as successors and is one of the main reasons why dy-nastic successions cannot be endorsed by sacrificial succession.

Succession best practices

Given the obvious problem of favourit-ism within family successions, most west-ern dominated organisations prefer more corporate approaches to leader-ship. A relevant example comes from a

long-time family friend heading up a large media organisation evangelising mainly Muslims. He has prepared a ca-pable local successor yet has his succes-sion plan routinely deferred by a foreign Board of Directors. Instead of replacing him they prefer to maintain his leader-ship.

Since 2002, this fine brother has been sharing with me his burning desire to handover leadership so he can spend more time mentoring future leaders. He is frustrated that his willingness to sacri-fice leadership earlier than his Board of Directors expects is continually being de-ferred by them.

Next year (which has been for a number of consecutive years now) he assures me is the year he will give the Board of Direc-tors an ultimatum: approve my succes-sion plan or I will resign. Only time will tell if he is willing to do that, but so far he has not taken that final step. With strong managerial control and relative stability, this sort of corporate succes-sion is widely recognised as best prac-tice.

These so-called best practices often in-volve systematic succession planning and management. They include inter-nally developing more potential succes-

16

sors in leadership, especially in the field of professional management. Computer techniques and technologies that facili-tate such preparation by matching peo-ple to jobs in real time are also recom-mended and widely used.

Despite the pervasiveness and obvious benefits of these managerial techniques and technologies, there is little outcome evidence to show that such corporate suc-cession planning and leadership develop-ment is actually solving the succession crisis . In other words, a direct link be-tween these formalised practices and bet-ter succession outcomes remains weak.

Instead, self-interest is found to domi-nate most corporate successions, espe-cially when it comes to top leader transi-tions such as Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) . In fact, when compared with dynastic successions, corporate succes-sions prove to be only marginally more successful in certain circumstances.

For example, corporate successions are shown to outperform dynastic transi-tions primarily in larger scale, more com-plex operations, such as manufacturing industries . Here, professional financial, managerial and risk assessment skills ap-pear beneficial and help improve sustain-ability. Where regulations forbid dynas-

tic successions, such as with public and government organisations, the above cor-porate succession rules normally apply.

Interestingly, in smaller scale operations that require greater flexibility and a more long-term view of risk and invest-ment, family successions hold their own or outperform corporate transitions. The fact that small to medium enter-prises remain the backbone of developed economies is testament to this truth. In many ways they actually do better than corporate successions, especially in times of uncertainty.

In Conclusion

To conclude this chapter, let us review the two main causes of succession crises. Almost without exception they relate to a lack of successor preparation and failure to hand over leadership to a successor in a timely manner. Selfishness rather than sacrifice also plays a key role. It should now be clearer, too, that develop-ing leaders to lead is different to develop-ing successors to succeed. Being great at the former does not mean good at the lat-ter.

From the successions reviewed it should also be obvious that a great leader is not

17

guaranteed a great succession simply by being a great leader. This is because in successions it is the quality of their suc-cessors rather than their own leadership that is more important. Poignantly illus-trating this successional truth is Joshua, who led well but largely failed in his suc-cession legacy through his successors the Judges.

A brief review of the two most favoured transitions, dynastic and corporate suc-cessions should now have made the limi-tations of both more obvious.

Family successions, in particular, are lim-ited by their favouring of kin over all other comers. Reinforcing this was our review of the Davidic successions. Corpo-rate successions utilising systematic suc-cession planning technicians, techniques and technologies show promise yet prove largely powerless to solve the suc-cession crisis. Their particular problem seems to be the overreliance on profes-sional management and technical mas-tery that tends towards self-interest at the expense of other leaders who are more sacrificial.

In the next chapter, the sacrificial succes-sion of Jesus is introduced as an unnatu-ral alternative to both dynastic and cor-porate leadership successions. During

the time prior to his death, through a par-able about succession, Jesus clearly teaches his disciples and us about minis-tering without expectation as a prerequi-site to sacrificial succession.

To wrap up, some of the key points to note in this chapter are that good leader-ship does not guarantee great succes-sions because the former is more tempo-rally focused whereas the latter is fixed on the next generation of leaders, succes-sors. Another important factor is that planning for a transition does not equal preparing successors for succession.

A final factor to keep in mind is that both dynastic and corporate successions in all their various forms and functions are naturally more self-interested than sacrificial. Dynastic successions tend to be selfish because of favouring family ties before all other altruistic relation-ships. Corporate transitions are self-interested in that their processes nor-mally put selfish masters before sacrifi-cial ones.

18

Some things to think and talk about

1. What is a difference between succes-sion and leadership?

2. What are the most common causes of succession crisis?

3. Why was Moses a more successional leader than Joshua?

4. Which of the successions were dynas-tic or corporate?

5. How is planning in a succession differ-ent to preparation?

6. What are the main strengths of corpo-rate successions?

7. What are the main strengths of dynas-tic successions?

19

As shared in the introductory sections, I have been personally blessed to witness most of the Christian leaders I know serving rather than being served, as Je-sus commanded in Matthew 20:28. Of concern is that so many of these same leaders, me included, are failing to prac-tice the sacrificial succession that Jesus also commands in the latter part of this same verse.

Making, and acting on, the connection between serving and sacrificing in succes-sional terms is critical. To do that, I am particularly drawn to the sacrifice of Je-sus as a ransom for many as the solu-tion to the leadership succession crises faced by so many of us. In Matthew 20:1-28 and its parallels in Mark 10:17-45, Luke 22:24-28, John 13:1-15,

14:26, 15:9-17 and 26-27, Jesus teaches and models this sacrificial succession.

In successional terms, the succession of Jesus starts with a ministry preparing his successors. Jesus follows this by the mediatory sacrifice of his leadership for his successors. His succession continues with an ongoing mastery of advocacy for successors. Since each of these succes-sional truths is explained in the next three chapters, this chapter is a brief in-troduction to the topic based on the suc-cession of Jesus and two stories: a par-able and analogy about transition.

The first last and last first

There are two major successional truths presented through the Parable of the

The Succession Of Jesus

20

CHAPTER 2

Whoever wants to be first must be your slavejust as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:27-28).

Vineyard Workers in Matthew 20:1-16 that challenge both dynastic and corpo-rate successions. It is helpful if you read and reread this parable in the Bible. Note that dynastic successions usually put family first and corporate succes-sions tend to favour managerial abilities. Through its key point in verse 16 about the last being first and first last, Jesus teaches that the choice of successors should not be based on the twin merits of performance and tenure.

Instead, the truth of serving others with-out expectation of a return is empha-sised. While this parable is only found in Matthew, its relevance to succession is confirmed by a parallel passage found in Mark 9:30-35. In these passages, Jesus does three key things. He predicts his up-coming death, and remains separate from his many other followers. He does this to specifically prepare his disciples for succession.

In this transitional context Jesus deals openly with their arguing about who is the greatest [leader] and most likely suc-cessor. By reiterating the truth: Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all, Jesus is rein-forcing the successional truths of Mat-thew 20:27-28 cited in our headline quote at the beginning of this chapter.

There is no doubt that the more common spiritual understanding of this parable being primarily about salvation by grace rather than works is equally true. Mat-thew 19:30 and Mark 10:31 respectively, confirm this primarily spiritual interpre-tation.

However, applied practically to transi-tions its successional truths are equally confronting. To more practically apply and sharpen these truths for transitions, in the next section I have rewritten the parable of the Vineyard Workers into a story that, I think, better suits the terms and timing of a leadership succession. I hope you find this angle helpful. Re-maining true to the practical intent of this teaching to the disciples about suc-cession is my aim.

A Succession story

A story is told about a certain business owner who embarked on an unusual suc-cessor recruitment drive. At the begin-ning of the year the business owner bar-gained with a group of workers until they mutually agreed to work for fair hourly pay and a specific bonus follow-ing a 12-month contract.

21

After three months, more workers were needed, so the business owner went out and hired more workers promising to pay them fair wages and a good bonus. These workers gladly accepted. The busi-ness owner went out and hired more workers on the same fair pay and bonus basis three months later and again in the ninth month of that year.

Then, in the 11th month, the business owner went out recruiting even more workers, again promising fair wages and bonuses. At the end of the year the busi-ness owner asked his manager to gather the workers together to give them their bonuses beginning with those who started last.

Surprisingly especially for those who started first and last, the same bonuses were received by all. Those who started first and had worked the longest and hardest complained to the business owner, These workers who were hired last only worked one month, yet you made their bonuses equal to ours--and we worked for 12 months!

But the business owner answered them, Friends, I am not being unfair to you. Didnt you agree to these terms? Take your bonuses and go. If I want to give the workers who started last the same bo-

nuses as you, dont I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you jealous because I am generous? So the last will be first and the first last.

Honestly, at first take it appears unnatu-ral and unfair that those serving the long-est and working the hardest should get the same reward and chance at succes-sion as those who had served far less in terms of time and effort.

Remember, the last group of potential successors had worked, if you could call it that, only 1/12that is 11 times less of the time that their longest serving coun-terparts had worked who started first! No matter what measure is used it does seem unfair, does it not for the last to come first?

Reject performance and tenure norms

Yet Jesus is unambiguous. The twin mer-its of performance and tenure common to most naturalistic successions are not part of his sacrificial succession plan. His response in Matthew 20:14 to those who have served with this sort of selfish expectation is: Take what belongs to

22

you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you.

It is worth noting in the fine print of the story that Jesus came to an agreed settle-ment with the first group of workers, whereas the latter groups of workers ac-cepted the promise of fair payment with-out negotiation. Another relevant aside is that this parable may have been pro-phetically referring to the 12th Apostle, Paul. He was in a similar position to these workers hired last, because he did not have the record of tenure or perform-ance the other disciples had with Jesus.

Maybe the perceived need to draw straws for a replacement disciple for Ju-das in Acts 1:20-26 could have been avoided if there had been a greater reten-tion of this parables truth among the im-mediate successors of Jesus. Certainly Paul was recognised as the Apostle to the Gentiles by early church leaders (Gala-tians 2:6-10, 2 Peter 3:15-16). This was in spite of his unnatural birth (1 Corin-thians 15:8-9) and is evidence of this suc-cessional truth in practice.

By rejecting the naturalistic performance and tenure of working the hardest and longest, there is an obvious need for al-ternative successor selection criteria. Otherwise, a return to the default op-

tions of dynastic and corporate succes-sions is inevitable, as their prevalence in leadership transitions confirms.

I believe that the alternative of sacrificial succession is exactly what Jesus is com-manding in our headline quote at the be-ginning of the chapter. By talking about serving to sacrifice specifically to his im-mediate successors the disciples, follow-ing this parable, Jesus is reiterating his successional terms and conditions. Suc-cessors should serve without expectation and incumbents willingly sacrifice their leadership for their successors success, just as he was about to do for them.

Now you should have a better under-standing of sacrificial succession and its terms and conditions. There is a need to reject performance and tenure to sacrifi-cially serve others without expectation. To further reinforce these successional truths, I want to share another analogy about succession called Three Gates.

Three Gates Analogy

There was a leader with three followers. One day they came to him asking, What must we do to succeed you? The Leader answered, Are you ready? The first follower replied, I think so. The second, answered, I believe so. The last replied, Not yet. Follow this

23

road, the Leader said, pointing into the distance.

Eventually you will come to three gates. The first and largest has written on it one word: MASTER. By entering it you will master whatever you try. On the next and second largest gate you will find inscribed MEDIATOR. Upon entering it you will be able to mediate whatever you want. The last and small-est gate is called MINISTER and upon entering it you will be able to minister to whomever you choose. Remember to choose carefully, their Leader said, your successions depend on it.

Following the road, the first of the three followers arrived at the three gates and thought, If I master everything, I can do just about anything. Entering the largest gate the follower became Mas-ter. Next to arrive was the second fol-lower, who thought, If I can mediate be-tween anybody I can do just about eve-rything. Entering the second gate he became Mediator.

Last to arrive was the third follower. Looking at the three gates he thought, I am not able to master or mediate, but maybe I can serve my leader. He en-tered the third and smallest gate and be-came Minister. Each went on their re-

spective journeys using their chosen strengths.

Eventually each arrived at a great river too wide to cross. Looking around each potential successor saw the other and their leader standing looking across, through the mist, to the other side. We must cross the river, the Leader said.

While they were standing looking at the vast expanse of water, a small boat with a rough looking boatman appeared out of the fog. I only take two passengers at a time and one must stay with me as payment for the others passage to the other side, the Boatman growled. Each looked at the other.

Master spoke first, Boatman, as Mas-ter I can offer you either Mediator or Minister as my payment. Mediator fol-lowed by saying, As Mediator, I can of-fer you Master or Minister for my pas-sage. But which of you are willing to sacrifice yourself for the other? Only one of you will set foot on the other side; the other must remain as my payment, reminded the Boatman pointedly. Re-maining silent, both Master and Media-tor shook their heads.

Finally, Minister spoke to his leader, As your servant, I will sacrifice myself for your passage as my ministry to you.

24

The Leader and Boatman nodded in agreement. Off they set, leaving Master and Mediator arguing about who should pay for the others passage.

Soon they were nearing the opposite bank. Remember our deal, Boatman threatened, one of you must sacrifice your passage for the other. As the boat bumped the bank, Minister bowed his head, accepting his fate. Suddenly he felt himself being lifted onto dry land.

No! Minister cried, I did this for you. The Leader replied, Everything I have learned from my Leader I have made known to you. I will pay the price of your succession. You are now ready to succeed me. Now I will go back to see which of the others is ready.

Masters, Mediators and Ministers

Three Gates is an analogy about sacrifi-cial succession as the altruistic handover of leadership. It shows the characteris-tics of leadership successions and succes-sors. Any want-to-be leader should be able to recognise more of themselves in one of these characters than the others. These behaviours and characteristics

should also be obvious in their fellow leadership competitors and are common human behaviours, especially amongst leaders .

These characteristics of the people, proc-esses and positions normally associated with a transition are well within the scope this succession analogy. The main focus of this story is on the sacrificial to selfish tendencies of predecessors and successors. Anyone who has ever been involved in or with a leadership succes-sion knows how competitive such a con-test can be. There are the spoken and un-spoken arguments about who is the great-est.

Getting someone close to the leader to put in a good word for you, like a family member or friend, is a common ploy, es-pecially in dynastic successions. An-other effective tactic, if used with care, is taking the direct approach and person-ally seeking special favours from incum-bent. Being willing to serve and even sac-rifice in anticipation of meriting special favour is also a key strategy of self-interested leadership successors.

When we hear about or become aware of these selfish behaviours most of us be-come indignant, right? Yet if we are hon-est we have all played such games or at

25

least thought about playing them. Often-times we dont hear about these politics of leadership successions because deci-sions are just lorded over us by those in authority . These sorts of leadership suc-cessions are authoritarian by nature. Whether dynastic or autocratic, bureau-cratic or benign, authoritarian succes-sions are the rule rather than exception.

Truth be told, most leadership succes-sors are defined by the succession orien-tations exemplified by Master and Media-tor in Three Gates. Even Ministers, in most cases, serve with self-interest in mind. This selfish, ultimately authoritar-ian, behaviour is the antithesis of sacrifi-cial leadership succession. Jesus identi-fies these authoritarian tendencies in his explanation of rulers and authorities (Matthew 20:25) discussed later in this book.

Instead, in Three Gates, minister showed by his willingness to altruistically serve and sacrifice for his leader glimpses of genuine servant leadership. However, in Three Gates, the real game changer was the altruistic sacrifice by the Leader of his leadership specifically for his succes-sors success.

This definition of sacrificial succession is the main topic of this book. It is applied

as the sacrificial solution to the succes-sion crises that are acknowledged from corporate boardrooms to family bed-rooms. What is being called for here is no less than a reorientation from authori-tarian leadership transitions to sacrifi-cial successions. Through studying the sacrificial succession of Jesus the core problems with dynastic and corporate successions will become clearer and sac-rificial succession will become the obvi-ous solution.

Before concluding this section and chap-ter, I want to share with you this alterna-tive of sacrificial succession through the original Bible meanings of ministry, me-diation and mastery expressed through our headline verse . Ultimately, these words are the best guide as to whether or not a succession is sacrificial and scrip-tural.

Returning to our key verses (Matthew 20:27-28) Jesus says the purpose of his leadership is to serve others. The first in-terpretation of the word minister is to serve others as a servant (doulos) does. With servanthood there is no expecta-tion that through serving others a ser-vant will become something other than...well a servant.

26

Servants serve without expectation of po-sitional advancement through their serv-ice. Their service is the end not a means to another end such as a promotion. The other expression of ministry is that of sacrificially serving others through a leadership (diakonos) position. In other words using ones leadership position to serve others rather than yourself.

Understanding altruistic service as occur-ring prior to being in leadership, then ministry as taking place though leader-ship helps in considering the genuine-ness of a potential successors motiva-tions for serving. With mediatory sacri-fice, the understanding of the word is that of a restorer of peace (mesits) through a ransom price paid (lytron), usually by a master, to give slaves or cap-tives their freedom.

This is a critical point to understand be-cause of its centrality to sacrificial succes-sion. Even if a slave could save up enough to pay for their own ransom and ultimate freedom, it is the right of the master to grant them that freedom. A ministers freedom is gained by the greater sacrifice of the master in both paying the price for their freedom and foregoing the position of being master.

Therefore, sacrificial succession is not based on the self-effort of successors, but the sacrifice of predecessor for suc-cessor success. Instead, it is the greater sacrifice of incumbent for successor that pays the succession price. Finally, altru-istic mastery, unlike other worldly leader-ship systems, is not the pinnacle of per-sonal advancement before leaders move on to their next leadership or manage-ment position.

In practical terms mastery in a sacrificial succession is about staying on post-succession to be an advocate for succes-sors with leadership and guide to help them with their transitions. Spiritually confirming this practical characteristic of mastery in successional leadership, Je-sus, in John 14:26, says that he is our Ad-vocate or Helper (parakltos), the one who intercedes before the Father on our behalf. Jesus goes on to say that the Holy Spirit will teach (didask) and ex-plain to (hypomimnsk) his successors all things and remind them of everything he has said to them through instruction and explanation.

In Conclusion

The call of Jesus to a ministry of sacrifi-cial service and mediatory sacrifice of leadership is summed up by our head-

27

line verse about sacrificial succession in (Matthew 20:27-28). In practical, suc-cessional terms there is a two-fold com-mand here for leaders. Serve rather than expect to be served and be prepared to sacrifice your leadership for your succes-sors success.

Jesus had proved this first truth to his disciples through his ministry of sacrifi-cially preparing them for succession and serving many others, especially the poor and sick. By willingly dying in their place, in this case literally, he was per-fectly demonstrating the truth about me-diatory sacrifice whereby incumbent sac-rifices their leadership for successor. For the practical purposes of sacrificial succession, the scope of this discussion is not intended to delve deeply into theo-logical issues about Christs eternal head-ship of the church.

The terms minister, mediator and mas-ter are, however, deliberately used with this Christological basis in mind. An al-truistic minister is meant to serve others through their position of leadership as Jesus did. Sacrificial mediators should give up their leadership for successor suc-cess. A masters post-succession advo-cacy is another form of sacrificial minis-try, because it requires subordination of self to work through successors.

Sacrificial succession is similar in princi-ple to other biblical mandates such as taking up your cross, dying to self and be-ing a living sacrifice. In honour of Jesus perfectly living out these truths we en-deavour to do the same, albeit imper-fectly, by the power of his Holy Spirit.

By openly predicting his upcoming sacri-ficial succession, he was emphasising the integral link between sacrificial ministry and mediatory sacrifice. Through the Parable of the Vineyard Workers and its seminal truth about the first being last and last coming first, Jesus underscores the unnatural nature of successions not based on personal merit.

Indeed, this parable highlights the diffi-culty in breaking the cycle of preparing and choosing successors based on the twin merits of performance and tenure. Consider for instance the consequences if these meritorious succession criteria had been applied to the apostles Peter and Paul.

Probably two of the best apostles would have been disqualified before they even started! Peters failure would have most likely been due to poor performance, es-pecially given his denial of Jesus. For Paul, his relatively short tenure as a Christian leader and terrible prior track

28

record of persecuting Christians would probably have disqualified him on the grounds of both performance and ten-ure.

Thankfully for Paul and Peter and for us, we are judged on the basis of Christs sac-rificial succession for us and our accep-tance of the sufficiency of that mediatory sacrifice. Then, as the Three Gates anal-ogy emphasised, all succession orienta-tions are characterised by ministry, me-diatory and mastery motivations. The key difference for each value is whether a leaders ministry mediates a selfish or sacrificial mastery in terms of succes-sion.

More often than not, leadership succes-sions prove to be selfishly orientated. In both the parable of the Vineyard Work-ers and the Three Gates, important suc-cessional truths are revealed about reject-ing tenure and performance in favour of service and sacrifice.

Right (sacrificial) and wrong (selfish) ways to minister, mediate and master in a succession are also disclosed. These truths were modelled through the succes-sion of Jesus and confirmed through the transition from Peter and Paul. Both these men became arguably the two most important successors of Jesus.

In a naturalistic dynastic or corporate succession probably both would have been disqualified as successors. The fact that Jesus recognised the potential in both men as successors and empowered them to do his will is a real encourage-ment to all of us.

For me, sacrificial succession powerfully demonstrates what the most unlikely of successors (like me!) can becomesacri-ficial successorsthrough the forgive-ness of Christs sacrificial death, resurrec-tion and indwelling Holy Spirit. Even more encouraging, is that Peter and Paul lived up, albeit imperfectly, to Christs successional terms. The fact that they lived out a ministry of sacrificial service to others and willingly sacrificed their leadership for their successors power-fully confirms this truth .

The mutual love, loyalty and friendship inspired by predecessor sacrificing lead-ership for successor, is second to none. Secular research and anecdotal evidence shared in later chapters reinforces these vital spiritual truths as practical realties that continue to inspire leaders and suc-cessors today.

I hope you have found this successional truth of sacrificial succession as encour-aging to you as it is to me. How to be

29

more successional and successful shall become even more obvious as we con-tinue our journey of sacrificial succes-sion through the life of Jesus. The three key steps needed to make this reorienta-tion towards sacrificial succession are shared in the following chapters.

Some things to think and talk about

1. What is the point of the Parable of the Vineyard Workers?

2. What succession norms does this par-able challenge?

3. What are two historical examples of this parable?

4. Who do Ministers, Mediators and Masters represent?

5. What is Matthew 20:27-28s inte-grally linked truth?

6. What succession tactics are normally used by successors?

7. Who was the most successional in Three Gates and why?

30

As we continue our journey through Mat-thew 20, immediately following the Par-able of the Vineyard Workers, Jesus pre-dicts his upcoming death, for a third time. In so doing, Jesus continues pre-paring his successors, the disciples, for his upcoming succession. His openness and transparency during his ministry of preparation and service is an inspiration to all who aspire to successful succes-sions.

In Matthew 20 verses 17-20, Jesus mod-els three important successional truths necessary for an effective ministry of suc-cessor preparation. He takes his poten-tial successors aside to foretell of his up-coming death and resurrection. In other words, he does not disclose these sensi-tive details, publically, outside of the group.

Neither, however, does he discuss these confidential matters privately one-on-one, without the other disciples and po-tential successors being present. Both approaches help to limit the speculation and rumours that are so often rife amongst aspiring leadership contenders.

By clearly explaining the manner and timing of the succession, Jesus makes clear what is so often left unsaid or re-mains unplanned in transitions. An-other important point in the successful preparation of successors is the appoint-ment of a successor well in advance of the actual handover of leadership.

Peters acceptance as leader by the early church and Jesus apparent reference to him being the primary successor in Mat-thew 16:18-19 and again following his re-

Ministry Of Preparation

31

CHAPTER 3

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his masters business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you (John 15:15).

instatement in John 21:16, reinforces this important pre-succession truth. This truth makes logical sense in succes-sional terms, because naming successors prior to the succession helps in prepar-ing them and others for the upcoming succession.

However, by introducing this Biblical chronology, these assumptions do beg a question. If Jesus had explicitly ap-pointed Peter as successor in chapter 16, why were they still arguing about it in our key passage of Matthew 20? A re-lated question is why did Jesus not ex-plicitly acknowledge Peter as successor at this conflict point?

Admittedly, these verses associated with Peters succession are not as explicit as the other successional aspects of service and sacrifice. Therefore, conclusions about Peters candidacy as successor be-ing announced by Jesus well in advance of the succession must be given less weight than some of the other verses about succession with the parallel pas-sages quoted previously.

That being said, similar to many scrip-ture passages, sacrificial succession is a matter of interpretation. Ultimately, scriptural exegesis or interpretation is up to you, the reader, as an informed par-

ticipant. If you are a believer in Jesus, then personal enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, our Counsellor and Advocate is promised. Ask him to confirm to you or caution you regarding these successional matters.

Despite this valid precaution, I remain confident in saying that a pre-succession ministry of incumbent directly preparing successors, appointing a successor and predicting the timing of a succession well in advance of it occurring makes logical and biblical sense.

Furthermore, contemporary secular re-search into succession planning and man-agement confirms the wisdom of these ancient practices . Organisations that in-ternally plan their successions, develop their successors and manage these transi-tions well in advance are more likely to succeed than those that dont.

The headline passage in this chapter of John 15:15, sums up a pre-succession ministry of preparation. Jesus consid-ers his successors as friends rather than servants. This quality of sharing and strength of relationship are far superior amongst friends than between masters and subordinates. Jesus makes every-thing he has learned from his Father known to them. Again the quality of this

32

relationship is much more direct and inti-mate than most teacher-student interac-tions.

Direct succession relationships

While the ministry of Jesus was obvi-ously far more than preparing succes-sors, for the purpose of succession his preparation of the disciples as successors was exemplary. As the passage above emphasises, Jesus taught his successors everything he had learned from his fa-ther. This practice of revealing every-thing one knows to potential rivals is un-usual, especially where a dollar value is often given to such proprietary knowl-edge and the knowers who control it. Knowledge is power.

Therefore, passing on knowledge unre-servedly is an important successional truth. Transferring and modelling all you have learned to your successors is a key part of a ministry of successor prepa-ration. An emphasis on close and direct successional relationships between in-cumbents and successors in preparing for succession is a must for this transfer to successfully occur.

The Jewish blessing, may you be cov-ered by the dust of your Rabbi aptly de-

scribes such close succession relation-ships . Successors being directly influ-enced by their predecessors, as were the Apostles by Jesus, are salient examples of this truth.

Philosophically this sort of transition is called a true succession, because prede-cessor directly influences successor . In Christian terms, apostolic succession is similar in principle (see Ephesians 4:10) and in practice, especially through the Apostle Paul.

Simply put, apostolic succession means that successors reflect and represent their predecessor because they have learned to apply their teachings . As such the scope of direct succession rela-tionships in sacrificial successions is lim-ited to these associations. Beyond that, differences between traditional Catholic interpretations of apostolic succession and more modern missional ones are out of scope here.

It suffices to say that the authenticity and authority of a true successor comes from their direct succession relationship to succeeded leader. The close relation-ship Jesus had with his successors the disciples as friends (John 15:15), were practiced by the Apostles with their suc-cessors. They were defined as having

33

been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). Close suc-cession relationships gave these succes-sors their legitimacy and authority, rather than familial ties or managerial ca-pabilities.

Disciplic Successors

Even though the word disciple has gone out of vogue somewhat in favour of words like candidates, trainees, learners or students, etc., it is deliberately chosen here. This is because it best describes the direct succession relationships ex-plained in the previous section as being critical to sacrificial succession. The authenticity of a disciple is defined by close proximity to predecessor.

As a derivative of the word discipline, it also better describes the disciplic proc-ess by which someone becomes a disci-ple. Being a disciple necessitates two types of discipleship that are especially important for ready replacements. First it requires discipline that: actively cor-rects, moulds and perfects the mental fac-ulties and moral character of the disciple e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16. Second, this sort of discipleship works best when modelled by predecessor directly to successor.

With such direct succession relation-ships between predecessor and succes-sor, the primary legitimacy successors have is through their direct succession relationship with predecessor.

Instead of professional managerial and technical skills or familial and collegial ties being the primary determiners or me-diators of successor success, it is succes-sors close proximity to predecessors that counts. Paul, in particular, through his Epistles to his successors, such as Timothy and Titus and their churches, exemplifies direct succession relation-ships.

The key relationship is between predeces-sor (discipler) and successor (disciple). These direct succession relationships are fundamental to passing on successional truths from one generation of successors to another. For example, Pauls succes-sor was Timothy, with whom he had a di-rect succession relationship. In turn, Timothy was charged with doing the same with his successors (2 Timothy 2:2).

Notwithstanding the obvious benefits of knowing managerial succession tech-niques along with their supporting tools and technologies, none of these methods can adequately replace the importance of

34

a direct succession relationship between incumbent and successor when it comes to preparing for a succession. One rea-son is that some of these important suc-cessional truths must be modelled in a close succession relationship between predecessor and successor to be effec-tively retained and applied. These truths about direct succession relationships be-come more evident as we progress through the ensuing chapters.

Learning to minister altruistically with-out expectation and mediate a sacrificial succession is best understood directly through successional relationships. It cannot really be taught and learned any other way. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons why these sacrificial orien-tations are not practiced in most corpo-rate successions is that direct succession relationships are normally discouraged. Indeed, there are valid fears of nepotism if close succession relationships are en-couraged between incumbents and suc-cessors.

Thus the practice of separating power be-tween incumbents and successors through the mediating influence of Boards and other such bodies is an un-derstandable and justifiable response to these concerns about bias. As the re-search cited earlier confirms, self-

interest and favouritism runs rampant in successions, even corporate transitions.

Discussed next, the actions of the disci-ples in arguing about who was the great-est followed by seeking successional fa-vours from Jesus, are all indicative of this being the reality then as it is now. Despite the best efforts to minimise bias though the separation of power, selfish-ness rather than sacrifice continues to ruin corporate successions and dynastic transitions.

Wrong succession orientations

Following Jesus predicting his succes-sion is the intriguing exchange between Jesus and James, John and their mother, the wife of Zebedee (verses 20-23, also Mark 10:35-40). They wanted favoured treatment as successors in his succession. Many potential successors, it seems, serve sacrificially with these selfish rather than altruistic ambitions in mind.

It is worth spending some time studying this passage because it teaches three im-portant successional truths about wrong succession orientations. Matthew 20:20-23 says, Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him (Jesus)

35

with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, What do you want?

She said to him, Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom. Jesus answered, You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink? They said to him, We are able. He said to them, You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.

From this passage the first reality to emerge is that, one way or another, most leadership contenders will seek favoured treatment from incumbents. Second, the truth is most potential successors are willing to serve sacrificially with selfish expectations. Third, to avoid bias, in-cumbents must be open to the oversight of others in choosing successors.

Each of these successional truths in the above Bible passages is applicable to the previous succession stories shared. Je-sus being approached by two brothers and their mother is reminiscent of the tactics used by Bathsheba with David re-garding Solomons succession (1 Kings 1:11-31). Sadly David did not seem to be

as open to the oversight of his Father as was Jesus.

Be assured that those seeking succes-sional favouritism come in many shapes and guises. Bias is by no means exclu-sive to family dynasties either. With cor-porate successions it is often favouritism towards insiders at the expense of outsid-ers that is most common . Occasionally, it is the other way around.

The preference for choosing top leaders and managers as successors over other contenders is another trait of corporate successions. Avoiding favouritism at all costs unless it is to favour those who serve sacrificially is a key truth of a sacri-ficial ministry of successor preparation and successionwith oversight of course!

Practicing selfish sacrifice

Unfortunately, attempts at seeking fa-vour can be so difficult to recognise, even with oversight! Yet recognising self-ish sacrifice is a must. As the above study proves, even those who willingly serve and even sacrifice usually do so with expectation of reward or merit. Some of the main reasons for self-interested successor self-sacrifice and

36

more genuine altruism are explained in the next chapter.

It suffices to say here that the main point of the Matthew 20 passage is that James and John were willing to sacrifice for their successions, albeit selfishly. The ex-change between them (verses 22-23) and Jesus is worth rereading. Jesus asks them, Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink? Their emphatic reply, We can!

Note their willingness to serve sacrifi-cially and even give their lives, as Jesus was about to do. Equally relevant is that in the next verse Jesus confirms their willingness to serve sacrificially (albeit selfishly) by his affirmative response. Through this exchange it becomes more obvious how difficult it can be to know a potential successors motives.

The truth is that even those who appar-ently serve and sacrifice faithfully can be doing so selfishly. Later in this chapter we will return to these selfish and sacrifi-cial motives or succession orientations, as I choose to call them, with a clearer picture of how to evaluate them.

Being able to evaluate the sacrificial to selfish orientations of potential succes-sors is a key to making correct decisions when choosing altruistic successors.

Principles and practices for making these evaluations are explained later.

Being independent of oversight

Wisely, Jesus dealt with this appeal for favouritism by not relying on his judge-ment alone. This third successional truth is a key one to avoiding favouritism and bias in transitions. Being subject to supervision and open to oversight when decisions are naturally clouded by self-interest, that is our own selfishness and that of others, is vital.

In the second part of verse 23 Jesus says, To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Fa-ther. Here, Jesus explains that his choice of successor is not his decision alone but Gods. This point emphasises the need for the subordination of incum-bent to oversight in choosing successors.

Importantly, as emphasised earlier, this entire passage, along with 1 Samuel 8:1-18, casts serious doubt on the legiti-macy of dynastic successions being part of sacrificial succession. Apart from the obvious political machinations and emo-tional manipulation that goes on in fami-lies, it is difficult to not have ones judge-

37

ment clouded when considering immedi-ate kin as successors.

That being said there are enormous strengths in families and family business that cannot be understated. Family en-terprises are the backbone of small to me-dium sized businesses. The family unit is central to the church and society. The point here is that applying the centrality of the family unit to business and espe-cially church governance seems risky given its apparently weak biblical sup-port.

Dealing with conflict in secret

Then, in verse 24, comes the inevitable, indignant response by the other leader-ship contenders upon finding out about their own colleagues attempts to win spe-cial favour. By dealing with this conflict openly, Jesus succeeds where many suc-cession relationships fail because of try-ing to keep such conflicts secret.

So far, it should be obvious that attempts by potential successors to seek favours are inevitable. It is how incumbents deal with these successional conflicts that really count. As briefly shared in chapter 2, Jesus deals openly with their justifi-able anger at being potentially disadvan-

taged by favouritism. How often such conflicts are dealt with behind closed doors and in secret or never dealt with properly at all! It is no wonder that so many successions are compromised by this behaviour.

Again, Jesus shows the right way to deal with successional conflicts, competition and favouritism by being open and trans-parent about it. Wisely, he involved those that were offended and caused the initial offense in the discussion, rather than talking with individuals separately about the conflict. This latter approach more easily leads to misinterpretation and misunderstanding amongst inter-ested parties.

Initially this discussion may have only been with the ten, not including the two protagonists, James and John, who were attempting to seek succession favours. Because this detail is not entirely clear from the passage, when the conflicting parties were first brought together can-not be definitively stated.

Either way, it should be reasonably clear that Jesus mainly dealt with his disciples in groups rather than as individuals. Then, from verse 25 onwards, Jesus most likely brings the twelve together to provide his seminal teaching about sacri-

38

ficial succession being an outworking of genuine servant leadership. In the proc-ess Jesus provides one of the most suc-cinct explanations of authoritarian lead-ership and succession ever written.

It is important to note the integral links here in Matthew chapter 20, between the previous verses 26-27 with verse 28. Equally important are the integral links within verse 28: JUST (even) as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, AND to give his life as a ransom for many [emphasis added].

Both highlighted words are important. Just denotes the strong link to the pre-vious verses whereas and connects the two key verbs serve and ransom. To be more successional, we do well to fol-low in the footsteps of Jesus as the per-fect predecessor.

Authoritarian successions

Going back a little now to Matthew 20 verse 25, it is in this environment of con-flict, openness and honesty that Jesus gathers his potential successors together to teach them about the dangers of worldly successions. He concisely warns against the norms of both corporate and dynastic successions.

Jesus explains a three-tier structure of leadership authority that can be applied to virtually all successions. Those in authority authorise a succession and their intermediaries exercise this author-ity over their subordinates. Sometimes these authorities present themselves to subordinates as benefactors (Luke 22:25). At other times they act as rulers, lording it over their subjects (also Mark 10:42).

Here, Jesus also succinctly explains the key characteristics of most successors and successions. They tend to be authori-tarian. Authoritarianism in transitions can be strong or more benign. While similar observations apply to leaders and leadership, they are out of scope for our study of sacrificial succession, except where these same principles apply to transitions.

Obviously many of the same principles apply because leadership and succession are so integrally linked. The diagram be-low applies this three-tier hierarchy to the people that are normally involved in corporate and dynastic successions. Similar human hierarchies or positional structures are also observed in churches. Another way of thinking about and apply-ing this hierarchy is as process struc-tures. Instead of looking at the people

39

who normally fill these positions we can look at the processes or activities nor-mally associated with each tier or class.

Suffice to say, from the words of Jesus about worldly leadership hierarchies, wrong succession mastery occurs where leaders are chosen based on positions and processes that favour managerial performance and/or familial power. By their very nature, such successions tend to be naturally managerial-bureaucratic, dynastic-autocratic. The natural result, therefore, is these transitions become authoritarian.

That such authoritarianism underpins successions in some Christian institu-tions is unfortunate and sad, given these warnings by Jesus so long ago. Keeping these natural hierarchies in mind, with successions there are also roughly three stages or phases that potential succes-sors undergo to succeed as successors.

These three phases correlate with the three-tier structure normally observed in leadership successions. In the previous chapter, these phases were briefly ex-plained as the succession and successor characteristics of ministry / minister, me-diation / mediator and mastery / master. Broadly speaking then, a ministry stage occurs whenever a successor serves per-

sonal or others interests to qualify as a candidate successor.

Depending on the field of endeavour, a ministry phase usually involves gaining some sort of technical, managerial or theological qualification or experience. Following this initial phase of ministry, other forms of leadership performance and tenure are used to qualify succes-sors. These forms of ministry are over-whelmingly self-focused and self-promoting, in other words selfish.

In contrast, an altruistic ministry phase is primarily focussed on serving others rather than self. Following ministry is the mediatory stage, which negotiates how one masters. It bridges ministry and mastery. Because of its mediating or bridging role between ministry and mastery, the mediatory phase tends to most strongly define the selfish to sacrifi-cial orientations of the succession and its successors.

The reality is that most successions are mediated by the skilled performance of one or all of the above ministry qualifica-tions. As previously noted, coupled with performance is tenure--the time served or worked. Family ties can also mediate a succession.

40

After a mediatory phase comes mastery. More often than not, a mastery phase is the outworking of these selfish to sacrifi-cial ministry and mediatory phases through leadership positions or manage-rial authority. In most successions suc-cessors are recognised as masters based on their ministry and mediatory track re-cord.

Therefore, self-interested mastery tends to become the pinnacle of an incum-bents personal success, whereas sacrifi-cial mastery is others-focused on succes-sor success.

Within this framework, in terms of per-sonality, some people are obviously more naturally inclined to be ministers than masters, whereas others do seem prefer being mediators between the two. Remember the salient point Jesus makes on successional authority. Irrespective of the personalities of successors and the professional realities of successions, each of us has the choice of being selfish or sacrificial. Choosing the former ap-proach leads to authoritarian transitions and the latter results in more sacrificial successions.

Touching on personality is relevant here because some people are clearly more natural ministers than mediators or mas-

ters. For example, extraverts are often more inclined to master others, whereas introverts may minister to others more easily. Many of us tend to mediate be-tween these two extremes depending on opportunity and cultural expectations.

For example, researchers have found that in most western countries, such as the United States and Europe, top lead-ers are predominantly extraverts rather than introverts . Eastern cultures, on the other hand, often prefer more intro-verted leaders . An obvious problem with these preferences for certain person-alities over others is that other personal-ity types do not get the same opportuni-ties in leadership and successions.

These findings are noteworthy, and con-firm this succession models validity in terms of personal behaviour and cultural norms. The Bible, however, clearly cuts across both these measures because it is counter-cultural and counters wrong be-haviour no matter how well accepted such behaviour might be. It calls all of us to be service and sacrificially orien-tated irrespective of our personalities and cultures.

Sacrificial service without expecta-tion

41

By describing these naturalistic succes-sion norms and their authoritarian out-working most recognisable in either cor-porate or dynastic successions, Jesus is preparing his successors for the radically unnatural alternative of altruistic service and sacrificial succession.

Explained in Matthew 20:26-27 (also Mark 10:43-45 and Luke 22:26-27), is this sacrificial alternative. Successors are chosen based on a track record of serving others without expectation then ministering sacrificially through their leadership positions. The act of Jesus washing his disciples feet in John 13:1-15 is probably the best-known enact-ment of this truth . This sacrificial act is most often associated with servant lead-ership, the altruistic actions of leaders serving others before themselves.

Servant leadership is a term commonly used in both secular and religious leader-ship fields and consists of spiritual and non-spiritual, biblical and non-biblical influences. This qualification is impor-tant to ensuring that a proper biblical un-derstanding of servant leadership and sacrificial succession is developed and maintained.

Because genuine servant leadership is cri-tiqued more in the next chapter, I want

to finalise this section and chapter with an overview of what Jesus discusses with his disciples about sacrificial service or servant leadership. Note that the con-text of a ministry of preparation is in an-ticipation of mediatory sacrifice, because this is a point critical to understanding the link between genuine servant leader-ship and sacrificial succession also ex-pounded later.

Here, Jesus is clear that his successors are not to be like their more authoritar-ian counterparts. He goes on to explain the two key requirements of sacrificial service, defined in this book as a minis-try of service (Matthew 20:26-27). They are ministering to others through a lead-ership position diakonos (verse 26) and serving others as a servant does doulos (verse 27).

Servant hood is about serving without ex-pectation of advancement through serv-ice as a servant does. Ministry is about serving others through a position or of-fice,