Oswald Sanders - Spiritual Leadership review

J Oswald Sanders

The Little Leadership Book That Grew With Me

Every now and then you come across a book that doesn’t just sit on your shelf — it follows you around. For me, one of those books is Oswald Sanders’ *Spiritual Leadership*. My pastor handed me a copy before I went off to university many years ago, the kind of gift you don’t fully appreciate until life has knocked you around a bit. At the time, I thought it was just another “Christian leadership book.” I had no idea it would become a quiet companion through seasons of growth, ambition, disappointment, and recalibration.

Looking back, I can see why the book has lasted as long as it has. Sanders doesn’t offer leadership hacks or clever frameworks. He doesn’t talk about branding, platforms, or influence strategies. His whole thesis is disarmingly simple: leadership begins with the person you are becoming, not the position you hold.

And that’s the heartbeat of the book.

Character Before Competence

Sanders keeps circling back to the same idea: you can’t lead others well if you can’t lead yourself. He talks about integrity, humility, discipline, self‑control, and the inner life that nobody sees. It’s not glamorous, but it’s real. And it’s aged far better than most leadership literature from the 60s.

Humility as the Core Virtue

One of Sanders’ most countercultural claims is that humility is the indispensable leadership trait. Not charisma. Not vision. Not talent. Humility. In an era obsessed with platform and visibility, Sanders’ insistence that leaders take the lowest place feels almost rebellious. He’s not interested in celebrity pastors or spiritual CEOs. He’s interested in people who serve quietly, faithfully, and without fanfare.

Dependence, Not Performance

Another thread that runs through the book is Sanders’ conviction that spiritual leadership is impossible without spiritual dependence. Prayer, Scripture, obedience, holiness — these aren’t “extras.” They’re the engine room. It’s a refreshing reminder that Christian leadership isn’t about personality or technique. It’s about being shaped by God before trying to shape others.

A Book That Outlived Its Era

What fascinates me is how *Spiritual Leadership* has been received over the decades. When it first came out, it wasn’t a blockbuster. It quietly found its way into missionary training programs, Bible colleges, and the backpacks of young leaders heading into ministry. Over time, it became a kind of unofficial textbook for anyone serious about Christian leadership.

Then came the 2000s and 2010s — a period marked by painful leadership failures across the church. Suddenly Sanders’ warnings about pride, ego, ambition, and moral compromise felt prophetic. The book was rediscovered as a corrective, a reminder that leadership built on gifting rather than character is a house on sand.

Today, it’s still widely used around the world. It’s been translated into dozens of languages and remains a staple in leadership development programs. And interestingly, younger leaders often describe it as “old‑fashioned in the best possible way.” In a world of hustle culture and personal branding, Sanders’ quiet insistence on holiness feels like a breath of fresh air.

Why It Still Matters

I think the reason *Spiritual Leadership* endures is simple: it refuses to separate leadership from discipleship. Sanders doesn’t care how impressive you are. He cares who you’re becoming. He doesn’t care how many people follow you. He cares whether you’re following Christ. He doesn’t care about your platform. He cares about your soul.

And that’s why the book still sits on my shelf — and still speaks.

Sage advice for any business person

Henry Blackaby

Much is said in business circles about leadership and management.

For followers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, their views on leadership and management must be informed by the biblical worldview.

Today's entry from Henry Blackaby's Experiencing God Day by Day is a timely reminder of this thought:

Servants of Christ
"In the same way, when you have done all that you were commanded, you should say, “We are good-for-nothing slaves; we’ve only done our duty.””--(Luk17:10)

The servant carries out the master's will. The servant doesn't tell the master what to do. The servant does not choose which tasks to perform for the master, nor does the servant suggest days or times when it would be convenient to serve the master. The servant's function is to follow instructions. The master, on the other hand, gives directions. The master does not tell the servant to develop a vision that will guide the master. The master is the one with the vision; the servant's task is to help fulfill the master's purposes.

We are the servants; God is the Master. We tend to try to reverse this! God's revelation of Himself, His purposes, and His ways depends directly upon our obedience. He may not reveal today His intentions for the next five years, but He will tell us what our next step should be. As we respond to God's revelation, He will accomplish what He desires, and He will be the One who receives the glory. 

Our fulfillment comes from serving our master. 

The world will encourage you to strive for positions of authority and power. God wants you to take the role of a servant. As God's servant you should have no other agenda than to be obedient to whatever He tells you. God does not need you to dream great dreams for your life, your family, your business, or your church. He simply asks for obedience. He has plans that would dwarf yours in comparison (Eph 3:20)

Monopolies

Recently I have been considering the problem of monopolies in our society.  New Zealand is a relatively small country (Pop. 4 million) and in a relatively small amount of time, most industries become oligopolies or duopolies.  As a result, monopoly rents become possible on all sorts of products and services. 

In recent weeks there has been a considerable amount of debate on how house pricing can be constrained so that first home buyers can purchase or build their first home.  Even my next door neighbour raised it over New Year's drinks as he worried for his daughter who is going out with a "loser" that has persuaded her to use her savings for an overseas trip instead of a deposit on a house.

His story reminded me of an old Jewish joke where a suitor came to ask her father for her hand in marriage.  When he asked the boy how he was going to provide a home for his daughter, the boy said bravely, that God would provide.  He asked how he would provide for a family, the boy answered in the same way.  Later as his wife asked expectantly about how the interview went, he replied that the boy thought he was God.

As a first step to thinking about this, I thought I would put down a few observations I have noted of the real estate market:

1. In Christchurch 2-3 families have been land banking for decades and tie up quite a large proportion of the undeveloped land within the city limits.  One of them even has their own construction company and a kitchen manufacturing firm.  They only release enough lots to keep their factories busy and to keep the price up.
2. Land zoning puts a collar around the city and as the city population grows, demand for land grows more quickly than supply, ensuring prices continue to rise.
3. With increasing prices, homeowners can further leverage their homes by taking out additional mortgages or increasing existing mortgage loans to purchase or build more homes which they can rent to those who can't afford to purchase their home.
4. Relaxed overseas investment criteria mean that New Zealanders have to compete with well capitalised foreigners who are often absentee landlords.
5. Developers wanting to ensure that they maximise their profits do not build homes intended for first time buyers because smaller homes de-value their neighboring houses.  As a consequence, many developments do not cater for budget buyers.  
6. Even when budget housing is included in a new development well-capitalised existing home owners looking for investment homes outbid first time buyers anyway.
7. It is in the interests of existing landowners, homeowners, real estate agents mortgage lenders and developers to ensure that house and land prices continue to inflate.  If values were to fall then mortgaged owners would see their equity vanish, real estate agents would see their commissions fall, banks would be concerned that their borrowers may default and developers would see margins and demand fall.  
8. Therefore politicians cannot enact laws that create significant downward pressure on land and house prices since that would lose the significant political support of these groups.  Yet all that these groups have done has contribute to the creation of land monopolies which can only lead eventually to civil strife.  
9. In hard times, families would pool their resources to survive.  After 50 years of comparative prosperity, two generations have grown up with very independent mentalities.  The physical, cultural and social distance between individuals is so great that many of the skills needed to negotiate healthy relationships in extended families need to be relearnt.  Instead the generation in their sixties relish the thought of their regular SKI (Spend the Kids Inheritance) holidays, selling their lands and purchasing motorhomes in a glamorous display of conspicuous consumption. 
10. We have plenty of land, we have willing people to work and build their own homes.  But the game of monopoly is disenfranchising people.  We are on the way to rebuilding a stratified feudal society.  
11. In this society, we spend our 20s getting educated and building up student debt, our 30s paying it off and our 40s scrambling to get a deposit for our first home, and having a (small) family, spending the rest of lives paying off the mortgage and retiring in a "rest home" far from our families surrounded by other people who discuss their doctor's and their latest treatments, and going to someone's funeral.

Land is not the only monopoly we have built in Western society.  Why is health care so expensive?  One of the reasons is that we limit the numbers of medical practitioners that can be produced even though there are many people who could sit and pass the theoretical and practical exams.  The same could be said for dentists, lawyers, accountants, engineers and technologists.  We arbitrarily limit class sizes for all these disciplines.

In Christchurch we have young people seeing back street dentists for fillings.  Across the city there are extraordinarily high levels of stress, insomnia, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self harm and suicide.  These levels cannot be solely attributed to the earthquake.  These problems are high in other urban centres too. 

We've been through a financial crisis and it has become one of unemployment and inflation.  Sure it's been exacerbated by the earthquake, yet I have met few who have heard messages from the pulpit on the Global Financial Crisis, about watching out for neighbours who might have been made redundant, or small business owners who maybe facing ruin.  Instead I have heard many sermons on how triumphant the Christian walk truly is.  Are we so disenfranchised from reality?

Does God not have answers for these problems?  What does His Bible say?  Who knows what's in it?  Why are these issues not being discussed from the pulpit? Why are the believers so disempowered?  How did we get this way? 

Where are the Believers who confidently say that God has set out a way that we should live which solves these societal problems?  What have we done to our people that they can be so silent at a time of such great need?  Who are we that we cannot speak prophetically to our society in such a way that their hearts can be touched and that they will give us license to propagate much-needed change?  It is time we asked ourselves "WHO AM I?" for we are not what we ought to be.

Baptism and the Priesthood

Last week I had coffee with an Egyptian Copt and the conversation turned toward the differences between Coptic Christianity and Protestant Christianity.  One of the differences he pointed out was that Protestants had lost the concept of the Priesthood.

This week whilst studying Galatians we got to talking about Baptism and how various kinds of baptism could be found in the bible, that various historical cultures prior to the First Century had also practiced ceremonial washings.

The conversation eventually turned to the meaning behind Jesus' baptism at the hands of John (Matt 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11); Luke 3:21-23).  At first John objected to carrying it out but Jesus convinced him, arguing that it would "fulfill all righteousness." (NKJV). What did he mean?

One school of thought is that Jesus was fulfilling Isaiah's Servant prophecies by identifying himself with the plight of Israel and its sin through the ritual.

Hebraically, righteousness conveyed the idea of someone who was in good standing with God.  This meant that they must have been compliant with God's teachings or Torah.

My conversation with the Copt made me think of another reason why Jesus needed to be baptised.  Perhaps baptism was a requisite part of the process for entering the office of a Priest.  In the book of Hebrews, the concept of Jesus as a High Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek is set out (Hebrews 4:14-5:11).  I also note that the Levitical and Aaronic priests were required to be baptised as part of their ordination process (Exodus 40:12).  What if it was customary for all priests to be ritually washed as part of their ordination?  Could this be the "righteousness" that Jesus was referring?

If this was true, then one would expect Jesus' baptism would occurred very early in his ministry, before he had carried out anything publicly significant.  A review of Matthew, Mark and John confirm this to be true.

For Christians, most consider baptism to be a symbolic identification with Jesus' death and resurrection.  Christians therefore die to the old self and its sinful past to arise in newness of life, free to walk in the ways of God, led and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

What if there was a deeper meaning to baptism.  Peter says that the People of God are "a Royal Priesthood." (1 Peter 2:9)  What if baptism was a necessary part of the ordination of Christians as Royal Priests in the order of Melchizedek?  If so, then perhaps Christians do not enter into the fullness of their spiritual authority and responsibility until they are baptised.

The idea that all the people of God were meant to be Priests was not conceived by Peter.  According to Moses, this was intended by God as far back as Sinai (Exodus 19:6).  Prior to ascending Sinai to meet God, they were required to undergo a baptism.  Unfortunately overcome by their fear of God, Israel declined the role (Exodus 20:18-21) and asked Moses to be their intermediary instead.  An opportunity lost.

In many ways, the concept of congregational members as Priests and Priestesses in Protestant Christianity has largely been forgotten.  Today, there is a clear distinction between Clergy and Laity.  In many senses we have regressed back to the Mosaic Priesthood in our practice of Church life.

Unfortunately it also means that we, the Laity, have abrogated our duties and responsibilities as Priests,  as Priests to our families, our friends, our communities, to our societies and to our nations.  In fact, there is a case for all to be trained and qualified to carry out services, act as marriage celebrants and hold funerals.

Based on the bible, Priests had several roles to fulfill:

1. Administer the sacrifices and other ceremonies required by God.
2. Administer justice in civil and criminal cases base on the Biblical Code.
3. Administer quarantine laws in relation to infectious diseases.
4. Teach the scriptures and train people on how to carry out their duties and responsibilities under the Torah.
5. Intercede for sinners in prayer.

Evidently, the Priestly role was an integral part of how God's community was intended to function.  If the Priestly role were to regain its former meaning and prominence then Christian life might be quite different.

Since all have a Priestly role then all have the responsibility to intercede for their families, their church communities, their societies, their nations and the world.  You don't have to have a "gift of intercession" before you may intercede in prayer for others.  As Priests all are responsible for teaching others the scriptures and showing them how to walk in God's way.  You don't have to have a gift of teaching to be able to teach from the scriptures.  Each should teach to their level of competency.  As Priests we should be observing and teaching others to observe God's commandments with respect to what is spiritually clean and unclean.  As priests we should be pressing for and advocating for justice.  None of these duties and responsibilities are meant to be carried out to the exclusion of the others.  Collectively they define the role of the Priesthood.

September 28 Christchurch Earthquake Prediction: If in doubt, suppress it!?

Dust rises from Christchurch immediately following the February 22 earthquake

While discussing the September 28 earthquake prophecies I was amazed that some were advocating that such prophecies should be suppressed on the grounds that many people were not well positioned to process them maturely.  Hiding people in a cupboard is no way to deal with the situation.  Besides, talk of the prophecies has reached talkback radio and national radio.  No church can stop its people from watching television.

The right way forward for church leadership to deal with the situation is to train and equip its people on how to maturely process prophecies as they come to hand.  Censorship isn't the answer. 

This is the raison d'etre of leadership in a Christian Church:

(Eph 4:11)  And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,

(Eph 4:12)  to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

(Eph 4:13)  until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

(Eph 4:14)  so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.  (Eph 4:11-14)

This is where church leadership often falls down. 

Instead of training the saints and equipping them for the work of the ministry leaders often attempt to do the work of the Ministry themselves.  Consequently burnout is common.  Often leaders lack the patience to nurture new leaders and step in too early when they judge that they can do the task better themselves.

Leaders with churches that have members with sufficient biblical education and who have the gifting to do so, shouldn't be doing most of the preaching.  Instead, they should be discipling others and training them in that ministry.  The same can be said for each church role be it apostleship, prophecy, evangelism or pastoral care.

The Christian leader faces many temptations that can prevent him or her from taking up this responsibility.

Equipping the Saints

There are many Christian leaders today who are overcome with burn-out.

Ephesians 4.11f (NIV) says

11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up
13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

To me, this passage says that the role of leadership is to equip the saints so that they carry out the "work of the ministry." It is not the primary role of the leadership to do the work of the ministry themselves.

Yet many Christian leaders complain of fatigue and burn out. Could it be that they take too much upon themselves and instead of seeing themselves primarily as coaches, they have joined the ranks of the players?

Over the years, have we developed congregations that have been regressed into a couple of roles, that of financial donors and audiences? And if this is so, have our congregations grown to accept this over many generations, if not centuries, so that these roles are now entrenched? Do our congregations now expect our leaders and other full time workers to do the "work of the ministry?" Isn't that what we pay them for?

If this is so, could it be that we have established a modus that not only creates a steady stream of burnt out leaders but it is a system by which our congregations will never achieve maturity (v13)?

Isn't it conceivable that the congregation no longer wants to do the work of the ministry and is content to leave it to the employed leadership of the church? How can this pattern be stopped?

It is the role of leadership to break the vicious circle. I think courage will be required to break the cycle as many leaders now derive their meaning from the work of the Ministry that they do. To train others to do it, to trust others to do it, could be quite unnerving. This is why faith is required. To trust that God can step in and give sufficient grace to overcome the consequences of mistakes that new learning inevitably brings. In the long run, the risk and investment is worth it. It is the key to fulfilling the promise that "greater things" will be done (John 14.12).

So if you are the leader of a church or member of a leadership team, do you do most of the preaching, teaching, worship leading, praying, giving, studying and talking? For example, in a church that is focused on equipping the saints, the "leaders" only preach to show how it is done, the rest of the church should be doing it most of the time.