> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://mereorthodoxy.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Learning from Rehoboam: Lessons on Leadership and Transitions - URL: https://mereorthodoxy.com/learning-from-rehoboam-lessons-on-leadership-and-transitions/ - Published: 2026-08-26T11:00:17.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-26T11:00:16.000Z - Description: Solomon's son offers an alarming but instructive example of what can happen when leaders are vain and arrogant. - Author: Mere Orthodoxy - Tags: Hayden Nesbit, Church, Culture We are on the cusp of [significant leadership transitions](https://mereorthodoxy.com/ministry-after-the-boomer-apocalypse/) within the American church. As one generation retires and new leaders arise, we will face many difficult questions about what those transitions should look like as well as the dangers we risk if we get them wrong. For now, the range of possibilities open to us is quite broad, but it will narrow rapidly in the coming years. If we want to get it right, now is the time for thought, planning, and conversation about what makes for faithful and healthy leadership. ## A Tragic Case Study King Rehoboam in 1 Kings 12 offers a terrific (or tragic) case study in poor leadership transfer. Successor to his father, the famously wise King Solomon, Rehoboam is immediately approached by Solomon’s labor force. They don’t mind serving, but Solomon’s yoke has become heavy, and they want a reprieve. Rehoboam requests three days to consider the matter, during which he seeks counsel from two groups: first, the older men who had advised his father, Solomon, and then his younger friends who had “grown up with him.” The older men recommended lightening the load and thus securing the people’s devoted service. The younger men advised doubling down on Solomon’s yoke, lest the people think the new management is weak. Tragically, Rehoboam abandons the older men’s counsel and rules harshly. Ultimately, the kingdom was torn in two as a result of Rehoboam’s poor leadership. ## Misguided Image “Leadership” can conjure up many different images. The word itself can feel like a stuffy, florescent-lit boardroom. Or the hot soil of a colonial battlefield. Or even the sting of icicles clinging to Shackleton’s beard on the *Endurance*. These images are aggressive, grueling, and overwhelmingly male. However, leadership is not gender specific, nor is it relegated to a title, a corporate office, or a military grade watercraft. Leadership takes place wherever there is a system (a business, team, small group, or family) that needs to be managed, directed, or changed. Dan Allender appropriately broadens the imagery of leadership when he rightly says, “if there is one little girl who looks at you and says, ‘Mommy’, then you are a leader.” Indeed, anyone who uses their gifts, talents, and resources for the good and guidance of others is a leader. In his book, *A Non-Anxious Presence*, Mark Sayers skillfully adapts Edwin Friedman’s work on systems theory. Friedman identified that healthy organisms produce healthy systems. Individuals who can differentiate themselves from––not be affected by––the inevitable stress and anxiety in a system can impact the system positively. Sayers applies these principles when he argues that good leadership is not reducible to charisma, drive, intelligence, or achievements, but being a *non-anxious presence*. But how does one lead as a self-differentiated non-anxious presence? ## Getting on the Balcony In their excellent book on leadership, Linsky and Heifetz say a crucial first step for any leader is *getting on the balcony*. This is the thirty-thousand foot view of a system, in leader-speak. But at its simplest, this is a learned awareness of oneself, those around you, how the system fits together, and how it is doing. This balcony-view takes devoted time. Some have the luxury of multi-day retreats and custom analytics to gain such a view. Others manage it with a notepad after the kids go to bed. Many make mental notes as they sit bleary-eyed over breakfast. King Rehoboam took three days to reflect on the change of power from his father to himself. The people complained of heavy burdens. He needed to assess the situation and get counsel. Such reflection can be as broad as assessing cultural trends or as narrow as getting clear on where the few people around the dinner table are emotionally, spiritually, and physically. From the balcony, it can be helpful to identify the broad system(s) or networks you inhabit, the dominant hubs, the individual nodes, and the connections between them: Sayers helpfully parses these components of a system: - **Nodes** – the individuals: family members, teammates, congregants - **Connections** – how the nodes are related: friends, family, coworkers - **Hubs** – highly connected nodes within the system: any leader, group, or platform that touches many nodes - **Protocols** – the agreed upon rules of the system: bylaws, mission statements, values ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/7b/0b/7b0bd699-d78f-4472-8d29-233bd333f048/content/images/2026/08/Screenshot-2026-08-20-at-3.55.48---PM.png) We can see how just two systems can have many overlapping and dynamic connections, with many different areas for potential stress and anxiety. Such anxiety can be the result of not knowing where we fit. It is on the balcony where we assess the big picture. ## The Necessary Work Once you have clear eyes on the system in question, Linsky and Heifetz suggest four necessary tasks. One reason Rehoboam is a helpful case study is because, according to Linsky and Heifetz, he does just about everything wrong. ### Distinguish between *technical* and *adaptive* problems. Technical problems are problems that can be quickly resolved using techniques already at hand, usually by an authority figure. Technical solutions for technical problems are often easily implemented––top-down––and require little change in a system. In contrast, adaptive problems often are rooted in people’s values, behaviors, and motives. Because they are more embedded in the *people* of the system, they often require action from the people themselves. A helpful example of this distinction is surgery and medicine versus lifestyle changes or physical therapy. Surgery and medicine are (relatively) easily implemented and require little on the part of the recipient. Surgery is performed; the problem is addressed. Lifestyle change and physical therapy are much more difficult and require a high level of buy-in from the beneficiary. Often such change pushes against deeply ingrained, unhealthy routines that are hard to quit. Both approaches are legitimate and one does not preclude the other, but knowing the difference is essential. Adaptive solutions to technical problems waste everyone’s time; technical solutions to adaptive problems will only mask the real issues. In the case of Rehoboam, he mistook an adaptive problem as a technical one. The people wanted a leader who cared about them, one who heard their cries of weariness, one who was committed to their flourishing. This would’ve likely taken a lot of emotional intelligence and character Rehoboam didn’t have *and* would’ve taken a lot of adjustment from everyone to figure out new routines and rhythms of working to ensure the people weren’t overwhelmed but the work didn’t suffer. Adaptive solutions often fizzle once the reality of required change sets in. It was much easier for Rehoboam to double down on the currently available technique of exploitation. While every system is constantly dealing with a mix of technical and adaptive problems, Sayers points out that Western society as a whole has historically adopted a technical-first approach to system management. Due to the success of industrialization, technical “programming” became the assumed leadership solution to all problems––good leadership was keeping the machine well-oiled and the people in line. However, with globalization and the explosion of the internet allowing system hubs to be decentralized, adaptive solutions are needed much more often. Sayers says a more helpful framework than a mechanical “program” approach is *virology*. Viruses constantly test themselves against their environment, adapting until they can gain a stronghold in a system. Leadership in the modern age must likewise be ruthlessly adaptive. ### Find out where people are. Many systems have clear processes for people, such as organizational charts or discipleship sequences and pipelines. Good leaders know where each person is, both personally and organizationally: #### **Personally** Where are they as human beings? A simple framework such as PRE/PS can be useful, noting where people are *Physically, Relationally, Emotionally/Psychologically,* and *Spiritually*. Staying aware of this will help in knowing where to focus one’s time and resources, and help to guide interactions. #### **Organizationally** Where are they as system nodes––what connections and alignments do they have and share with others? An important note here is to [connect relationally](https://mereorthodoxy.com/connecting-in-an-age-of-competition/) in order to discern system location, rather than assuming you know based on actions or reactions. I recently attended the Presbyterian Church in America’s General Assembly and was enlightened after meeting and conversing with people across a large system. I was able to interact with numerous “nodes” outside my typical spheres. This relational connection brought new clarity on how people were aligned and connected in the system (not just how I assumed they would be!), and opened possibilities for future adaptive work. To find out where people are requires actually meeting people where they are. Call it “boots on the ground”; call it “grassroots”; there must be a relational connection with each member in the system, on some level. This personal knowledge often happens outside of formal meetings. There isn’t a “paper-trail” for these encounters; they’re not reflected in official minutes but they pave the way for collaborative adaptive solutions. Here, Rehoboam had a lay-up opportunity to hear from the people and learn where they were. They came forward offering their perspective. They’re willing to serve, but they want a change. They had been freed from slavery in Egypt, but their freedom had once again turned to exploitation. Now, it’s not totally fair to accuse Rehoboam of not being a man of the people; kings have a lot on their plates. However, I think it’s fair to assume a lack of relational connection for two reasons: his arrogance and his inexperience. Rehoboam responds, “my pinky is thicker than my father’s thighs”––in other words, “You think it was bad before?… Hold my beer!” Such arrogance is a young man’s game. Few who have endured the true task of leadership over decades come out on the other side as arrogant. Leadership is a crucible. Again, a prime example of this is mothers: often working outside the home and still managing the lion’s share of household operations by default. I know many mothers refined by the fires of leadership; I know very few arrogant mothers. But Rehoboam’s arrogance is only compounded and supported by the unstable foundation of inexperience. Technique is always alluring to the inexperienced. Techniques can be adopted quickly and give the veneer of competence. Relational investment and compromise, on the other hand, is uncomfortable, takes time, and many mistakes and misjudgments must be made along the path toward wisdom. ### Listen to the music/subtext. When connecting relationally, a good leader must be in tune to the underlying dynamics and unspoken melody that sit quietly between the lines. Rehoboam's arrogance and inexperience were a recipe for being an anxious presence. His anxiety led him to perceive threats where there were none. It also made him deaf to the music. He can’t accurately hear the subtext of their request: a longing for the freedom they once knew after Egypt. He perceives their request as a threat against his inexperience rather than a genuine plea for reprieve. His insecurity muffles his ears to their hearts; he reads their *longing* for freedom as a desire for *leverage* over a new king. Anxiety limited his leadership toolbelt to reactive harshness. ### Pay attention to the leaders. In a network system, stress typically manifests at the hub level. Organizationally, this is usually the location of the “leaders.” Having the most contact with each individual node, they absorb each node’s anxiety and often become overwhelmed long before any one individual. Unfortunately, this also means an anxious presence at the hub level can negatively affect multiple nodes simultaneously, causing anxiety to go “viral.” In the case of Rehoboam, the leaders were the older men. They knew the people’s weariness, and encouraged Rehoboam to relieve them. Had the people come on their own, one could wonder about their motives. But Rehoboam should have realized that the complaint came also from the leading, older men––their experience and character should have vouched for the sincerity of the people’s request. Such is the value of not leading alone. At this stage, we must also understand that hub “leadership” is not always held by a person. Digital, political, or ideological hubs can gain dominance quietly and quickly outside of system control. For example, social media itself can be a hub and is likely dominant across any system, touching nearly every node and posing the threat of extreme, unpredictable, and constant anxiety. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/7b/0b/7b0bd699-d78f-4472-8d29-233bd333f048/content/images/2026/08/Screenshot-2026-08-20-at-3.56.20---PM.png) Paying attention to pervasive and decentralized influences require varying levels of expertise and involvement to discern and combat. Insights and hub-specific resources from leaders like Jonathan Haidt and [his work in *The Anxious Generation*](https://www.afterbabel.com/p/its-time-to-free-the-anxious-generation?ref=mereorthodoxy.com) are needed to address such issues that extend beyond our own expertise. ## Finding Partners for the Journey Linsky and Heifetz highlight this need for outside help. This is true whether on a team, leading a group, or managing a family––no one can lead effectively on their own. We need the valuable input, insight, and oversight of others gifted in ways different than ourselves. Herein lies Rehoboam’s crucial mistake. The old men had “stood before Solomon” who was unsurpassed in wisdom. Not only this, but they had experience under their belts. They were standing before Solomon, gleaning his wisdom, before Rehoboam or his friends were even born. They’ve seen a thing or two. Not so with Rehoboam’s other friends. They’ve only stood before their peers. Simply put, they were unqualified to be offering advice to the new king. In his foolishness, Rehoboam promoted his friends to hub-leadership––inexperienced youths who have not honed the craft of non-anxious leadership. The result was a divided kingdom. ## Leadership Fail-Safe While a tragic tale of leadership, it also offers an encouraging truth for those tasked with leading others: we can never out– or under-lead God. In verse 15, God’s providence is given as a divine leadership fail-safe: King Rehoboam didn’t listen to the people “*for* it was a turn of affairs brought about by the LORD that he might fulfill his word.” Of course there is wisdom in making plans and seeking to lead well, but ultimately even our best leadership efforts are beholden to the direction of God (Pr. 16:9). In a letter to a nobleman, John Newton wrote: All changes, successes, disappointments, all that is memorable in the annals of history, all the risings and falls of empires, all the turns in human life, take place according to His plan. Not even Rehoboam’s folly can undo God’s plan. The Lord is in the business of using foolish counsel to fulfill his word. God used the foolishness of Rehoboam to fulfill his promise to Solomon that he would divide his kingdom. Likewise, God used the foolishness of the cross to fulfill his promise that a new King would crush the Serpent’s head, uniting a new kingdom in himself. The God of the Balcony came low in the person of Jesus, rubbing shoulders with the people. He exercised perfect leadership, even giving his own life so that he could lead us to his Father. All our leadership––good and bad––is eclipsed by the Good Shepherd’s grace and promise to bring his people safely home, into a kingdom that can never be divided. A new generation of leaders can lead in freedom, non-anxiously and adaptively, willing to risk failing under the grace of such a gospel fail-safe.