Saul of Gibeah was recognized as king because he was so much taller, charismatic, and exactly what the people wanted in a king to be “like the nations.” His charismatic leadership formula worked. People loved him, and when he blew the horn, men gathered for war. He was mighty in battle, a victorious hero. But he over-relied on his charisma rather than relying fully on the Lord. Samuel’s intended confrontation with the king was missed as Saul was out building the ‘Arc de Saul’. Samuel wept over Saul’s disobedience.
The face-off with the Philistine Goliath ended Saul’s leadership. Saul was a strong, tall hero, but he would not go up against the taller, stronger Goliath. Every soldier must have quietly wondered why King Saul refused to go out against Goliath. Then along came David, who did not see a high-risk problem to be solved, but a highly arrogant man who defied the living God. David stoned Goliath in the strength of the Lord. A great victory, until the women started singing of David’s tens of thousands slain.
King Saul, like many charismatic leaders, simply could not share his glory with another. And so, he tried to kill David first with the spear and then with the challenge of the 100 dead Philistines. When Jonathan made a brilliant and bold move against the Philistines at the gorge at Michmash, Saul’s charisma failed him; to be the hero, he gave the foolish order about not eating that day so that the story could be about him. The soldiers had to rescue Jonathan from execution at Saul’s hand. Game over.
Saul of Tarsus: Saul of Tarsus did not rely on charisma; he was a qualified leader. He had studied and had earned his degrees. He knew the ropes, he had advanced in the system, and he was a top player. He knew where to apply his energy: persecute the new church. He relied on his qualifications and position rather than on the Lord. He knew that Jesus was a threat to the Pharisees’ leadership, and that he wanted to rise to become a top Pharisee.
Saul, like many driven, capable, and organized leaders, simply could not work in a situation where he would rely on Jesus rather than himself. No one disputed his zeal for God, but he pursued that zeal wrongly. In fact, his ministry was counterproductive. Remember Nicodemus? He might have wondered why God chose Saul instead of him as the new apostle. Nicodemus had recognized and helped honor Jesus.
Saul of Tarsus got more than a new name; God transformed him entirely. He had been driven by laws and pedigrees. He repented and became solidly driven by God’s grace. Many have desired to be like Paul but have not realized his terrible suffering as an apostle, along with his regret of having persecuted Jesus before he was knocked down on the way to Damascus. Unlike King Saul, Paul led well.
Conclusion: There are charismatic and highly trained Christian leaders. Both have a pathway to accomplishment and success that makes them appear godly. And they can be godly if they can overcome charisma or their pedigree-driven zeal. The self-deceived, as with the Jimmys of the 1980s-90s, are eventually struck down. On bad days, it seems that God prefers the King Sauls, but those are the days of our own self-pity. Some of us may be charismatic or natural leaders, others may be hard-working and organized leaders. Both can create an effective ministry, but neither, if we follow the examples of the two Sauls, seems to need Jesus. We easily imagine ourselves to be self-sufficient.
The charismatic King Saul could not tolerate a full partner; the qualified Paul could not imagine needing a partner even if it is God. Both kinds, whichever we may be, can be helped by a very different attitude of yielding to the leadership of Jesus.
Then we will be even more effective as we lead in ministry…like Paul.