The Hen

If you are a leader, the subordinates are imperfect; if you are a subordinate the leaders are perfect. The follower trusts the leader because he believes that he can do everything for him; the leader loves the follower because he believes that he can do everything for him. Based on our definition of leadership, a leader must direct. This actually means that he who is perfect must direct he who is imperfect. Then how can you trust someone who is imperfect. This is because if you trust somebody, it means he can perfectly do what you want. And no imperfect person can do a perfect thing. Then why do you trust a follower, as a leader, because he is indeed imperfect? You leader must love the follower, so that even if he is not able to successfully finish an assigned duty, you are not hurt so much simply because he is a follower. If you trust him rather than love him, he will disappoint you, because he may not be able to do it for you inasmuch as he is a follower. That means you are not to give a follower an assignment because you trust him that he will be able to do it successfully. No, remove trust and replace love, so that even if he does it unsuccessfully, because of love, you will not be hurt simply because he is a learner. If Psalm 40:4 says, “How blessed is the man who has made the LORD his trust,” it means God is more perfect, and the trustee is more imperfect. If God says in Jeremiah 17:5, “Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind,” it means cursed is the man who has made man more perfect, but God more imperfect, here in terms of divinity. That is the main reason God is furious to curse whoever that trusts in man than in Him. This is because universally God is the ultimate leader. Why therefore do you allow any man or any entity to control your life? Beloved, if you trust someone you will not tell him what to do and how to do it. This is all because we trust the more perfect one, whom we believe can do everything successfully for us. If you love someone because you are a leader, you direct him by correcting him until he becomes perfect to lead another group. Without love, you can’t do this. This is because love is agreeing to and ignoring one’s misbehaviours and staying and enduring with and correcting such behaviours with a hope that one day he or she could be tamed for better. That means a leader loves; a follower trusts. It must be noticed that such leaders, who must trust their followers before assigning a duty to them, are but appointed leaders. Their leadership is not divine. They cannot gather, but they are just appointed to lead an already gathered group. It means these leaders are also followers like their followers. They are just delegated among their colleague followers to advise them, not to lead them, because they can hardly direct a group of their own rank. Therefore they must trust them than to lead them. If a leader gives you the follower an assignment, don’t say, “Sir, trust me; I can do it.” You must instead say, “Sir, love me; I may do it.” Is it irrational? No, it is not irrational. This is because it is abnormal to tell the more perfect to trust you upon a given assignment. It should rather be the leader who can say, “Trust me, son; I can do it for you.” If you the follower tell the leader to trust you, then it means that you are now a leader, and mind you, it is written: “No servant is greater than his master.” It means therefore that trying to let the leader trust you is arrogance; it bears wild grapes. Notably, two people of the same rank can trust each other, and they can love each other, too. That means two leaders of the same rank can both trust and love each other. In the same vein, two followers of the same rank can both trust and love each other. This is because both leaders are equally perfect, and both followers are equally imperfect. That means when two equally perfect people meet, between them are both trust and love simply because each can perfectly do the wish of the other. Similarly, when two equally imperfect people meet, between them are the same trust and love simply because each can imperfectly give to each other. In both cases of analysis, one can disappoint each other. So far as there is inequality in their perfection, the more imperfect one must trust the more perfect one. What is the same, the more perfect one must love the more imperfect one. The leaders must know this. When the Lord Jesus handed the church over to Peter, saying to him that upon that rock He would establish His church, He asked Peter whether he loved Him. When Peter nodded in agreement, He told him to tend His sheep. Here, the Lord Jesus was not assigning the duty to him based on trust but based on love, so that even if Peter could not do this tedious and divine work, Jesus would not be disappointed because the Lord Himself almost was defeated. He asked Peter whether he loved Him not because Peter was more perfect, but because there is no trust without love. That means you can trust somebody only when you love him. However, if you are more perfect, don’t trust to love; you will be hurt and disappointed, which may destroy the whole project. When Apostle Paul told the husbands in Ephesians 5: 25 to love their wives, he meant husbands are leaders over their wives. And when he told the wives in Ephesians 5:22 to be subject to their husbands, he meant wives are followers to their husbands. Followers must therefore love to trust. Leaders must not be disappointed but the followers. That means husbands must not be disappointed but their wives.