ression of the social
feeling of Jesus. Note now that it was their leaderless condition which
impressed him. Plenty of priests, lawyers, and experts on the Bible, but
no friendly shepherds for the people. When he created the apostolate, he
initiated a new order of leadership, a band of men who would serve and not
exploit. Read the instructions he gave them (Chap. 10), and see how
carefully he fences out selfish gain. Service versus exploitation, that is
one of the tests of all who claim leadership in his name. We realize that
in the field of religion. But why should not the same test be made in
professional, political, and business life? Predatory action may not be as
glaringly shameful there, but is it any the more moral?

_Now what about you and me?_

Study for the Week

I

The desire to lead and excel is natural and right. Because men are
gregarious, they need leadership for their social groups, and social
progress depends largely on securing adequate leaders. Those who have the
natural gifts for leadership--and also those who merely think they
have--usually have a keen desire for its satisfactions. College life is a
miniature world of criss-cross ambitions and of contrivances for trying
out leaders.

Jesus did not demand self-effacement and the suppression of ability. He
welcomed evidences of noble self-assertion. His own Messianic call was a
summons to the highest leadership. His temptations were the settlement of
leadership problems. His final lament over the city of Jerusalem was a
burst of sorrow because he had failed to win his people to follow him.

Now, in moving about among men to win them for the Kingdom, Jesus
encountered the leaders who were on deck before he came--the wealthy men
who controlled the economic outfit; the official groups who held what
political power was left to the Jews; and the lawyers, theologians,
priests, and zealots who dominated the religious life of a very religious
people. These classes overlapped; together they constituted the oligarchy
of his nation. Both sides soon realized that there were fundamental
antagonisms between them. The conflict grew acute, until it headed up in
the great duel of the last days at Jerusalem. His experiences in this
conflict with hostile leadership are recorded in the passages which we
have studied and others like them.

II

In the fundamental reply to James and John he formulated his observations
in a great political generalizatio