This one was for work reading….at first my post-Christmas brain went to the three kings from the East, but the book was definitely about a different set of three kings: namely Saul, David, and Absalom. It was a quick read and interesting, though I found Edwards’ arguments a bit forced towards the end. It is a study of brokenness as the title states, but specifically about how that brokenness plays out in the leadership roles of the first three kings of Israel…and by extraction in our own lives.
In the first of the three kings (Saul), Edwards started strong. Saul is an insecure man who had power handed to him and had power taken away. He is unstable. He throws spears at David, because, well…hey, kings get to throw spears. He is a tragic character and that brokenness explodes out, breaking others. He is also the anointed King of Israel – though his line would end with himself.
Through Saul, Edwards explains the foundation of David’s leadership. He is broken and rebuilt by his experience under Saul, and through such – would never become Saul himself. Given no other option he leave, but he leaves alone. David does not build a rebellion or undercut Saul’s authority, he simply does what he has to do. It all follows the outline in 1 Kings and as a character study and a model of leadership, it really tracks.
Edwards definately has very specific points he wants to make about different kids of leadership. In the second part of the book, he ignores major character elements that have a big impact on the leadership in the characters of David. By arguing that David is the perfect King and then ignoring his failings with Bathsheba/Uriah, I felt his arguments start to fall apart. You could have a strong argument that he is by far the best king, but you cannot argue perfection.
Similarly with Absalom, Edwards chooses to ignore where the whole rebellion started (the rape of his sister by his half brother and David’s non-involvement as someone who should be interested in Justice). Now could you argue that there would be not appropriate time to incite a rebellion – sure. But Absalom is painted as a sort of power-hungry back biting jerk.
The book certainly made me think. It helped me to question my leadership style, and how I interact with not only my subordinates but also my superiors. I would have enjoyed it more if he had a stronger marriage between the character study and the points he was trying to make – but the few notable misses were glaring and made his argument seem forced. These are stories his audience would know well and for me it very much took away from what could have been a stellar exploration.
“Beginning empty handed and alone frightens the best of men. It also speaks volumes of just how sure they are that God is with them.”
