Chapter 18 – Organizing – Was Abraham a Yes Man?
Organizing – Was Abraham a Yes Man?
The Balance Between Obedience and Constructive Opposition
Abraham demonstrated unwavering obedience to divine direction – from leaving his homeland to nearly sacrificing his son. This faithful compliance represents both a managerial asset and a potential liability. While managers appreciate employees who follow directions, organizational health often requires thoughtful opposition to ensure decisions receive appropriate scrutiny before implementation.
Workplace history abounds with examples where employees’ fear of contradicting superiors led to disastrous outcomes. When subordinates feel unable to challenge potentially destructive decisions, organizations lose critical safeguards against flawed leadership judgment. Conversely, environments where employees comfortably offer constructive criticism encourage leaders to reconsider questionable approaches and internalize valid feedback.
Abraham’s relationship with divine authority presents a compelling case study in this balance. Despite his general compliance, one notable exception occurs in his intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:23-32), raising questions about whether more frequent challenges might have produced different outcomes in his leadership journey.
The Binding of Isaac
Genesis 22:1 After these things, God tested Avraham. He said to him, “Avraham!” and he answered, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Yitz’chak; and go to the land of Moriyah. There you are to offer him as a burnt offering on a mountain that I will point out to you.” 3 Avraham got up early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, together with Yitz’chak his son. He cut the wood for the burnt offering, departed and went toward the place God had told him about.
Organizational Alignment Assessment
Employee-Mission Fit
Was Abraham the appropriate individual for divine mission implementation? This question requires clarifying the underlying objective – presumably establishing a people devoted to divine service (Genesis 12:1-3). By this measure, Abraham demonstrated exceptional commitment, investing himself completely in his assigned responsibilities.
His responsiveness appears exemplary – immediately answering “here I am” (hineni) when called for the sacrifice test (Genesis 22:1) and repeating this immediate availability when addressed by the intervening angel (22:11). His implementation enthusiasm manifested in early-morning preparation for the journey (22:3). While such dedicated responsiveness generally represents positive organizational citizenship, it raises questions about appropriate boundaries in organizational compliance.
Mission Purpose Analysis
The sacrificial test potentially served to establish the depth of Abraham’s devotion. Having already demonstrated commitment through geographical relocation and lifestyle changes, this ultimate test required willingness to surrender his most precious relationship and future legacy.
The covenant relationship had developed progressively – beginning in Genesis 15 with divine reminder of Abraham’s extraction from Ur-Kasdim (though Abraham had actually relocated to Haran before his first divine encounter). This relationship formalized in Genesis 17 through explicit covenant establishment, concluded with Abraham’s household circumcision. The covenant’s central promise – multiplying Abraham’s descendants like sand – had begun fulfillment through Isaac’s birth.
This background makes the subsequent test particularly challenging. Having received partial covenant fulfillment through his centenarian paternity, Abraham faced sacrificing the very promise-bearer without explanation. His compliance without questioning divine purpose represents either extraordinary faith or potentially problematic unexamined obedience.
The Talmud (Tamid 28a) addresses this question directly: “what is the best path to follow?” The rabbinical conclusion emphasizes willingness to receive correction when wrong. This principle suggests organizational health requires constructive opposition rather than unquestioning compliance. Effective managers seek team members willing to challenge potentially flawed thinking rather than automatic agreement. Abraham’s unquestioning acceptance, while potentially faith-demonstrating, might have benefited from an appropriate inquiry into divine purpose.
Relational Consequences
Abraham’s single-minded mission focus created significant collateral consequences. The narrative notes the angel required multiple attempts to interrupt Abraham’s determined sacrifice preparation. Following the intervention and substitute ram sacrifice, the text conspicuously omits Isaac from Abraham’s return journey. While Abraham ascended with his son, servants, and transportation amid considerable detail, his descent mentions only himself and servants (Visotzky, 1996).
This omission potentially signals relational rupture resulting from unquestioning obedience. The subsequent narrative reveals no further documented interactions between Abraham and Isaac until Abraham’s funeral (Genesis 25:9). Their physical separation becomes explicit—Abraham dwelling in Beer Sheva (Genesis 22:19) while Sarah remained in Hebron (Genesis 23:2) and Isaac established separate residence (Genesis 24:62). This family fracturing—including Hagar and Ishmael’s earlier Egyptian exile – left Abraham isolated despite his previous extensive relationships with converts, political leaders, and family.
Despite Abraham’s considerable social capital with international leaders including Avimelech (Genesis 21:27), Pharaoh (12:16), and regional kings (14:21), his post-test life appears marked by profound isolation. Though divine presence remained, Abraham had sacrificed human connection through unwavering compliance. This outcome suggests that employees who provide unconditional support to leadership directives risk alienating colleagues and family who expect advocacy and protection rather than blind compliance.
Some commentators suggest Abraham’s post-Sarah marriage to Keturah (Genesis 25:1) represented reconciliation with Hagar, eventually producing six additional children. Though Abraham provided his primary inheritance to Isaac, these children received gifts before being sent away (25:6), creating further family division.
Deliverables
Effective organizational functioning requires:
- Balanced Compliance: Fulfill leadership directives while maintaining appropriate questioning to ensure organizational benefit rather than blind obedience.
- Constructive Opposition: Develop comfort raising appropriate challenges when directions appear potentially problematic, particularly when protecting team members and direct reports.
- Relationship Preservation: Consider relational implications of strict compliance, recognizing that unwavering organizational alignment without appropriate advocacy may damage critical relationships.
- Truth-Seeking Inquiry: Establish questioning cultures that pursue understanding rather than mere compliance, preventing environments where automatic agreement becomes the default response.
Discussion Questions
- If you heard from the Lord to give up something important to you, would you comply and what wouldn’t you sacrifice for the Lord?
- What should Abraham have done before, during, and after the request to sacrifice his son?
- Should Abraham have challenged the Lord more aggressively before the request to sacrifice his son? For example, the Lord said he would save Sodom and Gomorrah if Abraham found 10 righteous people (Genesis 18:32), but Abraham never looked for them?
