Theology of Credible Leadership - Lesson 11

Dr. John Johnson
Theology of Credible Leadership
Leadership Credibility
Lesson Transcription

What I want to do in this, next session is talk about, that if a leader's going to be effective, if a leader's going to impact the world, if a leader's going to bring change, a leader has to have credibility. That's a big subject. And I'm going to, what I'm going to do here is cover three different pieces, that, lead to leadership credibility.   

Let me start first of all with, an incident, a story, in the news. Some years ago, a tragic story, really. There was a ship, that, that left the, the Black Sea, named the Rosas. It was a ship that was loaded with, 2,750 tons, of material chemicals used to build bombs.   

So here's this ship with all of this material, looking for a port, looking for a place to unload its cargo. And so I found a place, and that place was Beirut, a place I'd been to many times. And in the harbor there, the ship came, it unloaded, these, materials.   

And for seven years, officials, deliberated over what they should do with, the material. No one, no leader wanted to take responsibility, could actually say there was no leadership at, at all. And tragically as many feared. There was a, a moment when, there was the triggering that led to, a flash that led to an explosion that did significant damage.   

A blast over 200 people died. The port district that was destroyed, one quarter of million people left homeless. That in itself is a huge tragedy. But the tragedy ever since 2013, so it's been 10 years, is that no one has taken responsibility.   

And so there it sits all of this damage and little effort to take responsibility to get to the root of the problem. Just a lot of feckless leaders, if I could put it that way that haven't come to the fore to lead, which has been a big, big problem in a place like Lebanon, especially in Beirut. At the heart of this leadership failure, and this is my point, is there's no credibility and there's no credibility, which is built upon, again, three core words that I want to take us through.   

The first is character, And the second is wisdom, sound judgment. And the third are the skills, that a leader must have to effectively lead.   

All three of these together are what form credibility, but it begins with character. And that's what I want to look at here for, for a, a little bit. So I think we would all agree, I, I hope anyway, that character is necessary for leadership. But actually, maybe we don't all agree because it seems like a lot of people are willing to look past character when it comes to making leadership choices.   

So is it required or not required? That's a question we want to wrestle with a little bit in, our discussion that we'll be talking about here. Character, is fair to raise, because in the day in which we live, it seems to be a diminishing resource, in the introduction, character counts, which actually was written several years ago.   

Os Guinness raises this question, where has all the character gone? My guess is if Guinness were writing this book today, he would be underlining this, raising the question, because it seems to be more absent than ever. It is this pressing question because the world stage, let's face it, is filled with a lot of leaders without character, void of virtues that lead to moral excellence, be it sadly, not only in the secular realm, but also in the religious realm as, as well.   

After decades of books and lectures and leadership development courses, character seems to sadly be missing in many leaders at most places. Workplaces, today, as one writer put it, I think this is Jeffrey Pfeffer from Stanford said, leaders, are their absent of character, leaving distrustful, disengaged, dissatisfied, and dis sparing followers.   

Most would agree that a leader worth following must have some character demonstrate some credibility. Though again, I'd raise the question, is this really true? Is it really true that we really require demand of a leader?   

That one has character, at least in the world I'm living in today, more and more people are saying, well, it would be nice. It'd be a nice addition. But there are other things that are more important. But maybe before we even go too far with this, we need to stop and ask, what do we even mean by character? It's a word we throw out there, but do we really know what it means? Character is not so easy to define.   

In fact, there's little consensus as to how you explain the term. I read this book, sometime back by Marjorie Barber, entitled character, the history of a Cultural Obsession, interesting title, character, the history of a cultural obsession. She seems to be making a point at something very important to us, something we even obsess about.   

But she goes on to say, that it is nonetheless one of the most, misunderstood or at least understood terms. It is so fluid, so arbitrary that it's become, as she puts it, quote, bland, sanctimonious, and an empty word. What do we even mean when we talk about character? We, we seem to make it synonymous with something good, but people can have bad character.   

So it's not necessarily, the same as moral excellence. It can also be, something deeply immoral. Because when we talk about character, let's get to the word itself. When we talk about character, we're talking about, we're talking about something at its essence. That's what we really mean by character, which therefore means it's a neutral term.   

It can be something good, it can be something bad. Character gets to, it could say something that's engraved or imprinted, something, someone in their inner form, their essential stuff, character seems to get to, to the heart. You look at some people, and it seems like there's a character flaw almost from the beginning, like a, let's say like a lamp that has a, a crack in it.   

Some just seem to be flawed in their character from the beginning. So, and when, when we use language like that, we're, we're talking again about something in one's essence, we, like we talk about, let's say, the character of a wood, we're talking about something that in its very fiber, in its being, if you will, it's not to be confused with one's personality or one's charisma.   

We're talking not about something that you see on stage or something outwardly character or something in the interior. And, and, and so we're talking about, what one is in the dark, so to speak. Who one is behind closed doors. What is it when no else, no one else sees?   

Who is this person? Character speaks to the sum of who a leader is, both in the public and in the private. It is the, as one put it, the pattern of thinking and acting, which runs through someone so that wherever you cut them, I think it was int right who put it this way, wherever you cut them, as it were, you see the same person through and through. No matter how you slice their life, no matter where you see them, they're the same person that speaks to character.   

So, in our use of the word character speaks to essence, but we also tend to use character, as I mentioned, synonymously with moral excellence. So we say, well, we've got to have a leader with character. It's if, again, that implies that they have this great ethical grit about their life. But back to Marjorie Garber, she would say, well, no character is, is a neutral word at, at at best.   

It's not to be equated with moral excellence. We are talking again about something in its essence, because the word is neutral, a person of character, a person of character, doesn't necessarily mean anything. What we need is an adjective to qualify the word, to differentiate one leader's character with another, as one can be flawed in their character, or one can be, a person of moral excellence.   

But even if we define character as someone with excellence, this too, this too, is shifting, isn't it? 'cause when we say we want a person of character, and we make it synonymous with moral excellence, well, what do we mean by moral excellence? What constitutes, someone who is ethical in character?   

That's even hard to dane our landscape because we have shifted more and more from, an acknowledged, moral base that goes back to a reference point such as Scripture, that when we talk about moral excellence, it can be all over the board. So this is why when we talk about credibility and character, we really have to define our terms. We have to know what we're talking about.   

Now, let's shift and talk about its importance. Just how important is character. I think there was a day that we would say, characters are non-negotiable. Richard Nixon, for example, in his 1964 campaign, this was his slogan, his campaign theme seems rather strange today when we think about it, maybe even stranger that it came from Richard Nixon.   

But he said, character is the most important qualification. The President of the United States can have the most important qualification. My, my guess is back in 1964 when he said that, that people understood that there was no question, people would nod their heads in agreement. I'm not so sure that's true today, but in, in terms of importance, some would say, it's what really matters.   

It's supersedes accomplishments. It, is what defines success. And if you look at successful leaders, you will tend to find a lot of them, are leaders who had character, who are interested in virtue, more interested in that than power or accomplishment. But followers today, it seems, anyway, sadly or seeming to set it aside, people seem to be saying, well, character's fine.   

But what I want to know is, will he carry out the policies I want him to carry out? Will he achieve what I want him to achieve? Will he fulfill the promises that I want him or her to fulfill? In the end, performative leadership is more important than principled leadership.   

Let me say that again. In the end, it seems today performative leadership is more important than principled leadership. I think we see that certainly in politics. I think we see it certainly in the corporate world. But here's the tragedy. I think sometimes we see this even in the religious world. Sometimes we measure a pastor's, value in terms of his performance and maybe less biased principles.   

And, and so when we talk about character, how important it is, well, maybe not as important as we once made it to be, a corporate leader, it seems today can be difficult, even abusive. But as long as he's creative and imaginative and satisfied the shareholders, you can be a Steve Jobs character isn't so much the issue, but it's the product that you bring.   

It's the imagination that you use. The political leader may lie and lack integrity, but as long as he fulfills the policies we want, that's what matters. And so, there is a history of this. Anyway, Alexander the Great with this formative leader, this formidable, I should say, leader who look, who, who, who took and conquered so, so much, but character wise, he was deeply flawed.   

Or think of presidents. Nixon or Johnson, or Clinton or Trump all lacked, something in its essence when it comes to character, a moral compass. They all seemed to lack something of a true north in their life. They all had a certain gate, a certain station, a certain manner, but followers rationalize and minimize their moral failures because they were more interested in their achievements.   

So we're talking about character, and we're asking the question, what does it mean? It's talking about someone in their essence. But the other question is, how important is it? It may be not as important as it used to be.   

In the study of 13 leaders, McChrystal in his book, concludes with this, this statement. Our profiles are a reminder that those who emerge as successful leaders are ne not necessarily those with the best values, but those who cohere with the sources of human motivation. It's another way of saying that as he looked at these core leaders that had huge influences in culture like Walt Disney and others, what he discovered is people deeply flawed in their character, but nonetheless were highly successful because people were willing to overlook their flaws as long as they carried out their wishes and desires.   

Or in her recent book, the Enablers, Barbara Kellerman notes, the followers will follow bad leaders if, even if they are both unethical and ineffective, as long as they fulfill the followers needs.   

A leader can be a blatant liar or be crassly insulting as she puts it. But if this leader satisfies the wishes of the populace, people will remain loyal, even defiantly.   

So now think about that. That's really largely where we're at. Character is not so important. It seems for many, but let's look at the other side. There nonetheless are still many who would say when it comes to credibility, character is really essential. It is a non-negotiable. It is not to be compromised. When you minimize the need for excellence in character, you're likely left, with an environment in which a leader works that becomes toxic, becomes dysfunctional, and even becomes dictatorial where the morale is low.   

And the, turnover is high. The truth is, principal leadership is essential, for those who have high values and high morals.   

Leaders who have been revered in many ways have those, when we look back, who've had really great moral character. Some of those worth mentioning are Wilberforce or Lincoln, or maybe even Washington or Mandela or Tubman or Martin Luther King are remembered for their deeds. But they're also remembered for their character.   

As I've mentioned. I just finished a book by Gary Wills on JFK. And at the very end, in terms of accomplishments and things that JFK John Fitzgerald Kennedy did, he compares John F. Kennedy at the very end with Martin Luther King. He writes this really interesting statement. He makes a statement. The speeches of Kennedy, as he put it, are studied. The speeches of Martin Luther King are memorized.   

And, and therein, I think he captures the distinction between a leader who's performative and a leader who is principled. So character, how do we define it? It's vague. It, doesn't equate with moral excellence. It's just the issue of essence. How important is it?   

Some would say it matters a lot. Some would say it doesn't matter that much. We are, at, at least right now as I give this lecture, or looking at political leadership, and it be, is becoming a huge question, just how important is character to the choices we make? But I want to move from how we see character, again, in terms of some common, assumptions to move to trying to get to the heart of what we mean by character.   

When we think about it theologically, that is, when we look at these shelves, at these books, on theology, we have to ask a question, does theology have anything to say about character? And as we'll see here, theology has a lot to say about character.   

So let me start with this. Let’s begin again with definition and, start with this, that when it, it comes to defining character, thinking theologically, we realize that it starts with God who is the essence of character. He is the one who, defines character just by his attributes. And in terms of who he is. His attributes transcend ours.   

He serves as our reference point. When we look at God, and we come to this question of character, theology would say, as you build your character, God is the reference point. So think about the essence again, the attributes of God. So it leads us to character issues we're going to talk about of love and justice, and integrity, et cetera.   

A theology, reveals that God not only shows us something about character because of who he is, as a reference point, it's also what God reveals. So as we look at theology, theology doesn't leave us wandering in the dark when it comes to character. What does character mean? If you think about it, theology at different points says, here are, here is a virtue list.   

Here's a virtue list over here. And we begin to put those together, and we begin to see what character means, because God has been intentional to make sure when it comes to character, we understand exactly what that means in terms of moral excellence. And, and when we look in Scripture, there are these virtuous. Some of them that stand out are, are, the beatitudes in Matthew five.   

The fruit of the Spirit in, Galatians five, the virtues that Peter, one of the great lists is found in two Peter chapter one, or certainly as Paul describes virtues in one Corinthians, 13, or James does in chapter three, 17 to 18. If you put all of these lists together and, and kind of synthesize them, you begin to get a sense of what character means when it, when looks at it through a theological lens.   

So what are some of the, the marks of character? Here’s what stands out. First of all, you have to start out with the word holiness. That seems to be the taproot, if, if you will, moral leadership at its highest level.   

I, if we look for, for a, a leader of character, we have to start there. We have to look at the very essence of godliness, because that's where character begins. Secondly, a word that stands out, in almost every virtue list is, is love. It stands out because it's the essence, again, of who God is. It is as one, put it the cardinal virtue.   

And that's a fair statement. When you look at passages like, for example, Colossians 3, 3 14, where Paul says, and above all, love it. It is, a word that therefore suggests that, a leader has exceptional kindness. A leader who is unusually generous, a leader who shows respect, a leader who shows great personal care, for a person's need, a leader who is more interested in where a person is at in their life than a person's performance.   

So when we think about a virtuous leader, a leader with character, we, we start with these, A leader is marked by godliness. A leader is marked by love. Here's a third, description of character, that compliments love.   

A leader is a leader who is just, and we see again, these, these words seem to compliment one another. We see love and justice, kindness and truth, compassion and righteousness. They seem to be tied together to keep us in a, a certain balance, if you will, to not go too far over here in truth and miss kindness, to go so far over here with love, that we Ms. Justice.   

So they parallel, they go together. They, go together in God. Justice has to be deep in a leader, because justice is deep in the heart of God and his character. Psalm 36, your justice is like the great deep. It has to be the great deep in a, in a leader's life.   

People, people want to know at the end of the day, but are you fair? Are you fair? Are you just in your leadership? It's the prayer of a mother for a king in Proverbs 31. It's gets to the heart of a leader in Isaiah 58, added to this, here's the third. I'll close with this here and we'll come back to some others, in the next lecture.   

But humility, is another core qualification. It, again, is found in the virtue list. And I mentioned this as a really important character quality, because when you look at what leaders are tempted to perhaps almost at the top of the list is an egoism, it's a pride. This gets leaders in trouble perhaps more than anything else.   

And so character, a leader of character exhibits great moral excellence with a certain humility, that provides a framework for all of the other, attributes. A leader who recognizes that it is God who leads a leader who recognizes that, he must ascend, and I must ascend without humility, A leader falls prey to arrogance.   

And it is a vice that is behind almost all leadership failure. When you look in Scripture, particularly looking at the kinks, we'll stop there and look at others in, as I mentioned, the next lecture, The thing I'm struggling with is to come up with a clear, concise, easy to understand definition of the word character. Mm-Hmm. Like you're using it.   

I think you've suggested character is what is in line with the qualities of God. Holiness love, justice, character can be defined as compliance to the virtue lists. Mm-Hmm. I'm thinking of the first, first Timothy three. The vast majority of the requirements for a leader are character, right? And then he gives, you know, above reproach husband and one wife, you know, all these kind of stuff. So can you give us, just and at very basic level how you would define character the way you're using it?   

Yeah. So, so as I, as I know, when it comes to character, we, we too quickly assume we're talking about moral excellence. And this comes back to Garber's point, that in fairness to the word itself, it's, it's neutral. Again, there can be bad character, there can be good character.   

So what do we mean by character? You have to go further to say that at its, at its very root. It speaks to something, again, of one's essence. And one's essence isn't necessarily equated with moral excellence. Mm-Hmm. One's essence can be something else. That’s why we need an adjective really in front of character.   

If we're going to actually use the word when we say we're, we're looking for a pastor with character, that that really in, in a certain way is a nonsensical statement. What we need to be saying is we're looking for a pastor with, with good character. Mm-Hmm. Moral character, moral excellence. So, so it's important that we, we not make the word something.   

I'm not sure if I'm answering the question, but I mean, we, we have to start without understanding of character. Yeah. There's, there's good character and there's bad character, right? Right. And so those are the, but I think, I think it would be assumed that if we said we want a pastor with good, with character, that it would be good character. We, we'd, we don't want someone who's a liar, but Right. Well, like, I'm looking at the first Timothy three, and, the elder has to be above reproach, temperate, can self-controlled, respectable, hospitable.   

Not a drunk, not violent, gentle. Right. Not quarrelsome, not a lover. Okay. Are those character traits, or would you call them something else? No, I, I think, in terms of leaders in particular, and that's who Paul is addressing. The these are good character traits that define who a leader is.   

Not only leaders, but it's contextually, right? It's geared to leaders. I, I think, I think they serve in their own way as a virtue list, that maybe as opposed to Galatians five, here's the fruit of the spirit, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, that all of us in Christ need to exhibit as character qualities.   

It seems in one Timothy three, Paul is, is kind of narrowing it down to say, this is what a leader has to be. Would it be fair to say that when we're trying to define good character, it's that which is in compliance with the characteristics of God? Yeah. And that was, my point earlier is to say that it all starts with God as the reference point. How can we even e even get to any place of defining good character theologically without starting with the person of God?   

So he becomes a reference point for any discussions on character. Okay. So in a good way to describe that, be godly character, because if you're going to, if you base that on a theological basis, then you have a way to focus on a specific point of view.   

Because if you just define character outside of a theological basis, then with a worldview where there is no right or wrong necessarily, you just have people that if they're exhibiting character, it's just whatever they decide that to be, it's just, you could say they're authentic Mm-Hmm.   

With whatever they're doing, whatever actions they're taking. But it's not necessarily good or bad because you don't have any reference point to determine what good or bad is. Yeah. I mean, I, we will talk about this a little bit, but I think when we talk about virtue, for example, a good character, everyone's going to have some reference point for how you define that.   

So maybe more in the secular side, people are going to go back to philosophers and they're virtue list. There are a lot of virtue lists out there. It’s the theologically, we'd say our reference point ultimately goes back to God and what he reveals. So from that, we begin to get a understanding of what, or moral excellence means.   

If we didn't have the person of God as an example, or what he's revealed, we'd be, we'd be looking for some reference point. Just like I think culture and unbelieving culture, it, it looks for a reference point. They might point back the philosophers. But I think increasingly so, Paul, people are making themselves as the reference point. And I think we see that particularly in self-help books that, it's, people aspire to character, but they may define that in terms of who they are and what they feel or what they believe theology would say.   

It’s got to transcend us.