Leaders With Character

"When little men cast long shadows," said Walter Savage Landor, an English author of the turn of the nineteenth century, "it is a sign that the sun is setting." Mr. Landor was not speaking of short-statured men, although perhaps he had the diminutive Napoleon in mind. No, he was referring to ignoble men, those with unworthy ideals and ambitions. Such men are self-aggrandizing, interested only in their own promotion.

Considering our political landscape, such men seem to be the rule rather than the exception. The current resident of the White House, reputed to be brilliant and motivational, seems to have few ideas, and those he does have are inimical to the traditions and principles of the nation he is supposed to be leading. Despite the President's popularity with nearly half the country, his record of unkept promises, division, and soaring debt marks him as one of the "little men" that Mr. Landor had in mind. And he certainly casts a long shadow, as Americans will be paying for the failure of his ideas for generations to come.

A better-known quotation on leadership and character comes from America's sixteenth President, Abraham Lincoln: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." This quotation—from a man who was tested as perhaps no other American chief executive has—makes it clear that character in leadership matters. Holding a position of leadership by definition implies holding power, and only people of good character can handle power properly. One could go so far as to say that character in leadership is where character matters the most.

Today, however, moral character in leadership is not considered a first priority. The current political campaign reveals what the candidates' public relations experts deem to be important: centrist policies, good looks, felicity in public speaking, a lack of skeletons in the closet, an ability to attract contributions, a willingness to compromise, and a clean track record on the issues. Thanks to previous administrations, the public is now willing to forgive indiscretion and obfuscation in its leader as long as he gives them what they want.

God is the ultimate source for the true answer to whether character matters in leadership, and we can determine His answer by asking just a few questions. The answers should be obvious to those whom He has called out of this world.

First, we can ask, "What has He called us to become?" The answer is, of course, that He has called us to become His sons and daughters, to fill the offices of kings and priests in His government (Revelation 5:10). These are positions of leadership. Therefore, we can rightly say that His children have been called to be leaders, to hold positions of great authority in His Kingdom. From this, we could also extrapolate that, ultimately, the salvation process is about leadership.

Second, we need to ask, "How do we obtain these positions?" The Bible answers in II Peter 3:18, by "grow[ing] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." In other places, Scripture says that we must "put on the new man" (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10) or "be transformed into the image of Christ" (Romans 12:2; II Corinthians 3:18). In other words, we prepare for these positions of leadership by taking on the very character of God Himself, who rules everything. He is the highest Power in the universe, the greatest Leader of all.

Thus, we should ask, "Will God allow anyone without His perfect character to rule in His Kingdom?" We realize that the answer to this is obviously, "No." This truth is often stated in the negative: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" (I Corinthians 6:9), and then the apostle Paul lists a number of kinds of sinners he means by the term "the unrighteous." In Galatians 5, he writes of those who practice "the works of the flesh" (Galatians 5:19-21), which he lists, concluding with the statement "that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Even in the Book's final chapter, Jesus tells us plainly, speaking of New Jerusalem, "But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever practices a lie," (Revelation 22:15), clearly meaning that those with such low character will not be there at all!

Thus, we can conclude that every ruler in His Kingdom will have His personal stamp of approval on his or her character. Christ is the Judge of all. No one will be able to slip under His rod when He evaluates His sheep. No scoundrel will rule in the Kingdom of God. Not even someone of just moderate character will bear rule in His Kingdom. He will make sure that every citizen of New Jerusalem has perfect character!

Does character matter? Yes, indeed! Character means everything to us as His called-out ones, and it means everything to leadership, human or divine.

Does a person's personal life affect his public life? Of course, it does; they really cannot be separated or compartmentalized. Do we expect an individual who makes poor decisions in private matters to make good ones in public matters? If a "leader" has a record of doing wicked things in his private life, is it not logical to think that some of his immorality will bleed over into his public life? It must. As Jesus tells us in Mark 7:20-23:

What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.

A person carries what is inside of him wherever he goes, and those internal traits will affect whatever he does. If the characteristics that are within him are good and benevolent, he will behave with kindness and generosity in every situation. Yet, if his heart is black with hate and self-seeking, he will act meanly and selfishly toward everyone. He may be able to cloak his evil nature from others for a short time, but Jesus tells us that his secret sins will be shouted from the rooftops if he continues in them (see Luke 12:3).

With the close of the Republican National Convention, and the Democratic National Convention to take place next week, America is entering the homestretch of the political campaign season. Whether the media or the public realize it or not, this election is about character, the moral character of those who will lead this nation forward. The nation desperately needs leaders with sterling character. November's elections will reveal if the American people will choose moral leadership or "little men."

'I Will Open My Mouth in Parables'

Because we use them so freely and see them about us so frequently, we often fail to appreciate how many of Jesus’ words and stories populate our speech and cultural references. The Sermon on the Mount contains scores of them: “Blessed are the peacemakers”; “inherit the earth”; “salt of the earth”; “city on a hill”; “let your light so shine”; “one jot or one tittle”—and these are only a few of the most recognizable ones in the first eighteen verses! Hundreds of others are liberally sprinkled throughout the gospels.

Besides being religiously significant, Jesus’ parables are also part of our literary and cultural heritage. The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) has captured the imaginations of many down through the centuries to the point that “good Samaritan” is a common reference for anyone who voluntarily aids a person in need. In a similar way, “a pearl of great price” (Matthew 13:45-46) has become a shorthand allusion to a thing or aspiration a person is willing to give everything he has to achieve. Similar common expressions have come from the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) and the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32), among others.

But are Jesus’ parables just interesting stories with a moral at the end, like Aesop’s Fables? Many people—lifelong Christians all—believe that they are and give them no further thought. This, however, is a mistake because the parables of Jesus Christ are one of His primary teaching vehicles for His disciples, containing deep truths embedded in concisely drawn stories of everyday life.

What is a parable? A common dictionary definition styles them as “a short fictitious story that illustrates a moral or religious truth.” While this meaning is accurate, it falls far short of all that a biblical parable encompasses. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words contains a comprehensive explanation of the Greek word, parabole:

[Literally] denotes a placing beside. . . . It signifies a placing of one thing beside another with a view to comparison. . . . It is generally used of a somewhat lengthy utterance or narrative drawn from nature or human circumstances, the object of which is to set forth a spiritual lesson. It is the lesson that is of value; the hearer must catch the analogy if he is to be instructed. . . . Such a narrative or saying, dealing with earthly things with a spiritual meaning, is distinct from a fable, which attributes to things what does not belong to them in nature. . . . (p. 840)

A parable, then, is a typical story designed to illicit a comparison between it and real life, from which derives—in the case of Christ’s parables—an eternal lesson or principle. In addition, beyond the overall lesson, a well-constructed parable is comprised of symbols and types that correspond to consistent realities—for example, in Christ’s parables, a field is a symbol for the world (Matthew 13:38). Knowing this interpretation—which is sure, given that it comes from Jesus Himself—we can use it to help us understand other parables that also employ the image of a field, as the Parable of the Hidden Treasure does (verse 44).

Many people make the mistake of thinking that parables are stories that Jesus used to make a spiritual teaching interesting and understandable. As interesting as Jesus may have made them, He did not design His parables to clarify but to obscure meaning! This comes from His own lips, in response to His disciples’ question, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”: “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. . . . Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:11, 13). Parables, then, hide the deep truths of God’s Kingdom from those who have not been given the keys to unlock them.

This means that Jesus’ parables are multifaceted. Most people can see the obvious meaning—the moral of the story—without much difficulty and find it pleasing and satisfying. However, without divine revelation, they miss the deeper meaning that applies only to God’s elect. Thus, as Jesus said, “. . . seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” Moreover, some parables, especially the longer ones like the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46), deliver not just one “moral” but two or even several!

Another factor that we must acknowledge is that Jesus’ parables are focused on the Kingdom of God. Perhaps Matthew informs us most noticeably of this, as many of the parables in his gospel begin with the formulaic opening, “The kingdom of heaven is like. . . .” This beginning tells the reader or listener that the story He is about to tell contains instruction that in some way expands our knowledge or understanding of God’s Kingdom.

The teaching is quite diverse. Sometimes the instruction centers on a Christian’s attitude or character. Sometimes it illustrates God’s work in the world or in the church. Sometimes it prophesies of a future event, like Christ’s judgment or His return, providing us details so that we can conform to God’s expectations of us. At other times, it warns us of Satan’s or some other enemy’s designs against us, the church, or God’s plan. Frequently, several of these points appear in the same parable. Clearly, Christ’s parables are much more than nice stories!

A final characteristic of parables, as just mentioned, is that they are frequently prophetic. Though many may scoff at such an assertion, this must be the case because the Kingdom of God itself has both present and future aspects. While Colossians 1:13 declares that the Father “has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,” it is also true that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 15:50). The Bible obviously teaches that the fullness of the Kingdom of God awaits the return of Christ in power and glory, and our part in it now is strictly spiritual in nature. For this reason, Christ’s parables teach us how to live as begotten children of God amidst the evil of this world and how to prepare for the world to come.

The parables of Jesus are not as simple as they appear on the surface. They are a gold vein of spiritual truth and teaching at all levels of understanding. With a little thought and the help of God’s Spirit, we can mine from them a lifetime of instruction.

The Frustrations of Good Men

Listen (RealAudio)

Within this past week, I finally finished David McCullough's 2001 bestseller and Pulitzer Prize winner, John Adams, a book I have been wading through since sometime in 2004. My slow progress was not for lack of interest, since the book is a well-written, informative, and insightful account of the life of one of the nation's founders, who has, sadly, not received the credit he deserves. No, I simply neglected it during busy times and allowed other interests to interfere, something that seems to happen all too often these days.

From the book's earliest chapters, McCullough shows that John Adams was a breed apart. He was not just intelligent, but diligent, thoughtful, and incisive. His parents reared him to hold firm principles of personal conduct and public responsibility, and he embraced them with little variance for the rest of his long life. He read the classics in their original languages, studying deeply into the ideas of great men down through the ages, yet he never wavered from his understanding of God's sovereignty in the affairs of mankind and of individuals (unlike many of the Founders, Adams was not a Deist).

One instance will illustrate his pugnacious adherence to his principles. As a young lawyer, he courageously defended the British soldiers indicted for killing colonists during the Boston Massacre because he believed in everyone's right to a vigorous defense and a fair trial. He managed to have six of them acquitted, while two received manslaughter sentences (under the law of the day, these last two should have hanged, but they were instead branded on the thumb). Throughout his life, even during his presidency, he would continue to act against popular opinion in order to remain steadfast to principle. Such principled stands played a substantial role in his loss to Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 presidential election.

Several times in his life, he complained to his wife, Abigail, of the corrupt, degenerate nature of humanity, which he observed daily while practicing law or in his political dealings. He sometimes despaired because of man's duplicity and thirst for power. During his long political career, his foremost worry was that the fledgling country would dissolve into bickering, petty parties that would elevate partisan gains over the common good. In fact, his chief criticism of Jefferson—an on-again, off-again friend over the last fifty years of his life—was that the tall Virginian played party politics, which Adams considered low, brutal, and contemptible (so much so that, as a point of pride, he never campaigned or even asked others for their votes).

Through his early training in God's Word, his immersion in the classics, and his own shrewd observations of men, Adams held that human nature was not intrinsically good, as others of his time believed, but that it was corrupt, deceptive, grasping, ambitious, cruel, greedy, and susceptible to all sorts of evils. For this reason, he included and insisted on a clear separation of powers, along with checks and balances, in the Massachusetts state constitution, which he wrote (James Madison, by the way, used Adam's constitution as one of his templates in his drafting of the U.S. Constitution). Adams argued that man must be restrained by law, or else in his "liberty" he would selfishly take advantage, corrupting the government and ultimately the nation.

Nevertheless, despite such constraints founded in the bedrock of the Constitution, Adams felt frustrated by the open corruption of men. He had done his best to enshrine noble principles in the nation's founding documents, but even his strident efforts proved ineffective in curbing humanity's predatory nature. The no-holds-barred political brawls (and even one physical brawl on the floor of the House of Representatives) between the Federalists—advocates of a strong central government—and the Republicans—believers in states' and individual rights—during both Washington's and his own term in office provided proof to him that men, even those he at one time considered to be patriots, would use every means at their disposal to win. He could only conclude that "victory at any cost" is the norm among human beings.

If he bewailed the situation then, when the first signs of corruption in American government were hatching, what would he think of the situation today, when it is in full flight? Were he transported by time machine to our day, he would rejoice and wonder at our power and prestige but weep over our spiritual, cultural, and political condition. He would surely wail, "What have you done to our noble nation?"

This attitude is one of which God approves. Notice Ezekiel 9:4-6:

. . . and the Lord said to [the angel], "Go through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it." To the [other angels] He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity. Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were before the temple.

We live in a time of great abominations, of terrible transgressions of God's perfect standard and way of life. We see our culture degenerating daily before our eyes. We hear of corruption in politics, business, and just about every other area of life. Our children are growing up in an era of great affluence poisoned by mounting rejection of authority and truth. Our society is swiftly devolving into the kind of which God says, "[E]veryone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

Does this frustrate us? Does this sadden us? Does this make us yearn for the second coming of Jesus Christ in power to solve the mess mankind has made? Yes, it should, but while we grieve, we need to keep faith and hope strong because we have God's promise to act in justice.

Then [Jesus] spoke . . . to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, saying: ". . . And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:1-2, 7-8)

Teaching Respect for Property

From last week's essay, it is apparent that Constitutional protections of private property ownership have been eroded over the past several decades, not just by major Supreme Court decisions, but also by the steady encroachment of socialism into American culture. At the ends of the day, socialism is about state control, if not outright ownership, of the wealth-producing mechanisms of a country, and as the axiom says, all wealth ultimately comes out of the ground. When government begins to confiscate private properties and businesses in order to nationalize huge sectors of the economy, socialism is entering its final stages. The United States is, thankfully, not there quite yet.

Nevertheless, the groundwork has been laid. This is seen, first, in the general acceptance of governmental powers, particularly federal power, in areas that the Founders of this nation would be aghast to discover. Originally, federal power was severely limited to three major areas: defense, justice, and foreign policy. Beyond these, Congress was given the power to make necessary laws, coin money, and collect taxes. It was thought that the separation of powers and the various checks and balances would inhibit the growth of the government’s power. However, we now see the government regulating everything from car seats to cold medicine. The U.S. has so many arcane laws—federal, state, and local—that every citizen is a lawbreaker in one way or another.

The basis for full-blown socialism is also seen in the attitudes of the average citizen, especially young people, toward private property. One of the most visible manifestations of this attitude is the proliferation of insular, planned communities in which powerful homeowners’ associations police property owners on such “vital” matters as flagpole and fence heights, paint colors, and yard décor. Does a person really own his property if he can enhance and maintain it only according to the directives of an oversight committee? This is socialism in action.

It is becoming more obvious that children are not being taught to respect private property. Perhaps this is a failing on the part of parents and/or a product of government schooling, which was set up in the early- to mid-1900s by socialist educators like John Dewey. Whatever the cause, children no longer recognize boundaries between, say, public roads and private yards. Back in the day, parents taught their children that a neighbor’s driveway was his property, and that they should not use it unless they had a specific reason to be there and had the owner’s consent. They were also taught not to use neighbors’ yards as a short cut to somewhere else. It was also a given that a neighbor’s yard was not to be regarded as a trash dump for their candy wrappers, drink cans, and other assorted litter, nor was it a community garden in which they could dig holes, take topsoil, and remove mulch, flowers, leaves, branches, and fruits and vegetables at their whim.

Why are so many parents not teaching their children these basic principles?

Perhaps the primary reason is that they do not consider it all that important because they themselves do not have a great deal of respect for others’ possessions. In the great game called “keeping up with the Joneses,” diminishing the neighbor’s property increases one’s own. Envy and competition, hallmarks of rabid American materialism, can cause normally good neighbors to exhibit less-than-stellar attitudes and behaviors, which children are quick to mimic.

Another reason stems from the quickening pace of life; there is just so little time anymore to pass on these necessary principles. Parents are harried from the time they awaken to the time they fall wearily back into bed at night, and much of their time in between is spent away from home, not with their kids. Many parents likely justify this neglect by saying, “Who has time to take little Johnny aside and teach him the wisdom of the ages? Aren’t they supposed to be doing that at school?” But just the opposite of this latter question is true: Public schools, heavily influenced by “social studies” and liberal policies advocated by the teachers’ unions, push social values that sound as if they come from the Communist Manifesto rather than the Bible, the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence.

Yet a third reason, perhaps the most elusive to define, may be a nagging feeling among many adults that they do not really control anything, even what they supposedly own. This malaise arises from a multitude of factors present in American society: the aforementioned ubiquitous government power, oppressive personal and national debt, constant and fruitless bickering among politicians, the constant drumming of the media on bad news, increasing awareness of crime and terrorism, frequent and deadly natural disasters, the looming specter of recession or unemployment—in a word, a kind of hopelessness. Why teach Jimmy to take care of the car when the bank is just going to repossess it anyway? Why scold Sally about defacing her school locker when the government has billions of our dollars to fix things just like that? Why get all hot and bothered about passing on such values when life is worth so little and it may be snuffed out tomorrow? Too many believe that events are spinning out of control, and they are fatalistically just along for the ride.

Despite these purported reasons not to do so, teaching our children to respect the property of others is a righteous activity. The eighth commandment, “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15), acts as the underlying principle of this responsibility, for trampling another’s rights of ownership is essentially stealing from him. At its mildest, it is abrogating his privilege to say how his property is treated. At its worst, it is downright robbery.

In the Gospels, our Savior says a great deal about stewardship, the overarching concept regarding the maintenance, use, and development of property, either one’s own or another’s (see, for instance, Luke 12:35-39; 16:1-8; 19:12-27; also, from the apostles, I Corinthians 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; I Peter 4:10). It is our duty as Christian parents to instruct our children about proper stewardship of first our and their possessions, and then the treatment of other people’s belongings. This will lay the right foundation for the more important stewardship of God’s gifts and blessings that leads to great reward in His Kingdom (Matthew 24:45-47).