LEADERS WITH STRONG CHARACTER have power, dignity, and integrity. Christian character is built around the divine cardinal virtues. Character develops when the mind and heart instruct the will in accepting these controlling virtues, out of which come Christlike values and actions.
Divine virtues are the roots from which such values grow. The virtues are the principles. The values produce techniques, the modus operandi.
Where the virtues are perverted by Satan, the character is evil. It may be strong or weak, but it is destructive. In this chapter, I will deal mainly with the development and evidence of good character—the foundation on which to build a life of respect and worth.
Fortunately our character can be strong without being perfect. Christ alone had perfect character. David, the man after God’s own heart, had faults. Peter, the disciple of Jesus, could be fickle. Moses, strong-willed and yet afraid. Abraham could lie. Bold Elijah became scared. These, and many others in Scripture, had strong character, though not perfect.
When I was young I often heard the cliché “God can use any vessel except a dirty one.” From my many years in Christian work, however, I found that God does use dirty ones, because he doesn’t have any other kind to use. All of God’s children have flawed character. Those who appear flawless have not been pressured enough in their vulnerable spot.
It is enough that we want solid character, for then we are teachable and reclaimable after failing. The worst flaw is to believe we are not vulnerable. We must always pray, “Lord, lead us not into temptation,” and when in temptation must believe that he has provided a way of escape.
It is helpful to know our weak points: the ego, fear to confront, love or envy of money, peer pressure, sex, or private obsession. The Scripture tells us not to make a vow to God that we won’t keep. Vow failure is a character matter.
Evaluating others
It would be helpful if we could have a load-limit sign on our character, like that on a bridge. One of my preacher friends was coming under the influence of a man of extensive wealth. As the man plied my friend with benefits, this wealthy person began to ask questionable favors. My friend broke the relation, saying to him, “I’m afraid I have a price, and you’re getting too close to it.”
Personality has an effect on character, for it fosters different pressures and desires. I know a talented, wealthy young executive who is exceptionally introverted. Occasionally he talks to me about the pressures of being an introvert and his desire to change. But his introversion protects his strong desire to be right. I have rarely met a man who wanted to be right as much as he. His introversion protects against an overwhelming desire to be liked, to be the first to talk, to lead. A situation must build pressure to bring him out. He does his homework. He synthesizes the aspects of an issue, permitting him to be in the limelight as little as possible. He must be drawn out, while most extroverts must be reined in, either by self or others.
As a leader, a friend, or a counselor, I have tried to validate the areas of health or weakness in the character of those with whom I share responsibility. I have sometimes been criticized by my associates for going to what they feel are extreme lengths to ascertain weakness and strength in a person’s character. I do it for a definite reason—I don’t want to be surprised. I want to know the person so I can build on his strength and buttress his weakness. Since character is the foundation of relation and accomplishment, I don’t apologize for evaluating someone’s strengths and weaknesses. I prefer to test someone when failure is not fatal. Marines build character that will stand up under fire. They don’t want failure when it counts most. To “give others the benefit of the doubt” sounds good, but that isn’t good stewardship in leadership. Napoleon said that the most dangerous general was one who fought based on fantasy. So it is with a person trying to lead based on fantasy or ignorance of the character of his or her associates.
In evaluating character, I start with the known past. Few people change character after becoming an adult. I not only quiz the person but also everyone who might be knowledgeable about him or her, particularly the spouse. Our family and close friends know our character much better than our talents.
Another good method is to tell stories that get a reflex reaction. For example, a salesperson will laugh when another salesperson outwits a tough customer, but a doctor doesn’t laugh when another doctor takes advantage of a patient. The ethics of the doctor will typically be higher regarding the patient than those of the salesperson regarding the customer. However, the doctor might guffaw at a story about beating the government out of taxes. Stories reveal the heart. People become involved in stories.
Humor draws out spontaneous reaction, which is a window into character. In the past I’ve spoken many times in Las Vegas at conventions and while there heard famous comedians. Inevitably they test the edge of social acceptance, even in such matters as ridiculing religion and God. Listen to the audience’s reaction, and you have a fair evaluation of the character of a person or a crowd.
Evaluating our own character
In evaluating our character, we will be better judges of matters not directly involving our personal welfare. This is the basis of America’s jury system. Uninvolved individuals tend to be more open-minded and, we hope, fair-minded.
That is one reason to have a qualified person to help make decisions when we are personally involved. We tend to feel any proposition that favors us is fair. We want the machine slightly tilted in our direction. We deserve it—or at least we can rationalize that we do.
Once I was on a corporate board whose director wanted his son elevated above what most of us felt was his capability. His father, normally a fair-minded, objective executive, lost reason in his campaign for his son. I would rather have sold refrigerators to Eskimos than try to convince this father his son wasn’t the one deserving promotion.
I have found that an outside “authority figure” is most helpful in difficult decisions that involve my character. I use several authority figures, for I want an expert in the area of the counsel I’m seeking. One has impeccable social sense, another financial fairness, and others have further areas of expertise. It is possible they would ask my opinion on the same matter if they were involved. The critical point is the difference personal involvement makes. The ultimate question in evaluating our own character is, Do I really, truly want to be right? Do I believe right is best?
One of the surest evidences of fine character is its clarity. Pure character is transparent. We say, “You can see right through the person” or “What you see is what you get” or “He is all wool and a yard wide.” My favorite signature is the one Jeb Stuart used in signing his letters to his commander, Robert E. Lee: “Yours to count on.” When I wrote notes to my mentor, Maxey Jarman, I signed them ytco. He understood, for he had given me the story.
A few years back, I was leading a seminar on speaking, which was attended by many ministers. I had used various illustrations, mostly from my own experience. One of the ministers said that he envied my exciting life because I had a lot of stories to tell. Another minister told him, “You’ve got the same kind of stories, but you don’t want to tell them because you don’t want people to see you.”
Clarity can be clouded by self-serving confessions. One doesn’t have to be astute to recognize when a speaker is hitting two licks for himself while hitting one for God. Self-serving confession is one of the tools used most often. For example, a young speaker said, “While I was valedictorian of my high school class as well as my college class and one of the youngest men to ever receive a Ph.D., I realize that God knows more than I do, and I have to be humble in his presence.” I blush to chink how many times I have done that. I’m instructed by the verse, “As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his foolishness.” Every time I do it I wonder. Why can’t I just hit licks for God and forget myself?
The seventeenth-century Christian writer Michael Molinos said, “You are willing to say things about yourself to disclose your faults before others and many other such impressive things, but within you, you are justifying yourself far more than you are seeing your faults. By such means the monster within you returns again and again to esteem himself.” One way we can tell if we’re self-serving is when we are tempted to augment what we say according to the audience reaction. I find confession easily turns into explanation and then into justification, or at least rationalization.
Christians should not be concerned with image but with worth. The more I appreciate my worth in Christ, the less I care about my image. Our infatuation with image causes a lot of the alienation in society. We are afraid to let people get close to us for fear they will see that the image is really a mask. Our son Fred was visiting with a preacher who originally got a lot of recognition for his creativity; then he decided to focus his ministry on a few square blocks in his city. Fred took his young daughter to meet him, wanting her to know people of real substance. After reviewing what he was doing, Fred said to him, “With publicity you could become famous.” To which the minister replied, “And shallow.”
Character is tested in commitment. We worship a God who commits, who covenants. The strength to commit is in character. In 2 Samuel, Ittai committed to David. When David gave him an out to join the opposition with Absalom, he said, in effect, “I came to stay.” When Naomi asked Ruth if she would leave, she said, “I came to stay.”
Years ago I read a story of a pastor struggling with a small church on the frontier, eking out a living for his growing family, yet devoted to his small flock. One day an opportunity arose for him to go to a bigger church that would provide better for his family. He announced his departure, and on the day they loaded up the wagon to leave, the townsfolk gathered around, crying to see them go. As they started to leave, he suddenly pulled up the horses, the family got out of the wagon, and they started hugging their friends and unloading the furniture. They had decided to stay.
Tongue control is another character issue, illustrated by the book of James. When I was a young man, I led singing for revivals in the South. I was never a good musician, but I could wave my arms enthusiastically, remembering that Billy Sunday got Homer Rodeheaver to lead singing not because he was the best musician but because he was the best cheerleader in school. A small church in an outlying suburb was without a music director, and the pastor invited me to lead singing on a temporary basis. When I agreed to come, he had a serious talk with me and asked me to promise him that I would never say a negative thing about anybody in the congregation. This was a difficult promise for me, but I kept it, and I’ve never felt such freedom with people in my life.
Since I knew I had never said anything negative about anyone there, I could be perfectly free in conversation, without any veil of guilt. It was a lesson I wish I would have applied in other situations.
Obedience builds character. Fortunately, character can be strengthened just the same as habits and reflexes can be developed. First, there must be the desire, then there must be the repetition over a long enough period for it to form into a habit. When the habit is practiced it develops into a reflex. Frank Laubach wrote of how his thinking of God constantly started out laboriously but as it developed, it became easier and easier until at last it became natural. That is how aspects of character are developed.
Confession clears or cleans our character. Theologically, we speak of the “washing of the blood.” In confession we bring ourselves to this fountain, this source of cleansing.
Instead of confession, often we see leaders put a spin on sin. Before we got the modern term spin, we called it “rationalization.” When the prophet Nathan confronted King David, David didn’t run for the spin doctors. He had the character to confess and to accept forgiveness—and to cake the consequences. He wasn’t like the chicken thief down South who when confronted by the judge replied, “Guilty, and waive the hearing,” to which the judge asked, “What do you mean, ‘waive the hearing’?”
He replied, “I done it, and I don’t want to hear any more about it.” David did not turn against God when he had to suffer the consequences of his sin even though he was forgiven.
Character grows strong under pressure, suffering, loss, tribulation, and failures, in which the mind gets experiences and the heart gets convictions. Character is the element that makes us stand when we want to run, to live when it would be easier to die, to fight for right in a losing cause, saying with Abraham Lincoln, “I’d rather fail in a cause that will ultimately succeed than succeed in a cause that will ultimately fail.”
Disciplined decisions
As leaders, our decisions determine the character of our organizations. We cannot afford to make exceptions for ourselves. If the president takes company material for personal use, that excuses others. In fact, a little dishonesty at the top encourages much more at the bottom. Dishonest handling of expenses, for example, is inexcusable. I have seen some leaders overlook or excuse “small dishonesties” as a way to glue the organization to the leader through guilt. They may even call this “perks.”
The leader is responsible for keeping options in line with right character. If honesty is the best policy, then it must be the only policy. At Genesco, where I worked as an executive, the president was firm in saying, “If it has to be done, then it can be done right. If it can’t be done right, it doesn’t have to be done.” This pressured us to come up with creative options to accomplish what needed to be done when others took shortcuts.
Character decisions must be disciplined decisions. Decisions made for any of the following reasons invariably prevent leaders from building character in an organization.
1. Trying to maintain control. It is the natural tendency of leadership to protect its position. Such leadership structures the organization for personal control, not for leadership development. This might be acceptable in corporations, but not in Christian work. Once I was involved in a ministry reorganization that raised the control question:
“Is this work his or His?” Did it belong to the leader or to God?
I have heard leaders say, “God called me to lead this organization,” and I wanted to ask, “For what purpose? That you might have a lifetime job, or that the mission of the organization might be best accomplished?”
Generally a leader who is control-driven is serving self more than God. This desire for control is a major character issue. There are times in emergencies when unified control is necessary for survival, similar to giving the president “wartime powers,” but only in emergencies, not as a way of leadership.
Dictators do not develop strong leaders for succession. Once I was asked if I’d be interested in becoming president of a manufacturing corporation that had a long-term dictatorial leader who had recently died. I knew my team approach would not be profitable, for the subordinates had been taught to act on orders, not to think through solutions. I couldn’t in good conscience ask people who hadn’t taken responsibility for results for years to begin to think for themselves. The corporation needed a younger dictator to keep the company successful.
Recently a long-term pastor told me how difficult it is for a new pastor to follow one with a long service history. When the old pastor is even a quasi dictator, it becomes impossible for the first or second new pastor after him to succeed. Usually by the time the third pastor comes along, he is able to change the system to fit his style.
Historically, a benevolent dictator with great ability is the most efficient leader for most organizations over the time of his service. Long term, however, he is frequently a detriment to the health of the organization after he leaves.
In corporate management I was taught that the perpetuity of the healthy organization is management’s first responsibility, and so leadership development at all levels is of prime importance. Successful succession is a leader’s responsibility and often a test of his character.
2. Trying to outdo the competition. Another pitfall for good character decisions is “competitiveness.” I believe in healthy competition in business and athletics, but not in spiritual service. We Baptists joke about our pattern of growth, which is to fight, split, and compete, all the time talking of how God is blessing us as we outdo our competition.
The parachurch movement would never have grown so large if Christian denominations could tooperate rather than compete. Today, with the proliferation of parachurch ministries, every function other than funerals, weddings, and baptisms can be done with the parachurch emphasis. The church retains the ritual while the parachurch siphons off much vital leadership and financial support.
Now, as always, evangelism, spiritual discipline, Bible study, and financial support are normal functions of the established church. But the parachurch brought changes in methodology that the church was reluctant to accept. In some places, churches are beginning to adapt. The church can learn much from the parachurch movement. Cooperation is a character decision that can be marred by competition between leaders and organizations. There is one situation in which all Christians would be happy to work together—persecution. Sometimes I think we are tempting God to send persecution just to let us experience our oneness in him.
While I have found much to differ on with the brilliant Harvard professor Dr. Harvey Cox, I wholeheartedly agree with his observation: “Christ united the church and man divided it.” I wish I could believe all differences among religious leaders were an effort to purify the faith, but I would have to check my intellectual integrity at the door to believe it. Most strong leaders have strong egos, and ego satisfaction is a character fault in Christian work.
It is always good to remind myself that Christian leadership is flawed. Some flaws show more than others and in different ways. After reading Oswald Chambers, I try not to be surprised at sin in any of its forms—disappointed, yes; surprised, no.
Once I was playing golf with a well-known Christian leader. Riding together as partners, we came to his ball and found it fairly deep in the rough. He looked across the fairway and saw that the others were not looking, so he kicked his ball out to the edge of the fairway. Shortly before that, he had been lecturing me about the inerrancy of Scripture, fearing I was not thrilled with the divisions the argument was causing. Seeing him kick his ball out of the rough weakened his theological authenticity.
3. Refusing to admit mistakes. A friend went through a terrible experience when he served on a board that allowed itself to be bullied out of holding an honest position. The financial pressure became too great. Repeatedly some of the board members would surreptitiously bring up the possibility of reversing an action they had taken, without stirring the hostility of the opposition. My friend asked, “Why don’t we just say that we were wrong and acted hastily without proper consideration, and now we’re going to reverse our decision?”
He said, “That sent them into fits of denial.” In finances we learn to take a loss as soon as possible— cut the loss, don’t throw good money after bad; only obsessive gamblers do that. By the same logic, leaders must name and claim mistakes as soon as possible. Minimize the loss, and start remedial actions immediately.
4. Protecting an individual at the expense of the organization. Another area of Christian character applies to “references.” I have found asking for character references among the Christian community to be useless. Too often we rationalize our tolerance and compassion or our fear of making enemies. Why not tell the truth? If we know a person has character flaws, why not protect the organization that is inquiring? If we prefer not to talk, then say so. Character requires that we not give someone a reference he or she does not deserve.
5. Hiring or promoting people based on politics. Generally we see a person’s strengths first and experience his or her weaknesses later. Hiring and promoting with integrity means acting according to record and gifts, not according to politics, relations, or influence.
A leader’s first question should be, “How will this appointment help the organization to fulfill its mission?” not “Will the person vote my way?”
6. Playing loose with the truth. I originally listed “lying” as one of the flaws in character decision-making. However, I know few Christian leaders who actually intend to lie. Once I was speaking at the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton to a large group of ministers. I asked them why, on a Monday morning at one of their ministerial meetings, they were not more truthful with each other. It seemed that all who spoke were claiming the blessing of God and a great outpouring of the Spirit. As I got to know some of these men, some were struggling to maintain their zeal and balance. At the close of the session, a young pastor of a small church chided me by saying, “Fred, you’re suggesting we commit professional suicide. If we told each other the truth, we’d be dead.”
Another twisting of the truth is when a preacher says, “God told me” as persuasion. Leaders must have integrity of vocabulary, including avoiding pious babble not understood by nonbelievers and not believed by many believers. In my long experience with Christian organizations, I have seen too many “special visions from God” play out in less than divine ways. Some have failed miserably. One business executive publicly bragged that God ran his business, and later it went into bankruptcy. I think such leaders are basically sincere, but rather than hearing God’s voice, they hear an echo of their own desire voiced to God. Most of the time I have found that God’s will comes in an orderly fashion, in circumstances evidenced by several praying individuals.
I asked a great man of God from the East how Christians in that part of the world determine God’s will. He said, “The first who has the impression shares it with others. We pray and watch circumstances. If favorable circumstances start to coalesce, we pray more and wait until we are unified in spirit. Then we start, knowing that if it is not his will, he will impress us to stop it. We remain open to stop.”
There is real mysticism in this but no magic. The eternal God does not have to have everything done during our administration. Maybe we should build a foundation and others the superstructure, while still others finish the job. One plants, another waters, another reaps, and God gets the glory.
The person of God needs integrity of character—not perfect character, but strong enough to build and lead an organization with integrity and honesty of purpose.
Copyright © 1998 Fred Smith, Sr.
