Leadership Model and Personal Integrity
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this lecture is to focus on leadership models with an emphasis on the personal integrity of the leader. The models examined are:
- Self-Constituted Leaders – Nehemiah
- Divinely-Constituted Leaders – Paul
- Corporately-Constituted Leaders – Abimelech.
Each of these models varies in the route or method by which he became a leader. We will identify opportunities each encountered for either maintaining or compromising integrity; thus noting that, regardless of the model and/or leadership style, integrity is always a significant factor.
Before examining the models, let us define leadership. Leadership may include management, but the two are not the same. Leadership may include administration, but they are not the same. What then is leadership?
In his book on spiritual leadership, J. Oswald Sanders says, “Leadership is influence, the ability of one person to influence others.” Dr. John R. Mott defines a leader as “a man who knows the road, who can keep ahead, and can pull others after him.” In his memoirs Bernard L. Montgomery defines leadership as the capacity and will to rally men and women to a common purpose, and the character which inspires confidence.
In this lecture leadership is defined as the activity of influencing people to cooperate toward a goal which they come to find desirable, rewarding, and fulfilling.
1) SELF-CONSTITUTED LEADERSHIP – NEHEMIAH
Nehemiah was not a prophet; he was not a priest; he was not a rabbi. It is true that in due time he became the governor of the returned exiles. However, he was a proven leader long before he became governor. He is referred to as a prince (Nehemiah 9:38; 10:1). Alexander Whyte in his essay on Nehemiah says:
He is a self-contained man. A man of his own council. A man with the council of God alone in his mind and in his heart. A reserved and resolute man. A man to take command of other men. A man who will see things with his own eyes, and without all eyes seeing him. A man in no haste or hurry. He would not begin until he has counted the cost. And then he will not stop till he has finished the work.
Nehemiah was not elected by the exiles. He was not appointed by the king. He was not called or commissioned by God through a burning bush or Damascus Road encounter. He was not “caught up into the third heaven,” nor was he commissioned to write a new law or author a new vision. He was not called to recite “his story.” Nehemiah was not selected by a search committee, nor interviewed by a pulpit committee.
Nehemiah was a lay person who was committed to God. He had a deep and abiding love for his country, his people, and his religion. He saw a need and adopted it as his personal mission. He was motivated by a zeal and passion which contributed to his unrelenting efforts to reinstate the worship of God, and the law of God in Jerusalem.
Time permits a mere mention of some of the personal qualities that enhanced Nehemiah as a self-constituted leader.
Nehemiah was a concerned person
He inquired of his brethren concerning the Jews who were left in Jerusalem during the captivity.
Nehemiah was a compassionate person
When he heard of the deplorable condition of his people he wept, mourned, fasted, and prayed.
Nehemiah was a spiritually transparent person
He confessed that Israel had sinned, his father had sinned, and that he himself had sinned.
Nehemiah was an unselfish person
He left the safe and comfortable confines of the king’s palace. For twelve years he personally fed 150 Jews and rulers as well as others.
Nehemiah was an informed person
Nehemiah surveyed the land by day and by night to see first hand what the conditions were and to assess what was needed.
Nehemiah was a persistent person
He continued his mission in spite of all the opposition and difficulties. He would not be stopped.
Nehemiah was an inspirational person
He was able to inspire men, women, and children to take their place around the wall and work for no pay.
Integrity is a state of uprightness and honesty
Integrity is a state of uprightness and honesty. It includes self-honesty, honesty with God, and honesty with others. Integrity reveals itself in the decisions made, actions taken, and personal devotion. In this section we will review briefly the events in the life and leadership of Nehemiah which reveal integrity.
The fact that he was the cupbearer of the king is of itself a testimony to Nehemiah’s personal integrity. The title may not sound very glamorous but he must have been a trusted person. He had confidential access to the king. The king lived or died according to the integrity of the cupbearer.
That Nehemiah could not and would not abandon his brethren further illustrates his integrity. He was himself secure, comfortable, respected, and well compensated. On the other hand, his brethren were illiterate, unskilled, impoverished, and in bondage. Nehemiah remembered and responded.
His unwillingness to ignore social and economic injustice further demonstrate his integrity. He refused to tolerate brother taking advantage of brother and nobles taking advantage of peasants and servants.
Tobiah and his associates tried to induce Nehemiah to violate the temple by using it as a sanctuary for his own safety. At the risk of his own life he refused to violate the sacred house of God.
Nehemiah led his people to covenant with God to walk in God’s law. They agreed not to engage in marriages with the sons and daughters of peoples from other lands. They vowed to remember the Sabbath Day and to keep it holy. They made a covenant to bring the tithe of everything into the storehouse of God.
During the temporary absence of Nehemiah, his arch enemy was given residence in the economic sector of Jerusalem. When he discovered this, he threw Tobiah and his household out of the rooms. The rooms were then cleansed and rededicated to God. The Levites had been deprived of their portion. Nehemiah reinstated their ministries with honor and compensation. The Sabbath was reinstated as a day of rest and freedom from commerce.
The broken-down walls of the city of Jerusalem could have been restored by engineers and construction workers. But the broken down spiritual walls had to be reconstructed through leadership with an obsessive sense of righteousness. With the fear of God as first priority, this lay person led his people in rebuilding the walls literally and spiritually. Without strong personal integrity the latter could never have been accomplished!
2) DIVINELY-CONSTITUTED LEADERSHIP – PAUL THE APOSTLE
I have selected “Saul,” who later became Paul the apostle, as the Divinely-Constituted Model of Leadership. Several choices are available to us from the Old and New Testaments, but none better than Paul. God spoke to Ananias concerning Paul: “He is a chosen vessel of mine to bear my name before the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake” (Acts 9:15, 16).
In his own testimony Paul tells us the message he received directly from Jesus, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you” (Acts 16:15, 16). There can be no doubt about Paul having been divinely constituted as a Christian leader. And the fact that he was indeed a leader is supported by the divine record as well as historical evidence.
Adolf Deissmann in Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History states:
There is no single person since Nero’s day who has left such permanent marks on the souls of men as Paul the New Man — The cosmopolitan trait that this unknown man here and there exhibits is the single, silent prophecy of his future influence on this history of the world. Paul of Tarsus was not confined by the walls of his workshop or by the narrow, gloomy courts of his Ghetto. He was a citizen of the world.
The purpose of this lecture is to focus on leadership models and personal integrity. That does not call for an extensive biographical report on Paul, Nehemiah, or any other person. Yet it is impossible to understand leadership or personal integrity in the absence of some personal history. I will limit this to a few short but relevant facts.
Paul and his parents were of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul’s father was by birth a Roman citizen; therefore, Paul was by birth a Roman citizen. He was called Paulus, which is the Roman name for the Hebrew name, Saul. Paul was well educated, speaking two languages, and taught by the leading scholars of his day (Acts 22:3). These factors indicate that his parents were financially prosperous. Paul was a member of the Pharisees and was a recognized religious leader before he became a Christian. He possessed a well-disciplined intellect, strong emotions, internal impulses, and an unrelenting zeal. All of this and more, Paul the man brought with him as he became Paul the Christian and apostle of Jesus Christ.
A) Paul’s Concept of Personal Integrity
1) Be above and beyond reproach.
Leaders should be of such character that they cannot be condemned on the basis of confirmed evidence.
2) Have a good reputation among those outside the Christian community.
Without such a reputation leadership will not be effective.
3) Maintain domestic stability.
This was an extremely significant factor in Paul’s concept of personal integrity. He emphasized monogamy in marriage and discipline with regard to child rearing.
4) Practice temperance.
Temperance was a trait Paul underscored over and over in his instructions and personal practice. This literally means “total self-management.”
5) Be prudent or “of a sound mind.”
This was high on Paul’s priority list of personal prerequisites. The ability to reason, balance, and to evaluate responsibilities and potential outcomes are personal absolutes. Financial freedom is a must! This does not mean wealth or poverty. It means a disciplined will and spirit regarding material rewards. Sex and money are the two major snares of contemporary leadership and the two are not unrelated. Personal freedom was the acid test of personal integrity with Paul. This test becomes the crux of the matter with us as well. Refraining from legitimate and permissible behaviors when the “good of the Gospel” is at stake calls for the ultimate in personal integrity.
B) Paul’s Personal Absolutes
The matter of Paul and personal integrity will be concluded by a reference to his personal defense when his right to lead was being challenged. His entire defense was based upon two factors. The first was his divine call to be an apostle. The second was the matter of his personal integrity. Paul did not use his divine call to cover for his lack of personal integrity. He was open and transparent with the life he lived in the open view of the Christian community. “My manner of life from my youth, which was spent from the beginning among my own nation at Jerusalem, all the Jews know. They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived as Pharisee” (Acts 26:4, 5). Paul’s commitment to personal integrity is expressed in these words, “I myself always strive to have a good conscience without offense toward God and men” (Acts 24:16).
3) CORPORATELY-CONSTITUTED LEADERSHIP – ABIMELECH
A) Abimelech Was Selected By the People
Abimelech became a leader through the will of the people and a strong personal ambition to lead (Judges 9). Unlike Nehemiah, the mission was not the motivating factor with Abimelech. Neither was Abimelech called and commissioned to lead by divine mandate. It is true that Abimelech was selected by the people which is sometimes referred to as the “democratic process.” This process has its strong points but it is far from perfect. Up front I will admit that the Bramble Bush-Abimelech story is the dark side of the corporately-constituted leader. I will also observe that it is not as isolated as we wish or perhaps imagine.
Who is Abimelech? He was the son of Gideon. He made the first attempt to set up a monarchy in Israel. After the death of his father, he took 70 pieces of silver from his mother’s people and hired vain and questionable people to follow him. He murdered 70 members of his father’s house. The men of Shechem elected him to be their king. He reigned as king for three years.
B) Abimelech Was Devoid of Integrity
Personal integrity is never evident in the brief history of this wicked leader. Unlike his father Gideon, Abimelech was devoid of conscience and cared only about his selfish ambitions and personal welfare. We hope that there are not many as cruel and wicked as he. Yet it seems that carnal ambition and personal gain prompts far too many to seek and obtain leadership. Gideon was a good man but miserably treated by the people. Perhaps the Bramble King was a form of retribution?
Let us focus briefly on Abimelech’s lack of personal integrity.
- He abandoned all traces of the fear of God. I shudder at what happens when leaders do this.
- He ignored and violated the design of God. Seventy people before him were entitled to sit on the throne. Unwillingness to bow to God’s plan and yield to His will courts disaster.
- Self-aggrandizement was his sole objective.
- He cared not for others and had no commitment to God’s kingdom.
- He resorted to falsehood as a means of accomplishing his objective. He led the people to believe that all of Gideon’s sons were intent on becoming their king but only he was qualified.
- He diverted sacred collections to his own campaign to trample over others to get his way.
- He made unholy alliances with worthless and reckless men. Corrupt leaders associate with their own kind.
- Murder became the low point in Abimelech’s display of a total lack of personal integrity. Not just murder but mass murder came easy for him.
He that sows to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption. He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. He that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Abimelech rose to influence by putting forth false claims as an adventurer, and now it is by the setting forth of the false claims of another adventurer (Gaal), that the standard of revolt is raised against his authority.
In the house where he found the money that enabled him to execute the awful deeds, his subjects met to pour curses on his head and to plot his ruin.
The man who made it his boast to say, “My father was a king,” is at last rejected by his votaries for one who was the son of a slave (Ebed means a slave).
By a woman he rose to power (his mother; when the Shechemites said, “He is a brother”) and by a woman he met his death.
He slew all his brothers on one stone, and now by means of one stone he is slain. He sinned so much, that he might get the crown set on his head, and now he dies by his head being crushed.
His grand ambition was that his name might go down to posterity as “Abimelech the Invincible,” and yet the last thing the world hears of him is “A woman slew him.”
CONCLUSION
- Regardless of the model, personal integrity becomes the primary factor. No particular model is sacred in and of itself.
- Personal integrity is not a prerequisite for leadership. Many Biblical as well as contemporary examples prove that, even in the absence of personal integrity, gifted leaders attract a following.
- Quantifiable success is insufficient to attest to the credibility of spiritual leaders.
- No model or method of leadership can be better than the person who leads. The character of the leader is more important than the model or the method.
- When I was a small boy these people were trusted, admired, and respected — medical doctors, school teachers, and clergymen. Now that I am older I regret to say that in many cases all three of the above have betrayed us.
- Erick Erickson identifies his eighth stage in the life-cycle as being “ego-integrity vs. despair.” He makes a strong case of maintaining ego-integrity throughout life as the basis for facing death without fear, anger, dread, or resentment. If we are honest and live with a clear conscience, we have no need to panic when we see the end of our journey.
- The apostle Paul lived with integrity. This fact enabled him to summarize his ministry, moments before he lost his life, in the following graphic way:
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing (2 Timothy 4:6-8)
