Qualities of Good Leaders

 

We are approaching some very important elections in our counties, in our states and in our nation. Have you given any thought to the kind of men and women we need to represent us? I am fully aware that many Americans will vote along party lines, regardless of the integrity and capability of the men and women who are running for office. I am also aware that we cannot know for certain that the men and women we support will do what they promise when they are elected. All of us have probably been disappointed in the behavior of some of the people we honestly believed would be good presidents or senators or governors. While we cannot know for sure how our representatives will vote, we must make maximum effort to elect the very best people for public office.

 

But up front I want to make it clear that just because a candidate is devoutly religious, faithfully discharging his duties to his family, to the community and to the nation does not mean he will be a good congressman or a good senator. In my judgment, these are essential qualities of a public servant, but they are not adequate. Men and women who run for public office must have the knowledge and the skills to succeed in whatever office they occupy. For example, if a man is running for the office of a sheriff, he should know the law, have experience as a law enforcement officer, have good human skills and be honest and dedicated. Good character alone does not qualify a man or a woman for any office.

 

What, then, are the qualities of good leaders? That question will serve as the basis for our study today. The Old Testament records the burdens Moses had to face in leading and judging the Israelite people. Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, knew Moses would exhaust himself if he did not have help in judging the nation. Jethro said to Moses: "The thing that you do is not good. You will surely wear away, both you, and this people that is with you: for this thing is too heavy for you; you are not able to perform it yourself alone. Listen now unto my voice, I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: You shall represent the people before God, that you may bring the causes unto God; and you shall teach them ordinances and laws, and shall show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work they must do." Now please listen carefully to Jethro's wise advice to his son-in-law. "Moreover you shall provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, and ruler of fifties, and rulers of tens: and let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto you, but every small matter they shall judge: so it shall be easier for you, and they shall bear the burden with you. If you will do this thing, and God will direct you, and you shall be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace" (Ex. 18:17-23). Moses had enough good sense to listen to his father-in-law.

 

Before we examine the arrangement Jethro recommended to Moses, I must make a few comments about some of the leaders among the Israelite people. As you no doubt remember, the Jews were dissatisfied with God's choice of leaders. They did not want to be ruled by judges. They wanted a king like the nations surrounding Israel (1 Sam. 8:5). God granted their wishes, but warned the Jews about the kind of leaders some of the kings would be (1 Sam. 8:10-18). The first king in the nation was a man named Saul of the tribe of Benjamin. The Bible describes him as "a choice young man, and goodly." In fact, among the Israelites there was not a more goodly person than he (1 Sam. 9:1-2). The Hebrew word translated "goodly" means handsome, as most modern versions render the term. Saul had the potential to become a great king, but he made some serious blunders along the way. For example, when God sent the army of Israel to destroy the Amalekites, Saul listened to the people instead of listening to God. Saul and the Israelites did not utterly destroy the Amalekites. They brought back king Agag, probably as a trophy. They also brought back the best of the sheep and cattle to offer as sacrifices. Saul laid the blame on the people. Samuel asked Saul: "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?" Samuel then said: "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king" (1 Sam. 15:22-23).

 

I shall not take the time to examine in detail three kings of Judah—Uzziah, Jotham and Ahaz—but I do want to outline briefly the tragedies these men brought on the nation. Uzziah began to reign at the age of sixteen and reigned for fifty-two years. Initially, "he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that Amaziah his father did....But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense" (2 Chron. 26:3-4, 16). Azariah the priest severely reprimanded the king for violating the law of God. The Lord sent leprosy on Uzziah. He was a leper the rest of his life. Because of his leprosy, "he was cut off from the house of the Lord" (2 Chron. 26:20-21).

                                                                                                  _

When Uzziah died, his son Jotham became king over Judah. Jotham began his reign at the age of sixteen and reigned for twenty-five years. During the early part of his reign, "he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Uzziah did." But there was a serious flaw in his conduct. "He did not enter into the temple of the Lord." And the Israelites continued in their corrupt behavior (2 Chron. 27:1-2). Is the inspired author implying that there was a connection between Jotham's refusal to enter the temple of the Lord and the corruption of the people? Their corrupt behavior consisted of sacrificing and burning incense in high places, that is, worshipping idols. They also engaged in various immoralities and superstitions (2 Kings 15:35; Isaiah chapters 1-6).

 

Jotham's son, Ahaz, succeeded his father as king of Judah. He "was twenty years old when he began his reign and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord, like David his father. "For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim. Moreover he burned incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burned his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel. ...And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God, and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God, and shut up the doors of the house of the Lord, and he made him altars in every corner of Jerusalem" (2 Chron. 28:1-3, 24).

 

Please take note of how apostasy from the right way often works. Uzziah was lifted up with pride and usurped the authority of priests by entering the temple to bum incense on the altar of incense. God punished him by making him a leper until the day of his death. He was cut off from the house of the Lord. Jotham, his son, did not even enter the temple of the Lord. His conduct allowed the Israelites to continue in their corrupt practices. Jotham's son, Ahaz, behaved like the kings of Israel, made molten images for the Baalim, burned incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom and burned his own children in the fire. He closed the doors of the temple of the Lord and made pagan altars in every corner of Jerusalem. How tragic such leadership is for any nation or community!

 

But the children of corrupt parents do not have to be corrupt. Do you remember who reigned when Ahaz died? It was his son Hezekiah who "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done." In the very first month of his first year as king, he "opened the doors of the house of the Lord, and repaired them" (2 Chron. 29:2-3). When Hezekiah died, his son Manasseh became king and reigned for fifty-five years. He was one of the most abominable kings of Judah or of any other nation. Amon, Manasseh's son, succeeded his father. He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. But Amon was the father of Josiah, one of Judah's godly kings.

 

Let us now return to Jethro's advice to his son-in-law Moses. Jethro seems not to have doubted the God-appointed position of Moses. But he knew Moses would suffer burnout—to use a modern term—if he did not delegate some authority to other capable men among the Israelites. He urged Moses to teach the people the ordinances and laws God had given the nation. Moses was also to show the people how they were to walk and what they were to do. Jethro exhorted Moses: "Moreover you shall provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, and rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens" (Ex. 18:20-21).

 

Jethro encouraged Moses to provide from the Israelite people "able men, such as fear God" to be leaders in the nation. Jethro does not specifically define the term, "able men." Would these not have to be men who had knowledge of Israel's history, men who had good judgment and were devoted to leading their nation in the right way? If they did not possess wisdom and good people skills, how could they be of benefit to the nation? The Lord himself promised: "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you" (Dt. 1:13).

 

The United States Constitution does not permit the nation or any of the states to have a religious test for any office. In other words, the nation cannot disqualify a man from running for public office if he is not a Protestant or a Catholic or a Jehovah's Witness or if he belongs to any of these religious groups. But I have a right to not to vote for a person who does not qualify according to my standards. For example, if a militant atheist or secular humanist announces for office, I will not vote for that person. The reason is very simple: If a person denies the existence of God, he has no substantial basis for moral values. In the words of Dostoyevsky, the famous Russian novelist, if God does not exist, everything is permitted. I am not arguing that all atheists or secular humanists are liars or scoundrels, but they do not believe in any absolute values. What is to prevent them from changing their minds and behavior?

 

Dr. Morris Storer, former professor of philosophy at the University of Florida, edited a book with the title, Humanist Ethics: Dialogue on Basics (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1980). Dr. Will Durant, one of the world's greatest historians of philosophy, wrote one chapter entitled, "Humanism in Historical Perspective." Even though Dr. Durant was an atheist, he understood how extremely difficult it is to establish a system of ethics without God. He wrote: "We shall find it no easy task to mold a natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social order without the support of supernatural consolations, hopes and fears" (p. 8).

 

The qualifications of elders of the Lord's church are different from what we have a right to expect from our elected public officials. But both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 stress good moral character and people skills of men who are to be selected as elders. Paul lists vigilance, soberness (literally, sober mindedness), good behavior, given to hospitality, not greedy of money (1 Tim. 3:2-3).

 

Men who lie, commit adultery and suborn witnesses ought not to be in public office. When such behavior is found among public officials, they ought to be indicted and removed from office. There are several reasons for making that observation. If a man will lie about his sexual escapades, how do we know he will not lie about other matters? But my greatest concern is the influence such examples have on the young people of our nation. I wonder how many young men and women have excused their sexual immorality and lying by saying, "The president lied and committed adultery." It would be strange indeed if that were not the case.

 

President Clinton's behavior brings us to the next qualification of good leaders. They were to be men of truth. You know as well as I do that some politicians will promise anything to get elected. Then when they arrive at the state capitol or in Washington, they go along to get along. In fact, many Americans have little respect for professional politicians, even less, than they have for television evangelists. Part of that is the fault of the electorate. We elect men to the Senate or to the House of Representatives and we keep on voting them into office even when they lie, take bribes and commit other illegal and immoral acts. I could give you dozens of examples, but you already know who they are.

 

Men who were to serve the nation of Israel were to be men who hated covetousness or bribery. The Old Testament could not be plainer in its condemnation of bribery. In fact, the passage I am examining with you actually uses the word "bribe" rather than the word "covetousness." The Mosaic covenant also says: "You shall take no gift: for the gift blinds the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous" (Ex. 23:8). The English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible employ the word "bribe" instead of the word "gift." The prophet Isaiah deplores the taking of rewards or bribes (Isa. 5:23). Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah's, also mentions the taking of bribes. "That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asks, and the judge asks for a reward (or a bribe); and the great man, he utters his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up" (Mic. 7:3).

 

Do I need to tell you that some of the men and women in government are the very best public servants money can buy? Tragically, every state in the union has been embarrassed by legislators, governors, sheriffs and other public officials who sold out for money. My home state has been no exception. The Tennessean (Friday, June 2, 2006) reported on a trial that was being held in Memphis. The headline reads: "Tape shows Dixon pocket cash." State Senator Roscoe Dixon of Memphis accepted $6,000 to help a bogus company get favorable treatment from the Tennessee Senate. The federal government recorded the transactions between government investigators and members of the Tennessee legislature. Other senators and representatives will be going to trial in the near future (pp. B-l, 2). If this were an isolated incident, it would be serious enough, but it happens on a regular basis. It makes one wonder whom we can trust in public office.

 

However, political leaders are not only ones who betray us by taking bribes, although in some cases the payments some receive for their activities would not be legally regarded as bribes. For example, the woman who conceived the idea and actually founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving sold out to the liquor industry. The mother lost a beautiful teenage daughter to a drunk driver. But when the liquor industry offered her a large sum of money to go to work for the sleazy liquor manufacturers, she apparently forgot about her daughter and the thousands of other people drunks have killed and accepted their hush money. I am grateful for the work the organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, does but I have difficulty understanding how a mother can betray her daughter's memory by going to work for the industry that is, at least, to some extent responsible for her daughter's death.

 

The question I am about to ask you may be troubling, but I must ask it. Do you suppose there are preachers and other religious leaders who are guilty of accepting bribes? I am not saying that the payments some preachers receive would legally qualify as bribes. But when the elders or other church leaders forbid their preacher to discuss controversial subjects, such as, beverage alcohol, gambling, marriage, divorce and remarriage, abortion and homosexuality, and he compromises the gospel message so he "can continue to receive his salary, would that not constitute moral and spiritual bribery? If there are such preachers—and all of us know there are—are they not spiritual prostitutes?

 

There is one other aspect of Jethro's advice to Moses I would like to discuss briefly in closing. Jethro urged Moses to delegate authority to capable men among the Israelites. A leader who tries to keep his eye on every phase of the work will be ineffective and wear himself out. That was one of the reasons Jimmie Carter was such a poor leader. For example, he wasted some of his time by supervising who would play on the White House tennis courts. A president's time should be used more wisely. Incidentally I have known elders who apparently could not delegate any authority to deacons or to anyone else. If elders want to be effective leaders of the Lord's people, they must delegate responsibility to deacons and to other members and then check to see that the work has been done.

 

I urge you to pray for our local, state and national leaders. And when you go to the polls to vote, please keep in mind the welfare of our people. The right changes among our people are not likely to occur unless we elect and support capable and honest people.

 

 

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334

 

Back to Home Page

Back to Transcripts Titles