The Character of a Leader

Everyone in the church in Jos assumed that Lukman would be on the list.

He was thirty-eight, an administrator at one of the big hospitals in the city, and the most gifted Bible teacher the congregation had produced in a decade. He led the young adults’ fellowship on Friday evenings, and in three years it had grown from fifteen people to over a hundred. When he taught, people took notes. When the senior pastor travelled, it was Lukman who was asked to preach. So when the church announced that it would recognise new elders that year, several members simply congratulated him in advance.

Hannatu chaired the committee that would make the recommendation. She was a retired secondary school principal, an elder herself for many years, and a woman who had spent three decades learning to tell the difference between a student who performed well on speech day and one who could be trusted with the keys to the laboratory. An old pastor had once given her a rule for this kind of work, and she had kept it. “Before you recognise a leader,” he told her, “speak to three people below him and one person beside him.”

So the committee told every candidate, in writing, that they would speak to people at home, at work and in the neighbourhood, and every candidate agreed. Hannatu took a taxi to the hospital one afternoon and sat in the staff canteen with two porters and a ward clerk. She visited Lukman’s street and spoke with the elderly neighbour across the road. She sat with his wife over tea.

What she heard was mixed, as it usually is. The neighbour said Lukman was the first person at the door when anyone on the street was bereaved. But the ward clerk, a young woman in her twenties, said quietly that she had once been reduced to tears in front of patients for a filing error, and that most of the junior staff were afraid of him. One of the porters said, “Oga is very sharp. Very sharp. But you do not want to make a mistake near him.” And Lukman’s wife, after a long pause, said that the house help had not been paid for three months, and that she had stopped raising it because it always ended in an argument.

Punchline

Hannatu went home and sat on her veranda until the sun went down. None of it was scandal. All of it was character.

The question Paul asks first

When Paul wrote to Timothy in Ephesus and to Titus in Crete, both men faced the same task: appointing leaders for young churches. Ephesus was troubled by false teachers. The churches in Crete had not yet been fully organised. Paul could have given them a list of gifts to look for: powerful preaching, strategic vision, the ability to grow a congregation. Instead he gave them, twice over, a list that is almost entirely about character.

Read the qualifications slowly and count them. Of the fifteen or so qualities Paul lists for an overseer in 1 Timothy 3, only one, “apt to teach,” is clearly a skill. Nearly everything else concerns conduct: self-control, temper, money, alcohol, hospitality, family life, reputation. The pastoral letters ask sustained questions about character before they ask about public ability.

That ordering is a rebuke to much of what we do. Churches and organisations tend to recognise people for what they can do on a platform. Paul directs attention to what they do off it. He wants to know how a man treats his household, his money, his neighbours and the people who cannot reward him. And he wants those questions answered before anyone is given oversight of God’s church.

This is not because gifts do not matter. Paul himself was extraordinarily gifted. It is because gifts can attract a following that character cannot sustain. A gifted leader with poor character is like a powerful vehicle with failing brakes. The more powerful the engine, the worse the crash.

The overseer Timothy was to look for

Here is Paul’s first list:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

He begins warmly. “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” Bishop translates episkopos, an overseer. In the New Testament the overseer, the elder and the pastor appear to describe the same office from different angles (compare Acts 20:17 and 20:28, and Titus 1:5 and 1:7). Paul calls the desire for this work good. But he immediately adds a standard.

“A bishop then must be blameless.” The Greek word means not open to attack, someone against whom no reasonable charge can be laid. It does not mean sinless, for no one would then qualify. It means that the person’s life does not offer an obvious handle for accusation. There is no pattern of conduct that would bring the gospel into disrepute.

“The husband of one wife.” Sincere believers read this phrase in several ways. Many understand it, quite literally, as a one-woman man: a man faithful to his wife, not given to affairs or flirtation. Many also see it as ruling out polygamy, a question that is far from theoretical in parts of Africa. Some understand it to exclude men who have divorced and remarried, while others believe it does not apply to someone who remarried after a divorce that Scripture permits or who did so before conversion. A smaller number have read it as requiring an overseer to be married, though Paul himself was apparently unmarried and commended singleness for ministry (1 Corinthians 7:7-8). Whatever the precise application, every reading agrees on the core: sexual and marital faithfulness is central to a leader’s credibility.

Then comes a cluster of qualities about self-government. Vigilant, meaning clear-headed and watchful. Sober, meaning sensible and self-controlled. Of good behaviour, meaning orderly and respectable. Given to hospitality, literally a lover of strangers, someone whose home is open. “Not given to wine, no striker.” Not violent. “Not greedy of filthy lucre.” Not motivated by money. “But patient, not a brawler, not covetous.” Gentle rather than quarrelsome.

Then the household: “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” Paul’s reasoning follows: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” The home is a training ground and a testing ground. It is also where pretence is hardest to sustain. His wife and children see him when the congregation does not.

Notice the verb Paul chooses for the church. He does not ask how the man will rule the church of God, but how he will “take care of” it. The same Greek verb appears in only one other place in the New Testament, in the parable of the good Samaritan, who brought the wounded man to an inn and “took care of him” (Luke 10:34), and then told the innkeeper, “Take care of him” (Luke 10:35). That is the picture of oversight Paul has in mind: not command from a distance, but the attentive, costly care of a man bending over someone who is hurt. And the home is where you discover whether a person knows how to give that kind of care, because the people at home cannot be impressed by a title.

“Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” New believers, however gifted, should not be rushed into oversight. Spiritual maturity takes time, and pride is the particular danger of the person promoted too quickly.

And finally, “he must have a good report of them which are without.” The neighbours, the colleagues, the people at the market who have no reason to flatter him. What do they say? Paul expected outsiders to be able to vouch for a leader’s character.

Proved before they serve

Paul then turns to deacons, the servants of the church who carry practical responsibilities:

Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Again, the list is about character. “Grave,” meaning serious and worthy of respect. “Not doubletongued,” saying one thing to one person and another to the next. Not given to drink. Not greedy for gain. “Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience,” which means that sound belief and a clean conscience belong together.

Then a crucial phrase: “And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.” Proved means tested, examined over time. Paul does not want people appointed on the basis of a single impressive season. He wants a track record. Let them serve in smaller ways first. Let the church watch how they handle responsibility, conflict and money. Then recognise what has already been demonstrated.

This is one of the most practical instructions in the whole passage. It protects the church from appointing people who shine in public and disappoint in private. It also protects the candidates themselves, because nothing exposes a person’s weaknesses more painfully than a role that outruns their character.

Paul asks how a person treats his household, his money and the people who cannot reward him, before he asks how that person performs in public. Character must be proved before oversight is given.

Where the qualifications raise the question of women

Verse 11 brings us to a question that divides sincere, Bible-believing Christians, and it deserves to be set out fairly. The King James Version reads, “Even so must their wives be grave.” The Greek word gunaikas can mean either wives or women, and the word their is not in the Greek text. So the verse may refer to the wives of deacons, or it may refer to women who themselves served as deacons. Translators and scholars are genuinely divided. In Romans, Paul commends “Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea” (Romans 16:1), and the word translated servant is diakonos, the same word used for deacons.

Nugget

The wider question of women in leadership is one on which believers who love Scripture have reached different conclusions.

Those who hold a complementarian view note that the overseer’s qualifications are written with a man in view, “the husband of one wife,” and that in the previous chapter Paul writes, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” (1 Timothy 2:12), grounding the instruction in the order of creation. They conclude that the office of elder or pastor is reserved for qualified men, while affirming that women serve fully and gladly in many other ministries. Many in this view would accept women as deacons, and some would not.

Those who hold an egalitarian view note that the qualifications were written in the ordinary language of a culture in which most leaders were men, just as “ruling his children” assumes the leader has children without requiring it. They point to women who prophesied in the early church (Acts 21:9), to Priscilla, who with her husband taught Apollos “the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26), to Junia, described as “of note among the apostles” (Romans 16:7), and to Deborah, who “judged Israel” (Judges 4:4). They read 1 Timothy 2 as addressing a specific problem in Ephesus. They conclude that gifted and qualified women may serve in any office.

Between these, many churches hold intermediate positions, for example welcoming women as deacons and teachers while reserving the senior pastoral office for men, or recognising women as elders while retaining other distinctions.

These views are held by sincere believers, and this teaching does not pronounce a verdict between them. Hannatu’s own denomination recognises women as elders; many others do not. What every view agrees on is the point of this whole passage. Whoever is recognised for spiritual oversight, the church must examine character first. A congregation that argues fiercely about who may hold office while ignoring how candidates treat people has missed what Paul spent most of his words on.

Stewards of God in Crete

Paul’s letter to Titus gives a second, overlapping list:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

The setting is important. Crete had a reputation. Paul even quotes one of the island’s own poets: “The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” (Titus 1:12). False teachers were already at work, teaching “for filthy lucre’s sake” (Titus 1:11). Into that culture Titus was to appoint leaders whose lives ran against the grain of the society around them.

Notice the phrase in verse 7: “blameless, as the steward of God.” The overseer is God’s steward. He manages a household that belongs to Another. Character matters because the household is not his. That links these qualifications directly with everything Scripture teaches about leadership as a trust.

Two qualities in Titus deserve particular attention. “Not selfwilled” describes someone who is not arrogant or determined always to have his own way. Self-will may look like strong leadership at first. Over time it becomes the leader who cannot be advised, cannot be corrected and cannot share decisions. “Not soon angry” describes someone who is not quick-tempered. A leader’s anger lands with more weight than other people’s, and a short temper in a person with power can do lasting damage.

Then the positive qualities: “a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate.” Just means fair in dealings with others. Holy means devout, set apart to God. Temperate means self-controlled. And finally, a doctrinal qualification: “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” A leader must be able to encourage the faithful and answer those who contradict the truth. Character and sound teaching are not rivals. Both are required.

Peter adds his own portrait in his charge to elders. They are to “Feed the flock of God” willingly, “not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3). Willing, not mercenary, not domineering, and an example to follow. Once again, the stress falls on how a leader treats people.

Ordinary conduct tells the truth

Punchline

Why does Scripture place such weight on ordinary conduct? Because ordinary conduct is where character shows itself most honestly.

When Samuel went to Jesse’s house to anoint a king, he saw Eliab, the eldest son, tall and impressive, and assumed he must be the one. God corrected him:

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

“Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” Churches are no better than Samuel at reading hearts. But we can do what God’s word asks of us: look past the outward appearance to the evidence of the heart in daily life. Jesus told us where that evidence is found:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Jesus is warning about false prophets here, but the principle runs wider. Fruit takes time to appear. It grows in ordinary seasons. It cannot be manufactured for a single Sunday. And fruit is visible to those who live close to the tree.

That is why the way a person treats others should matter so much when the church considers recognising him for oversight. Watch how he treats those who serve him: the driver, the cleaner, the junior staff, the house help. Watch how he handles money that is not his and debts he owes. Watch how he responds when he is contradicted in a meeting, or when someone else receives the credit. Watch what his spouse and children look like when he walks into the room. Jesus said, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much” (Luke 16:10). A man who will not pay his house help on time should not be handed the church’s treasury, however well he preaches.

The same principle holds in the marketplace. Many companies have learned the hard way to hire and promote for character, not merely for competence. The brilliant manager who bullies subordinates will eventually cost the organisation more in lost staff, poor morale and legal exposure than his brilliance ever earned. Wise employers check references with former subordinates, not only former bosses. Christian business owners, of all people, should take that wisdom seriously.

How a church should recognise leaders

Some practical guidance follows from all this.

Take time. “Lay hands suddenly on no man” (1 Timothy 5:22). Let candidates serve in smaller responsibilities first. Watch them through a full season of church life, including at least one conflict.

Ask the right people. Speak to those below the candidate, not only to those above. Ask the spouse privately, in a way that makes honesty safe. Ask colleagues and neighbours. Hannatu’s old pastor was right.

Examine the areas Paul names. Marriage and sexual conduct. Temper. Money and debt. Alcohol and other dependencies. Hospitality. The home. Reputation outside the church. Doctrinal soundness.

Remember that blameless does not mean flawless. Every leader has weaknesses. The question is whether there is an established pattern of conduct that would rightly disqualify, or a present failing that has not been faced. A candidate who acknowledges his weaknesses and is working on them may be far safer than one who claims to have none.

Treat the past with grace and wisdom. Paul described himself as “before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy” (1 Timothy 1:13). Sins before conversion, and sins long since repented and repaired, need not disqualify. But recent patterns matter, and where a past wrong involved harm to the vulnerable, particularly children, safeguarding wisdom must govern any decision about roles involving them.

Be honest with those who are not recognised. If a candidate is not ready, tell him why, specifically and kindly, and offer help. Silence leaves people confused and resentful.

And guard the process from misuse. Qualification lists must never become weapons for settling personal grudges, or excuses for excluding people because of tribe, age or social class. The standard is character, measured honestly.

Grace that forms character

One final word, because a teaching like this can sound like a demand for self-improvement. It is not. The same letter to Titus that lists the qualifications of elders also explains where godly character comes from: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12).

Grace teaches. The same grace that saves us trains us. The patience, gentleness, self-control and hospitality Paul looks for in leaders are, at root, the fruit of the Spirit growing in a person who has received the love of God. Leaders are formed, not manufactured. And because they are formed by grace, no one should despair of growing. The man who is not ready this year may be ready in three, if he lets the Lord deal with what the committee saw.

Hannatu’s committee did not recommend Lukman that year. She met him herself to explain why, with one other elder present. She did not name the ward clerk or the porters. She told him what had been heard about his temper with junior staff, and she asked him, gently, about the house help.

He was furious. “Who said this? I have given this church everything.” He walked out before she had finished.

Three weeks later he came to her house on a Saturday morning. He sat on the same veranda where she had watched the sun go down, and for a long time he said nothing. Then he told her that he had paid the house help everything he owed, with an extra month, and apologised to her. He had gone back to the ward clerk and apologised too. “You told me the truth that nobody else would tell me,” he said. “I was preparing sermons and neglecting my house.”

He asked one of the older elders to meet him every month. He kept teaching on Friday evenings, and people said his teaching had changed, though they could not quite say how.

Three years later the church recognised him as an elder. Hannatu told me that when the congregation stood to pray over the new elders, she noticed a young woman near the back who was not a member of the church. It was the ward clerk from the hospital. Lukman had invited her. She was crying.

“That,” said Hannatu, “was the reference I was waiting for.”

For reflection, practice and prayer

Teaching Companion

For Reflection

• Why do you think Paul’s qualification lists say so much about character and so little about gifting?
• Who are the “three people below and one person beside” you? What would they say about your character?
• Which of the qualities in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 do you find most challenging in your own life, and why?
• How can a church or organisation recognise leaders in a way that takes both grace and character seriously?
• On the question of women in leadership, how can you hold your own convictions while treating believers who differ with respect?

This Week

Read 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9 slowly this week, and write each quality on a separate line. Beside each, write honestly how you are doing in your home, your workplace and your church. Then ask one person who lives or works closely with you, and who has no reason to flatter you, to read the list and tell you which quality they most see in you and which they most hope to see grow. Thank them, pray over their answer, and take one concrete step in that area before the week ends.

A Prayer

Father, You look on the heart, and nothing in my life is hidden from You. Thank You that the grace which saved me is also teaching me to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. Form in me the character that Your word describes. Make me gentle where I am sharp, generous where I am grasping, faithful where I am careless, and honest where I am pretending. Let my home, my work and my private life tell the same story as my public ministry. Give wisdom to every church and organisation that recognises leaders, so that they look past appearance to the fruit of Your Spirit. Amen.

Truth received brings freedom. Truth believed establishes the heart.

Scripture quotations are from the King James Version. · Illustrations using first names only are composites unless stated otherwise.