Dishonesty and artificiality are incompatible with true leadership. The leader who engages in double-dealing or deception will very quickly lose his following. Remember the first principle of leadership we observed in chapter 1 is that a leader must be trustworthy. Underhandedness, indecision, infidelity, and even ambiguity all sabotage trust and subvert leadership. And rightfully so. Insincerity is not a quality good people should tolerate in their leaders.
As we noted briefly in the previous chapter, false teachers in Corinth had seized on the apostle Paul’s change of travel plans (he had canceled half of a planned double visit to Corinth), and they were evidently exploiting that incident in order to portray Paul as vacillating, unreliable, two-faced, cunning, and insincere (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:18–19). So Paul’s first order of business in 2 Corinthians (after assuring the Corinthians of his personal devotion to them) was to answer that charge.
He does so in a thorough and tenderhearted way. First of all, he flatly denies the allegation that he had been insincere: “Our boasting is this: the testimony of our conscience that we conducted ourselves in the world in simplicity and godly sincerity” (2 Corinthians 1:12). He assures them that he has never spoken a word or written anything to them that was couched in deceit, concealed in double meanings, or otherwise deliberately mis-leading: “Not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, and more abundantly toward you. For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand” (vv. 12–13). And then he assures them of his wholehearted love and commitment toward them: “Now I trust you will understand, even to the end (as also you have understood us in part), that we are your boast as you also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus” (vv. 13–14).
He reassures them that when he originally planned his itinerary, it was his earnest intention and sincere desire to come twice to Corinth—once on his way to Macedonia, and again on his way home:
In this confidence I intended to come to you before, that you might have a second benefit—to pass by way of you to Macedonia, to come again from Macedonia to you, and be helped by you on my way to Judea. Therefore, when I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No? But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me, Silvanus, and Timothy—was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. (vv. 15–19)
Paul was saying that when he initially expressed his intention to visit Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:5; cf. 4:19; 11:34), there was no pretense whatsoever in his words. “As God is faithful,” he said (thus in effect reinforcing his assurance with an oath), his communication with them was a well-meant “yes.” He sincerely intended to come. And he would still come. But circumstances had changed the timing of the planned visit.
Then in what almost seems a digression, he reinforces the truth of God’s own faithfulness, and the utter truthfulness of the gospel message. Notice how he invokes all three persons of the Trinity to make this point: “The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me, Silvanus, and Timothy—was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us. Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee” (1 Corinthians 1:19–22).
Paul was pointing out that his own sincerity as a messenger of the gospel was rooted in the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the gospel itself. And that in turn reflects the unshakable faithfulness of the Trinity.
Next, Paul explained why there had been a change in his plans. Once again he invokes a solemn oath to attest to his sincerity:
Moreover I call God as witness against my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth. Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand.
But I determined this within myself, that I would not come again to you in sorrow. For if I make you sorrowful, then who is he who makes me glad but the one who is made sorrowful by me? And I wrote this very thing to you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow over those from whom I ought to have joy, having confidence in you all that my joy is the joy of you all. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you. (1:23–2:4, emphasis added)
In other words, whatever combination of circumstances may have contributed to the cancellation of Paul’s visit, his own ultimate motive for postponing the visit was nothing other than his sincere compassion for the Corinthians. He did not want to come to them in sorrow (2:1). He had delayed the visit in order to spare them the rod of discipline (1:23; cf. 1 Corinthians 4:2). He had not been insincere; he had acted merely out of love for them.
In this vital but often-overlooked passage of Scripture, we see highlighted three keys to Paul’s sincerity. First, he always operated with a clear conscience. Second, he always sought to show himself reliable in words and action. And third, as the Corinthians themselves were well aware, his dealings with them were never self-serving or heavy-handed, but always driven by a genuine, tender affection for them. Here is why Paul’s enemies were ultimately unsuccessful in portraying him as insincere or two-faced:
Notice that the first witness Paul calls in defense of his sincerity is his own conscience. He had never deliberately misled the Corinthians, deceived them with verbal trickery, or even been purposely vague with them (“We do not write you anything you cannot read or understand” [1:13 NIV]). As far as his enemies’ charge that he was inconsistent, Paul’s conscience was completely clear.
This, too, is absolutely essential to good leadership: A leader keeps a clear conscience.
Remember, good leadership is a matter of character, and a righteous character depends on a healthy conscience. To see the role of conscience in leadership, we need to look closely at this amazing God-given faculty of the heart and mind.
The conscience is a built-in warning system that signals us when something we have done is wrong. The conscience is to our souls what pain sensors are to our bodies: it inflicts distress, in the form of guilt, whenever we violate what our hearts tell us is right.
The conscience bears witness to the reality that some knowledge of God’s moral law is inscribed on every human heart from creation (Romans 2:15). Both the Greek word for “conscience” (suneidesis) and the Latin root from which the English term is derived have to do with self-knowledge—specifically, a moral self-awareness. That capacity for moral reflection is an essential aspect of what Scripture means when it says we are made in the image of God. Our sensitivity to personal guilt is therefore a fundamental trait of our humanness that distinguishes us from animals. To try to suppress the conscience is in effect to diminish one’s own humanity.
Leadership Principle #12
A LEADER KEEPS A CLEAR CONSCIENCE.
The conscience is by no means in-fallible. A defiled or poorly instructed conscience might accuse us when we’re not really guilty or acquit us when we are, in fact, wrong. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:4, “I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this.” He also acknowledged that some people’s consciences are unnecessarily weak and too easily offended (1 Corinthians 8:7), so the conscience itself must be instructed by and conformed to the perfect standard of God’s Word (Psalm 119:11, 34, 80).
Suppressing the conscience or deliberately violating it is deadly to our spiritual well-being. To disobey the conscience is itself a sin (Romans 14:14, 23; James 4:17), even if the conscience is ignorant or is misinformed. And to suppress the conscience is tantamount to searing it with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), leaving it insensitive and thereby dangerously removing a vital defense against temptation (1 Corinthians 8:10).
Paul therefore placed a very high premium on the value of a clear conscience. His farewell speech to the elders at Ephesus began with these words: “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day” (Acts 23:1). He told Timothy, “I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did” (2 Timothy 1:3). In his defense before Felix, he said, “I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men” (Acts 24:16). He characterized the positive benefit of the law of God this way: “The purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5).
A defiled conscience, if tolerated or suppressed, makes real integrity impossible. Until the wounded conscience is cleansed and restored, guilt will assault the mind. Repressing the guilt may ease the pangs of conscience, but it doesn’t eliminate the fact of the guilt. Guilt and blamelessness are mutually exclusive. In other words, the person who dishonors and then ignores his own conscience is by definition not a person of integrity. A tarnished conscience therefore undermines the most basic requirement of all leadership.
Paul assured the Corinthians that his own conscience was completely clear. He had not lied to them. He had not misled them. He had not spoken out of both sides of his mouth. He could cite no higher authority than his own conscience to prove it, so he boldly did just that.
This was not any selfish kind of “boasting” (2 Corinthians 1:12). It was a candid and straightforward declaration from a sincere heart. Such a “boast” itself was proof of the very point Paul was trying to make: He had always shot straight with them. His words were always plain, honest, forthright, unflinching, and nonevasive—just like the apostle himself.
Next, Paul reminded them from their own experience with him that they had no grounds whatsoever to accuse him of ever being vacillating or unreliable. Not only had he always written and spoken to them in words that were clear and unambiguous (2 Corinthians 1:13), he had also consistently backed up his words with a life that was dependable and wholly in harmony with what he taught.
In fact, Paul said, the doctrine he taught was the whole basis for his constancy and steadfastness. Just as God is faithful to all His promises, Paul himself always strove to imitate that steadfastness by being decisive, distinct, definitive, and true to his word. Paul was the very epitome of a transparent man.
So again, he puts it to them bluntly and directly: “When I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No?” (v. 17). Had he ever said yes to them when he really meant no? In the question itself there is no hedging and no equivocation. They were the ones who needed to speak plainly: Were they in fact accusing him of double-dealing? Paul, in characteristically bold fashion, thus attacked the false teachers’ innuendo head-on, and confronted the Corinthians with the absurdity of the charge.
Those who knew Paul personally certainly knew better. He had always preached Christ without equivocation (v. 19). “All the promises of God,” which Paul had faithfully proclaimed, are themselves unambiguous and certain (v. 20). Paul himself had consistently been as definite and decisive as the substance of his message. So he once again affirmed that truth in bold language, with an oath: “As God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No” (v. 18).
Paul was eager to answer even the hint of any accusation that he had been double-minded or indecisive. He knew that such a weakness—even the mere suspicion of it—can seriously undermine people’s confidence in a leader. Leadership cannot afford the luxury of drawn-out doubt and prolonged indecision. This is another in our long list of leadership essentials: A leader is definite and decisive.
Leadership Principle #13
A LEADER IS DEFINITE AND DECISIVE.
Good leaders must be able to make decisions in a way that is clearheaded, proactive, and conclusive. They must also be able to communicate objectives in a way that is articulate, emphatic, and distinct. After all, a leader is someone who leads. Anyone can waffle. Anyone can be timid and ambivalent. The leader, by contrast, must give clear direction. People will not follow if they are not certain their leader is himself certain.
To summarize, then, Paul had always been definite and decisive in his dealings with the Corinthians. He proclaimed a message that was clear and unambiguous. He served a Lord who is true and faithful. And he had always taught them that all the divine promises are Yea and Amen. The Corinthians of all people knew these things well. With a little reflection, they would see that the false teachers’ accusations against Paul were without any merit whatsoever.
And yet, Paul had changed his mind and postponed the visit he originally planned to Corinth. So he explained why. He had made the change of plans for good reasons—not because he was being insincere or phony when he said he would come, but quite the opposite. His deep affection for them—which was by no means insincere—made him want to spare them the grief of a visit that would have been dominated by sorrow, rebukes, chastisement, controversy, and other negatives. Paul was by no means timid or afraid of such confrontation, but this time he chose to communicate his displeasure to the Corinthians, whom he loved as their spiritual father, via written correspondence, in measured and careful words—so that his next visit to Corinth might be a joyful occasion. That was what had ultimately made him change his plans.
Here is another essential principle of leadership, which I hasten to add as soon as possible after the previous one: A leader knows when to change his mind.
These twin principles go hand in hand. While leaders must be definitive and decisive, they must not be utterly inflexible. The best test of a leader’s wisdom is not always the first decision he makes. Everyone makes bad decisions at times. A good leader will not perpetuate a bad decision. Circumstances also change, and a good leader must know when to adapt to circumstances.
Leadership Principle #14
A LEADER KNOWS WHEN TO CHANGE HIS MIND.
In Paul’s case, his change of mind was forced by a change in circumstances. The irony of the false accusation against him is that Paul was not the one who was being vacillating and hesitant. The Corinthians themselves were, by giving undeserved credence to Paul’s critics. Word had somehow reached him of what the false teachers were saying. He was both disturbed and disappointed to learn that the Corinthians—who owed their salvation to Paul’s faithful ministry and clear, bold, uncompromising proclamation of the gospel—were being swayed by such far-fetched slander. The situation needed to be corrected. Rebukes, severe reprimands, and even chastisement were necessary. Paul did not want his next visit to Corinth to be characterized by such negative interaction.
Therefore he said, “To spare you I came no more to Corinth” (2 Corinthians 1:23, emphasis added). Though willing if necessary to take them on face-to-face, toe-to-toe, Paul did not want his personal interaction with them to be dominated by scolding and conflict. He wanted their reuinion to be in an atmosphere of joy. He respected them and treasured the relationship he had with them. So rather than immediately coming to them “with a rod” (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:21), he decided to see if he could correct them by letter first.
And immediately we encounter another major principle all leaders need to bear in mind: A leader does not abuse his authority.
Paul had legitimate apostolic authority over the Corinthians. It was clear, God-given spiritual authority, confirmed by undeniable signs and wonders (2 Corinthians 12:11–12). But he used that authority in a pastoral, not an authoritarian, style. He might well have written to the Corinthians the same thing he said to the church at Thessalonica:
We were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So, affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us. For you remember, brethren, our labor and toil; for laboring night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, we preached to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and God also, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe; as you know how we exhorted, and comforted, and charged every one of you, as a father does his own children. (1 Thessalonians 2:7–11, emphasis added)
He did say to the Corinthians: “I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:14–15).
And here in 2 Corinthians 1, he wrote, “Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand” (v. 24). He had no interest in lording it over the Corinthians. He refused to risk spoiling his relationship with them by repeated personal clashes. In the words of Augustine, “As severity is ready to punish the faults which it may discover, so charity is reluctant to discover the faults which it must punish.” 1
Remember that Jesus said leadership in His kingdom is different from worldly leadership for precisely this reason: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves” (Luke 22:25–26). Paul was the epitome of a leader with a servant’s heart. He perfectly fulfilled what the apostle Peter said every pastor should be: shepherds of “the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2–3). Paul himself knew that “a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24–26).
Paul had set his admonitions down for the Corinthians in a clear and carefully worded letter, and he sent that instead of going to them in person. Until he received word that they had responded well to the written communication, he was not going to cast a pall over his relationship with them by another sorrowful personal visit.
Leadership Principle #15
A LEADER DOES NOT ABUSE HIS AUTHORITY.
It was a wise approach. It epitomized the very best traits of Paul’s leadership style: loyalty, empathy, compassion, tenderness, clear communication, and unvarnished honesty. That’s why it was especially ironic that his enemies had seized on this incident to accuse him of insincerity, of all things.
Paul was torn. His personal hurt was real and intense. Perhaps the lowest point of Paul’s life was when he wrote this epistle. He even said in 2 Corinthians 2:12–13 that when he went to Troas, he found an open door for the gospel, but he was so troubled in spirit over the Corinthians that he left Troas and went to Macedonia instead, in hopes of finding Titus and getting a good report about the church at Corinth from him.
In fact, the entire book of 2 Corinthians is colored by passion that arose from Paul’s personal disappointment over the Corinthians’ response to him. He had been severely wounded in the house of his friends. He had been devastated by the very people to whom he had most given of himself. Near the end of the epistle, he wrote, “I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved ” (12:15, emphasis added). He was overwhelmed by pain and depression over the disloyalty he experienced at the hands of people whom he loved and to whom he had given his life.
That is the price of leadership. It is a costly, lonely, and often thankless calling. Jonathan Edwards ministered faithfully in Northampton for twenty-four years. He pastored his people through the remarkable revival of the Great Awakening (which Edwards’s own preaching and writing had in no small way helped to ignite). Then his church dismissed him by an overwhelming vote, because he taught that only those who have made a credible profession of faith in Christ ought to partake of the Lord’s Table.
At the end of his life, Charles Spurgeon, possibly the most effective Baptist preacher who ever lived, was censured by the Baptist Union in England because he opposed the encroachment of modernism in that organization.
But the leader must nonetheless remain gentle, compassionate, empathetic, and humble. If he becomes resentful, repressive, or ruthless in his treatment of his people, he will lose his effectiveness as a leader.
Who can do all that? Who has sufficient character to meet the high standard Scripture sets for leaders? In the chapter that follows, we will explore how Paul answered that question.