If you want to see proof of how important leadership is, don’t miss the fact that Satan often aims his most ferocious attacks at key leaders. Among all the wicked devices the evil one employs, some of his very favorite weapons are half-truths and deliberate lies that breed rebellion and attempt to undermine the trust people have placed in godly leaders. Against the very best of leaders, Satan will invariably try to stir up a Korah (the rebel who organized a revolt against Moses) or an Absalom (the wayward son who led a rebellion against David’s rule). That’s why Scripture says “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” (1 Samuel 15:23). To defy a leader who is called by God and faithful to the truth is a peculiarly satanic sin.
It is therefore appropriate that Paul said the false teachers who had confused the church in Corinth were satanic emissaries—“ministers” of Satan (2 Corinthians 11:13–15). That is exactly what they were: tools of the devil, evil agents in his campaign against the cause of truth. They had deliberately focused their main offensive against Paul and his leadership. It was a strategic and well-placed assault, because if the powers of darkness could nullify Paul’s influence in Corinth, that already-troubled church would be completely at the mercy of the false apostles.
Paul was not eager to defend himself personally, but neither was he willing to abandon the Corinthian church to wolves. So he spent a considerable amount of time in 2 Corinthians doing something he found distasteful: defending his own character and credentials.
Paul’s competency as a leader and an apostle was under direct attack. We’ve already seen how his sincerity was being questioned. The false teachers were also trying to provoke doubts about his adequacy to lead. They attacked his character, his influence, his calling, and his humility. They claimed Paul was not qualified to lead. He was inadequate, they said.
Paul masterfully answered that charge by turning it around against his critics. “Who is sufficient for these things?” he said (2 Corinthians 2:16).
In that very same context, Paul compared the ministry of the gospel to a triumphal procession. When a Roman general or a caesar won a key and decisive military victory, a formal “triumph” would be held to honor him and commemorate the victory. The triumph was a massive celebratory parade, one of the most important and colorful pageants in the Roman culture. The victorious leader would be carried through the streets with his army marching behind, holding the captured spoils and other tokens of victory aloft. Priests would accompany the parade, waving censers of powerful incense, diffusing a sweet-smelling aroma through the whole city.
When Titus Vespasian sacked Jerusalem in AD 70, he was given a triumph. Bas-relief figures on the Arch of Titus in Rome portray that event. Such celebrations were extremely rare, reserved only for the most critical victories. It was a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.
But Paul said the ministry of the gospel is like a perpetual triumph. He likened himself to a censer through whom Christ “diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place” (2:14).
Most Roman triumphs also featured a procession of chained captives. These would be enemy warriors who were condemned to die at the culmination of the procession. They would, of course, smell the aroma of the fragrant incense, but to them it signified defeat and death, not victory and life.
Paul said the gospel-incense (“the fragrance of Christ” [v. 15]) is precisely like that. It has a similar twofold meaning. To those who believe (“those who are being saved”), it is an aroma of life; but “among those who are perishing,” it signifies death and condemnation (v. 15). So he wrote: “To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life” (v. 16).
That is where he then raised the question: “And who is sufficient for these things?” Who is adequate to partake in Christ’s triumphal parade and be an instrument through which the incense of the gospel message is diffused to all? Who in himself is qualified to receive accolades from almighty God for service rendered to Him on behalf of Jesus Christ?
He was turning the tables on the false teachers—calling into question their claim that they were adequate. He said, in fact, that they were guilty of “peddling the word of God” (v. 17). They were the insincere ones, making merchandise of the gospel. They were hucksters, con men, in it for money. They were willing to twist or shape their message deceitfully in order to maximize their profits. If it meant preying on people’s fears, they would do that. If it meant trying to discredit an apostle like Paul, they would do that too. If it simply meant tickling people’s ears by giving them whatever message they demanded, here were some ready teachers. They were the first-century equivalent of today’s “market-driven” philosophies of church leadership and ministry.
Paul answered the rhetorical question of verse 16 (“Who is sufficient for these things?”) in the first five verses of chapter 3. He said, in essence, that the only person who is really adequate to lead is the one whom God has made a leader. Self-made leaders are utterly incompetent. By contrast, Paul said, “Our sufficiency is from God” (3:5). That statement is the key to this brief passage and a summary of Paul’s whole self-defense.
Paul was being attacked on several fronts: his character, his influence, his calling, and his humility. The false apostles who had successfully infiltrated the Corinthian church had relentlessly assaulted him by striking repeatedly at each of those targets. Notice how skillfully the apostle replied.
Paul was somewhat on the horns of a dilemma as he defended himself. He knew that no matter what he said in his self-defense, the false apostles would try to use it as proof that he was proud, egotistical, or boastful. They would try to twist whatever he said into another accusation against him. Yet he had to defend himself, because he was the founder and leader God had chosen, equipped, and appointed for the Corinthian church. If they wouldn’t listen to him, they would not hear the truth at all. He was not about to abandon these people whom he loved to evil, false, spiritually incompetent leaders.
Paul’s response to his critics highlights another fundamental principle of leadership: A leader doesn’t abdicate his role in the face of opposition.
The apostle had little interest in self-promotion; hence little interest in self-defense. He really hated having to speak in defense of his character. He preferred to be thought of as a low-level galley slave at the bottom of a ship, pulling an oar. He despised boasting about himself, rather than Christ. But he had to answer the assault or give up the church to false teachers.
No matter how unpalatable it was to Paul to engage in self-defense, he needed to oppose the threat of these bogus apostles for the sake of the Corinthians. They were in danger of being misled by the false accusations against him. If they turned against Paul and abandoned his leadership, they would be left completely exposed and susceptible to the false teachers’ damning doctrinal heresies.
One truth every leader will eventually discover is that people are shockingly fickle. It’s amazing how easily they can be swayed by lies about a leader whom they know and love. We see this all the time in contemporary life. Sometimes it seems, the more a government leader tries to be a principled person of integrity, the more vilified he or she will be in the media. Gossip tabloids exist to publish deliberate lies about well-known people. Even the mainstream press seems bent on discrediting leaders who seem especially worthy of respect. The victims of such lies all know how fragile true loyalty can be. That’s because the fallen human heart is bent toward rebellion (cf. Deuteronomy 31:27; Acts 7:51).
Leadership Principle #16
A LEADER DOESN’T ABDICATE HIS
ROLE IN THE FACE OF OPPOSITION.
That was true in Paul’s day too. The false teachers had placed Paul in a position that seemed impossible. If he defended himself, that would only fuel even more charges against him. But if he ignored the threat, he would in effect be abdicating his leadership. Therefore, Paul wisely answered his accusers in a way that anticipated all their objections:
Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God. (2 Corinthians 3:1–5)
Now, follow the line of his argument: He began with two questions directed at the hearts and consciences of the Corinthians. Did he really need to start at the very beginning and prove himself to them? Did he need letters of commendation to establish credibility with them? Both questions are worded in a way that anticipates a negative answer.
The “we” (used throughout the entire epistle) is an editorial “we.” It’s not employed to be pompous, like a royal “we,” but precisely the opposite. Paul used it as a humble substitute for the first-person singular pronoun. He was sensitive to the accusation that he was heavy-handed, self-commending, and self-exalting. So rather than giving ammunition to his critics who had made that charge, he appealed to the Corinthians themselves. Did he even need to justify his leadership with such self-commendation?
He would say similar things in 5:12 (“We do not commend ourselves again to you, but give you opportunity to boast on our behalf ”) and 10:18 (“Not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord com-mends”). So this same line of argument runs through the entire epistle.
Clearly, Paul had no agenda to commend himself. That is not what he was trying to do. He was not setting himself forth as a perfect leader. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 15:9–10 he had said, “I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am.” And here in 2 Corinthians, his only aim was to ask the Corinthians to search their own hearts and face for themselves the challenge that had been raised against him by the false leaders. Did they really need proof of Paul’s character?
The false teachers had evidently insinuated that there was a hidden agenda in Paul’s leadership—a dark side, a sinful motive, or a secret life others did not know about. They had attacked his character and were trying to destroy his credibility. So he replied, in effect: “You mean you don’t know me well enough to know that is a lie?”
The frustration of Paul’s heart comes through in the question he asks. All his labors, his teaching, his preaching, his prayers, his fellowship with the Corinthians and his ministry in their midst, his love for them, the tears he had shed for them—did all of that mean nothing? Did he need to go all the way back to the beginning and establish credibility with them all over?
Notice: he doesn’t even appeal at this point to the miraculous element in his ministry, which had been clearly and repeatedly displayed in Corinth. Later, in 2 Corinthians 12:12, he mentioned “the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.” But the starting point in his defense was an appeal to their knowledge of his character.
They knew him. They knew him well. They had observed his life. They had seen his godly character firsthand and up close. They knew what he was like from the inside out. To defend himself on that account would be utterly superfluous.
Thus Paul left the question with them. He did not boast of his own virtue. He had no need to do so.
The second question is as disarming as the first: “Do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you?” (2 Corinthians 3:1).
Letters of commendation are useful only when the person being introduced is unfamiliar. As we saw in chapter 2, Nehemiah needed letters of commendation to go to Jerusalem to rebuild the wall (Nehemiah 2:7). Those letters were essential to prove his legitimacy. They introduced him where he was previously unknown, and they showed that he had the king’s support for his project.
Paul himself—in his life before becoming a Christian—had once sought letters of commendation for sinister purposes. According to Acts 9:1–2, Saul of Tarsus went to the high priest to get letters of commendation proving to the people in the synagogues of Damascus that he had authority to take Christians as prisoners back to Jerusalem.
Paul also wrote a commendation for Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). Her letter of referral is a permanent part of the biblical record.
When the Corinthians sent an offering to meet the needs of the saints in Jerusalem, Paul said he expected a letter of commendation to come from Corinth with the courier who would deliver the gift to Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:3).
So letters of commendation are legitimate in their place. Modern job applications often include a request for written references. Churches require such letters for transfers of membership. To this day, letters of referral are a common part of everyday life.
Apparently, when the false teachers originally showed up in Corinth, they had letters of commendation. They most likely came to Corinth from Jerusalem. Acts 15:5 indicates that the Judaizers (false teachers who wanted to make circumcision a requirement for salvation) were a sect of Pharisees who had identified with the Jerusalem church. These men are called believers—no doubt they claimed to be Christians—but they had brought into the church the very same kind of legalism for which Jesus condemned the Pharisees (cf. Luke 11:46; Acts 15:10). Jerusalem was a hotbed for that kind of error, and many who taught it had gone out from the Jerusalem church to sow confusion in Gentile churches throughout the empire (Acts 15:24).
In all likelihood, that was the source of the trouble in Corinth. It appears, however, that the false teachers had come to Corinth with some pretty impressive credentials, including letters of recommendation, possibly purported to be from officials in the Jerusalem church. When they first arrived in Corinth, they had pulled out of their satchels these letters of reference. That was what Paul undoubtedly referred to in 2 Corinthians 3:1: “Do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation?” (emphasis added).
The false teachers had come into the church at Corinth as intruders, but they sought and found entrance because they evidently had impressive documents, addressed specifically to the church at Corinth (“to you” [v. 1]). They had come with an agenda, and they had planned well.
Notice that Paul also refers to “letters of commendation from you” (v. 1, emphasis added). Perhaps the false teachers had already sought and obtained references from the church at Corinth to give them further credibility when they took their error elsewhere. That was how such heretics plied their trade. They were always itinerant. They could not settle for long in one place, because their lives were corrupt. They were not truly regenerate. Sooner or later, the real character of their lives would manifest itself. So they stayed on the move. But they were in Corinth long enough to confuse and tear up the church—and long enough to get some letters of commendation from the Corinthians.
Paul was asking, “Am I in the same boat? Do I need written references either for you or from you?”
The thought was ludicrous. Paul’s authenticity was evident not only from his own life, but also from his influence in the lives of the Corinthians.
You want a letter? he asks. I’ll give you a letter: “You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart” (vv. 2–3).
Paul’s epistle of commendation was better than any letter the false teachers could pull out of their satchels. Paul’s was a flesh-and-blood, living, walking testimony. His credentials as a leader were written in the lives of the Corinthians themselves. The influence of his ministry on their lives was ample proof of the legitimacy and the effectiveness of his leadership.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, Paul had written, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” Then he added, “Such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (v. 11, emphasis added).
Remember, the effectiveness of leadership is measured in terms of influence. When you see someone’s influence reflected so profoundly in the lives of other people, you have identified someone who is by definition a leader.
The only testimonial Paul needed outside the evident virtue of his own life was the fact that God had used his teaching and his leadership in such an instrumental way. God Himself had stepped into the vile Corinthian culture and carved out a church to His glory and His praise. The Corinthians themselves were an eloquent testimonial of Paul’s influence. They were the living validation of his leadership.
By the way, this letter wasn’t stuffed into a satchel. It wasn’t folded up and hidden in a pocket. It was everywhere to be seen. It could be read by anyone, at any time, and in any language (2 Corinthians 3:2).
Paul also carried the letter with him, but not in his luggage. The Corinthians were written in his heart (v. 2). They were precious to him. “You are in our hearts, to die together and to live together” (7:3). If the false teachers had raised questions about his affection for them, Paul here dispelled that uncertainty with an explicit declaration.
Critics looking for a self-serving plea from Paul would find nothing here that could be denied. Christ, not Paul himself, had written Paul’s letter of commendation in the lives of the Corinthians. It was a letter written without ink and pen from Christ by the Spirit of the living God (2 Corinthians 3:3). Could the false apostles produce a letter of recommendation signed by Christ? Certainly not.
Anyone can write a letter with ink. Only Christ can write a letter such as Paul had. The Corinthians themselves were his letter, kept in his heart, composed by Christ, and written down by the Holy Spirit. What purer proof of his authentic influence was there?
The false teachers had done all they could to undermine Paul’s influence in Corinth. They had questioned his fitness to lead, and to some degree they had succeeded in getting the Corinthians to question his competency as well.
Paul, while vigorously defending his own adequacy, was eager to explain that his confidence was not merely self-confidence. So in 2 Corinthians 3:4, he explained the source of his certainty: “We have such trust through Christ toward God.”
Paul was certain of his calling. That is why he refused to abdicate his leadership to the false teachers. His calling was a stewardship received from God. After all, “it is required in stewards that one be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2), so Paul had no choice but to answer this attack on his authority.
Again, Paul was not defending himself for his own sake. He did not desire the Corinthians’ affirmation for selfish reasons. And he certainly did not need to convince himself. But God was the One who called him to the role of leadership, and Paul never vacillated about his calling. This is another vital principle in all wise leadership: A leader is sure of his calling.
Those who are unsure of their own vocation cannot possibly be effective leaders. Nothing is more debilitating to leadership than self-doubt. People who have qualms about their own giftedness or calling never make good leaders, because at the most basic level they are uncertain about whether what they are doing is right. They will naturally be racked with indecision, hesitant, timid, and fainthearted in every choice they must make. As we have seen, those things are antithetical to the essential qualities of good leadership.
Leadership Principle #17
A LEADER IS SURE OF HIS CALLING.
Paul never wavered in his confidence that God had called him to be an apostle. Others questioned him all the time. After all, he was not one of the Twelve. He was a relative latecomer to faith in Christ. He had, in fact, been a notorious persecutor of the church (Acts 9:13). Paul himself confessed that if his past life were the only consideration, he was “not worthy to be called an apostle” (1 Corinthians 15:9).
But the gracious call of God on his life, in spite of his past, was clear (Acts 9:15; 13:2). The other apostles affirmed him without reservation (Galatians 2:7–9). Therefore, while he considered himself “less than the least of all the saints” (Ephesians 3:8), he also knew that he was “not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5; cf. 12:11).
This was not arrogance on his part; God had well and truly called him to such an office.
Such confidence is a great and necessary strength in leadership—to be so secure in your giftedness, so emphatic about your calling that no trial, however severe, could ever make you question your life’s work. Effective leadership depends on that kind of resoluteness, courage, boldness, and determination.
People often ask me what I would do if I weren’t in the ministry. I find the question impossible to answer, because I cannot conceive of doing anything else. I know beyond any shadow of doubt that I am called to preach the Word of God.
I have been told that I would make a fine lawyer, because I don’t mind an argument. Several people have said I might be a good coach, because I like to motivate people. Others have told me I could have a fruitful career in sales, because I know how to be persuasive. Truthfully, I have never considered any of those things for a millisecond. There are no alternatives for me. Preaching is what God has called me to, and I simply cannot imagine myself doing anything else. I didn’t choose a career because I thought it was the best of several options. I can completely understand what Paul meant when he said, “Necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9:16). Or, in the words of the psalmist, “I believed, therefore I spoke” (Psalm 116:10).
Those in secular positions of leadership likewise need to embrace their calling and be wholeheartedly devoted to the tasks they have been given. In the words of the Old Testament sage, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). No leader can be truly successful who considers the present task a stepping-stone. You can’t be distracted by the future and effective in the present.
The coach tells the team about to play a weaker opponent on the way to a critical game against a strong rival, “Don’t look past this game or we’ll lose.” Teams still lose that way.
I’ve always believed that if a leader takes care of the present task with all his power, the future will open up for greater opportunities. Living in the fantasy of those future opportunities, however, debilitates us in the present.
Paul was a one-track person. There weren’t any options or alternatives in his life. That is why he never doubted his calling or his giftedness.
People in leadership who indulge in self-doubt will always struggle, because every time things get difficult, they question the validity of what they do. Should I be here? Should I go elsewhere? Should I get out completely? Unless you have absolute confidence that you’re called and gifted for what you are doing, every trial, every hardship will threaten to deter you from your objective.
I have never met an effective leader who wasn’t competitive. Real leaders desperately want to win. Or, rather, they expect to win—to achieve the objective. That passion to attain the prize is what Paul himself described in Philippians 3:14, and notice that it stemmed from his calling: “I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” Paul knew that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). He believed in the gifts God had given him. He trusted the power of God in his life. He knew beyond any doubt that God had set him apart for leadership, even from birth (Galatians 1:15). So he could set his eyes firmly on the prize.
Paul wasn’t alone. All the apostles ministered with the same kind of confidence Paul had. Acts 4 describes how Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin (the ruling body of Judaism in Jerusalem) to give an account for their healing of a lame man at the temple gate. After they gave testimony, verse 13 says, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.” The apostles’ extraordinary confidence did not come from formal training. It came from the fact that Christ had chosen them, trained them, and empowered them with His Spirit. Even in the face of death, their confidence remained unshaken.
Therefore when the Sanhedrin instructed them, under pain of death, to stop speaking of Jesus, they simply replied, “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (v. 20). Then they prayed, “Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word” (v. 29).
That was the strength of all the leaders in the early church. Their confidence did not rest on their personal abilities. It wasn’t self-confidence. Self-confidence is arrogance. But it was a strong and unwavering conviction that they were called.
Remember Paul’s words, “Such confidence we have through Christ toward God” (2 Corinthians 3:4 NASB).
The false teachers came along with self-confidence. They claimed they were adequate. They weren’t; they were peddlers of the Word of God (2 Corinthians 2:17)—corrupt, hucksters, insincere.
Who is fit for the task of influencing other men and women? Who is the authentic, qualified, acceptable leader? Is it the guy whose only credentials are written on a piece of paper? Or is it the one who has an untarnished reputation for integrity, the one who has a living letter of commendation written in the lives of the people he has influenced, and the one who has such a bold confidence in his own calling that he doesn’t waver, no matter how severe the opposition?
To ask the question is to answer it.
Paul then made another statement that carries the same argument one step further and makes explicit what he had hinted at throughout his self-defense. Again, this is the theme and a fitting summary of his whole defense: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God” (2 Corinthians 3:5).
Although Paul was supremely confident of his calling and quite sure of his own giftedness, he also remembered where those gifts had come from, and he knew they were not from within himself. The source of his adequacy was God. Paul did not for a moment imagine that he was adequate for the apostolic office in and of himself. On the contrary, he knew he was inadequate on his own. About that, his critics were right.
“Without Me you can do nothing,” Jesus said (John 15:5). The converse is equally true. “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” Paul wrote in Philippians 4:13. Both sides of that truth are equally important. “I labored more abundantly than they all,” Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:10, “yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (emphasis added); “By the grace of God I am what I am” (v. 10).
In no way did Paul imagine himself intrinsically adequate for the task to which God had called him. And that realization kept him dependent on divine grace in every aspect of his leadership. Thus he exemplifies another basic principle of all wise leadership: A leader knows his own limitations.
Leadership Principle #18
A LEADER KNOWS HIS
OWN LIMITATIONS.
Those whom the world holds up as leaders often exude arrogance, cockiness, egotism, and conceit. Those things are not qualities of true leadership; they are actually hindrances to it. The leader who forgets his own weakness will inevitably fail.
Paul, by contrast, drew strength from remembering his own weaknesses, because those things made him more dependent on the power of God. He wrote, “I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10). When he came to the end of his human resources, that was when the power of God flowed through him. God, and God alone, was Paul’s only true source of sufficiency.
People are not effective in leadership merely because they’re naturally talented communicators, because they have creative minds, because they have a flair for persuading people, or because of any other natural talents. In fact, if your own abilities are all you depend on as a leader, your own limitations will be your downfall. From a spiritual perspective, human ingenuity and human cleverness tend to corrupt more than they help.
The apostle Paul had a great mind, but he didn’t depend on it. He had wonderful training and he made use of it (or rather, God used it mightily). But he had no confidence whatsoever in the power of human wisdom when used for its own ends. He reminded the Corinthians that God’s Word says, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent” (1 Corinthians 1:19). For that very reason, Paul’s preaching in Corinth had been simple and plain:
I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1–5)
Paul had both the intellectual and the oratorical ability to hold his own with the greatest philosophers. And we see evidence of that in Acts 17, where he ministered in Athens among the philosophers. But that was not the basis of his ministry—either in Athens or in Corinth. The heart of his message was always Christ, proclaimed with clarity and directness, and he trusted the power of the gospel itself—not his own cleverness—to penetrate hearts and influence people. That’s something many church leaders today would do well to remember.
The truth was not something that resided in Paul. The power for ministry did not lie in his abilities. Take the Word of God away from him and he had nothing to say. Remove the Spirit of God from his life and he could do nothing worthwhile. He knew that. His claim on apostleship was not in any sense tied to the fact that he was a clever speaker, a brilliant thinker, or a powerful writer. He was an apostle because God had called and empowered him. Take that away and he would not have been fit for the task, regardless of his natural abilities and his formal training.
That’s why Paul refused to defend himself by boasting about his proficiency as a theologian or his skill as an orator. There’s not a word in all his self-defense about his talents or his training. His only sufficiency was from God. Therefore, Paul could defend himself with the utmost humility.
Here’s a principle to bear in mind: No competent leader is going to be anxious to impress people with his credentials. Leaders who are truly able are qualified because of their character. They are easily identified, not by letters of commendation, but because of the influence they have on others. They are people who are confident of their calling, and yet at the same time, they know they are utterly dependent on God as the source of their true power.