In defence of looking into the darkness

This piece has been taken down to be published more fully elsewhere.

True Virtue

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by."

Greeks can't spell Hercules

Heracles, in the days of his youth, was walking along a path when he encountered a crossroads. At the entrance to one of the two paths stood Arete, the goddess of virtue and at the entrance to the other was Cacia, the goddess of vice.
Each tried to persuade the hero to endeavour down her path. Cacia offered first - if he would walk her path, he would have wealth and pleasure above and beyond imagination. Arete, though, offered a life of struggle followed by glory.

Heracles chose the path of virtue, and I'm sure disney has given you a fair indication of the type of struggle he had before, at the end of his struggle against Hades, being invited to join the gods on Mt. Olympus.

I hope you don't find all this boring.
So what's my point? My point is that we too have changed our perception of what virtue is. Arete stood for self-sacrifice, kindness, loyalty and everything in between.
But the greeks didn't enjoy the stories about her, (being a goddess of virtue, they tended more toward Little House on the Prairie than the Game of Thrones-style sex and bloody violence that people wanted.)  So they told very few stories about her and the goddess faded into a word - and the word meant virtue. In time, though, due to evolved usage from Homer, and the complicity of translators, it came to mean, not 'virtue', but 'effectiveness'.

Dull bit over. Promise.

Looking into the soul of a society

One can tell rather a lot about the values of a society by words that they change the meaning to. Colloquially, the use of the word 'gay' as a generic insult in the 90's was indicative of the prevalent homophobia that still existed. Similarly, the term husband, for the german-language fans out there, is a genderless term for house(hus) owner(bunda), demonstrative of a patriarchal society - the male spouse must, of course, be the homeowner!

Liberal point-scoring over, my point is that we have overseen a change to what we perceive 'virtue' to be: We regard things as 'virtues' which are completely alien to character and simple accidents of nature.

Not being different

Yet these things are demonstrably key factors in the choosing of our Christian leaders. Charisma, ambition, 'magnetic-personality' - these are the words I hear as future leaders are being considered. Most obvious, I suppose, would be the special regard to intelligence. In reference to character, to comment on a man's intelligence is about as profound as calling him tall.

Don't get me wrong, just as height and strength once made leaders into talismans as we marched into battle, so do charm and intelligence make our pastors into figureheads.
But those battle-leaders were as equipped to wreak havoc as they were to pursue and instil justice.

Quite simply, we shouldn't be looking for figureheads. We need True, humble leaders. And, of course, from that pool of men and women will rise some greats. The fruit will always be of the same DNA as the root.
The Church is no longer distinctive in this regard. We value the same things that the world does.
Leadership is not a virtue, it is a function. A vital function at that - so much so that one in possession of such a gift might be tempted to say to the hand 'I have no need of you'.

To delve into cliche, I wonder which of us would have picked Moses the stammerer as our voice to the most powerful man on earth.
Is it with resignation that we say that Man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart? That's not God gloating that he has x-ray vision - it's a clear imperative on how we are to choose those who will lead us under God!

No pragmatists here, please

When the Church is weak, as it could be well-argued to be in the UK right now, we are tempted to excuse pragmatism: to, for the sake of the gospel ask fewer questions pertaining to character and holiness of our leaders. We instead look purely for those who can get things done. Who can speak with fluidity and charm. Who are good at networking and have the charisma to draw people in.

None of these are bad things. But none of these are virtues in and of themselves.
Nor are they requirements of leaders.

Ironically, it's the connection with Heracles that I believe led the evolution of the word to be regarding (and I quote) 'manly qualities' and, in time, 'excellence, of any kind'. Paul instructs us to meditate upon ἀρετὴ (arete) - perhaps etymology is not quite what he had in mind, but as a well-Hellenised man, I am mostly certain that he meant 'virtue', rather than 'being good at manly stuff'.
I'd sooner follow a good man than a smart one. This shouldn't even be a dilemma for the Christian. Our victory is assured... all that remains is the manner in which we live, what to do with the time given to us, and whether we will appoint generals of the same calibre as our king.

I have far more to say on this - some of which is in this old post.

Zack Eswine has learned this lesson the hard way and says this:

"To desire to be an overseer is marvellous thing. Aspire to greatness in it! Aspire to frequent the unknown, to bless the unnamed, to lose your fame and your reputation among the influential, in order to take a stand against appearance-making as a way of life and ministry. The woods await you… he will meet you there. Jesus, the famous one." (I've told you to read this book before. Please do)

So here you stand at the crossroads - take off the lumbering armour of your status and ambition, for the road is long.
Load your sling with pebbles. There's a lot of work to be done.