“What questions must be answered to ensure your public persona matches your behind-the-curtain private one?”
That question was posed by a friend recently. While he didn’t elaborate on where the question came from, knowing him it was an experience that led to him asking himself that question. And then he followed his curiosity, wondering how others would answer it. This article approaches that question from a leadership lens.
In thinking about that question, I couldn’t help but consider some very public and horrendous examples of where leaders displayed public personas that were very different than the one behind the curtain. Mark Driscoll, Bill Hybels and Ravi Zacharias come to mind immediately. Despite any positive impact these leaders had, it is now obvious that what was behind the curtain did not match the image on public display.
These are just three negative examples. The splashy and traumatic ones that make the news. There are countless others, as well as countless examples of where the public and private personas did match. Although they don’t make the news, no doubt you’ve experienced both.
So what makes the difference? What are the ingredients that lead to congruency in the personas of some and not others? What can we draw from the failures, and not just the epic and public ones, that will help us avoid similar outcomes? I’m going to borrow a line from C.S. Lewis’ opening forward to his book, Mere Christianity, here. There are “far more, and more talented, authors already engaged in such matters” as to the numerous differences between leaders who are congruent or not in public and private personas.
Instead, let’s return to the original curiosity of what questions can help lead to congruency for the leader.
The Temptation of Jesus
In Luke 4:1-13, the gospel writer describes the testing of Jesus in the wilderness. The importance of the experience Jesus had immediately before this — his baptism and the Fathers affirmation of Jesus’ identity — cannot be overlooked when considering the wilderness account of chapter 4. Jesus knew who he was and where he was going before facing the test of the wilderness. That was the foundation that allowed him to pass the test.
Yet, in the testing, we see a glimpse of what all leaders face. Jesus, as a man, was subject to the same temptations we face. Paul affirms this in 1 Corinthians 10:13. The Message version says this, “No test or temptation that comes your way is beyond the course of what others have had to face.” Including Jesus.
James 1 also talks about testing and trials and temptation. It’s helpful here to think of these words as describing a process of refining, so we can be “mature and complete, lacking nothing” (v4). In other words, the tests and temptations which life brings are opportunities the Father uses to help us become the fullest and best expression of who He wants us to be.
Although likely obvious, it is worth stating that the congruency of public and private persona to which we’re aspiring in this article is one in which the leader’s example is loving God and loving others. Christ-like. And with Jesus as the example we find in his wilderness temptation three questions a leader can ask to help pass their own tests. To help keep the visible persona aligned with the behind-the-curtain persona.
Take or Give
The first test Jesus faced came after a 40 day fast. Jesus was hungry. The account in Luke 4:2 says so. It is not true to the text or Jesus’ humanity to believe otherwise. Jesus’ tempter surely understood that, otherwise the first question would have been different. There is no doubt that Jesus desired food. But in that moment, his desire for food was not greater than his desire to be grounded in who he was, who the Father said he was.
The first question a leader can ask is this: Where am I trying to take for myself rather than give for others?
Jesus had the authority and the power to do what the tempter was suggesting. He had the desire for food, anyone fasting for only a few meals know that same desire. He had the means. He had the motive. And now had an opportunity. Yet he resisted the temptation. He passed the test, and was refined in the process, because he chose not to take for himself.
This isn’t to say that desires should be denied or ignored. Hunger, left unfulfilled, doesn’t give life. Desire is natural and God ordained. But when desire is not channeled by the grounding of one’s identity it will result in the choice to take, rather than give. The consequences of taking for oneself could be small or they could be significant. Think of David and what his desire did to Bathsheba and Uriah and the ripple effect on his kingdom and impact as the leader.
Motive is important here. It’s what makes the difference between cooperating with the testing (refining) process and pushing against it. This first question helps the leader uncover the motive surrounding the desire — Is it for me and my gain or for the benefit of others?
