Bruce’s descriptions and insights into exactly how Jesus of Nazareth, in three short years, took a motley crew of twelve young men and moulded them into the founding members and leaders of an organization, the Christian church, which has lasted over twenty centuries and greatly affected the lives of hundreds of millions of people, are profound and instructive.
The disciples were not the smartest, the wealthiest, or the best educated of the many people Jesus encountered. They were not the best connected or the most religious. Far from it. Most were from a rural region, Galilee, of which one of its own is recorded as wondering “Can anything good come from there?”51 Bruce described them as follows:
In a worldly point of view they were a very insignificant company indeed,—a band of poor illiterate Galilean provincials, utterly devoid of social consequence, not likely to be chosen by one having supreme regard to prudential considerations. Why did Jesus choose such men? Was He guided by feelings of antagonism to those possessing social advantages, or of partiality for men of His own class? No; His choice was made in true wisdom. If He chose Galileans mainly, it was not from provincial prejudice against those of the south; if, as some think, He chose two or even four of His own kindred, it was not from nepotism; if He chose rude, unlearned, humble men, it was not because He was animated by any petty jealousy of knowledge, culture, or good birth. If any rabbi, rich man, or ruler had been willing to yield himself unreservedly to the service of the kingdom, no objection would have been taken to him on account of his acquirements, possessions, or titles … The truth is, that Jesus was obliged to be content with fishermen, and publicans, and quondam zealots, for apostles. They were the best that could be had.52
Nevertheless, now looking back over twenty centuries, it is truly astounding to see what this humble band became under his tutelage and what was accomplished through them. What might those of us responsible for forming, motivating, and managing small groups of people today—especially for religious or political purposes or for operating at the interface of faith and public life—learn from Jesus’ methods and example in this regard?
Lessons in Leadership
As Bruce observed, the record of the work of Jesus contained in the Gospels has two distinct dimensions—a public dimension in which he spoke, taught, and acted in public and dealt with public audiences and a more private and intimate dimension in which Jesus devoted himself specifically to the training and cultivation of the disciples. Be reminded, Bruce said,
There were two religious movements going on in the days of the Lord Jesus. One consisted in rousing the mass out of the stupor of indifference; the other consisted in the careful, exact training of men already in earnest, in the principles and truths of the divine kingdom. Of the one movement the disciples … were the agents; of the other movement they were the subjects. And the latter movement, though less noticeable, and much more limited in extent, was by far more important than the former; for it was destined to bring forth fruit that would remain—to tell not merely on the present time, but on the whole history of the world.53
It is this second dimension of Jesus’ work that Bruce examined and explained in great detail. Three aspects of the training of the disciples that I find particularly relevant to those of us with interests in public service, whether we are believers or not, pertain to the inculcation of high ethical standards, the management of ambition, and the reform of existing practices and institutions. In this chapter let us begin with Jesus’ approach to the inculcation of ethics and its contemporary relevance.
The Inculcation of Ethics
The cultivation of high ethical standards among those who seek public service is absolutely essential today if public trust in public leaders is to be restored, especially trust in political leaders, parties, candidates, democratic processes (such as elections), and democratic institutions. This is particularly true for candidates for public office with a faith commitment, as they are often held to an even higher standard than others are and will be mercilessly castigated as hypocrites if and when they fall short.
In a national public-opinion survey conducted by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy (January 2015) we asked respondents to indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being totally unimportant and 10 being very important) the importance they attached to the following:
• Whether candidates for public office are “knowledgeable.”
• Whether candidates possess certain “skills,” such as the ability to communicate, make decisions, etc.
• Whether candidates possess certain “character traits,” such as honesty, compassion, transparency, and integrity.
Predictably, character trumped knowledge and skills by a large margin. In fact, many respondents implied that they didn’t care how knowledgeable or skilful a political candidate or leader was; if they couldn’t be trusted because of character deficiencies, they shouldn’t be supported for public office.54
This survey also indicated that the those surveyed held a very low opinion of the ethical standards of Canada’s current political class, with 90 percent seeing elected officials as being more concerned with advancing their own interests (e.g., making money) than serving their constituents, and 55 percent considering elected officials to be unprincipled in general.
Another survey conducted around the same time by Ryerson University indicated that the unethical behaviours of politicians that respondents found most objectionable were the breaking of election promises (75 percent), the use of tax dollars to buy votes (55 percent), and the adoption of policies favouring particular interest groups, lobbyists, or family members solely to advance those interests and win their support (55 percent).55
Reliance on Ethical Codes
So how do we go about raising the ethical tone and standards of a nation or a society? More particularly, how do we go about raising the ethical tone of those in public service?
From ancient times down to the present, the most frequently utilized approach is to develop and enforce a code of ethics, with positive incentives for adherence, penalties for violations, and a system for monitoring and enforcing compliance.
For the people of Israel, from the days of their liberation from Egypt right down to Jesus’ day, it was the code of ethics embodied in the law of Moses and all the processes and institutions developed for its communication, expansion, and enforcement that constituted the traditional approach to securing ethical behaviour. Not dissimilarly, in our day we have seen the same approach taken, as evidenced by the plethora of ethical codes and compliance regimes adopted by many companies, professional organizations, and governments. In the case of the latter, codes of conduct for civil servants and elected officials may be enshrined in legislation and reinforced by the appointment of compliance officers and ethics commissioners.56 This was the situation that prevailed when my colleagues and I were first elected to the Canadian Parliament in 1993.
Insufficiencies of the Code of Ethics Approach
Unfortunately, the sad reality is that this approach by itself has generally proved to be insufficient in achieving the goal of securing consistently ethical behaviour on the part of those committed or subjected to it. For example, this insufficiency was demonstrated by the four-hundred-year experience of ancient Israel with the law of Moses, as recorded in the Old Testament, and the conclusion of the latter prophets that unless the law could be written on the tablets of the heart—that is, internalized—reliance
