Beyond this basic threefold idea, the western traditon displays many different emphasis. the Greeks for instance, were the first to hold that character was the mark stamped on a coin and therefore the quality stamped on a person. But whereas we moderns think character is what distinguishes a person as a particular individual, the Greeks, for instance, were the first to hold that character was a mark stamped on a coin and therefore the quality stamped on a person. But whereas we moderns think that character is what distinguishes a person as a particular individual .
From research, the Hebrews in contrast, saw such character as essentially moral. righteousness in the bible is not just a matter of what wen do and is certainly not what we say. righteousness is a matter of the heart but about who we are at the core of our beings-BEFORE GOD. someone who is well intentioned but who fails to follow through is irresponsible. someone who behaves well outwardly but who inwardly is resentful, lustful, selfish or proud is a hypocrite. from such a point of view, character can never simply be inherited nor does it grow like a weed. it has to be formed and cultivated with help dat is higher dan human.
This strong traditional understanding of character carries certain implication of leadership.first character should not be confused with dullness or blandness. its foundational idea is strength not safety. second character can incude evil qualities as well as good. slatins constitutional mistrust was as much a part of his character as churchill's indomitable courage was a part of his. third in most cases character is already formed beyond hope of major change when people assume the higher positions of leadership. public relations may obscure what that character really is and may suggest transformations that have not really taken place but character will always out.For better or worse, character always has consequences.
