My point, since you asked, is not profound. When a leader, face-of-the-organization, is posited, I will be told why I should admire him. Before you pick him, I will tell you what I admire. Then, you will know if you should bother me with the new fellow.
So far, I have said an admirable life includes humility. I have said humility is a real preference for the will of God over one's own will. To be humble, one must abandon himself to God, and so forsake his spiritual lostness for a new kind of lostness in self-surrender. To be perpetually humbled, he must have one(s) in his life who will repeatedly keep him from himself. He must heed them.
This will finally be a book length manuscript describing humility, courage, faithfulness, et al. I want to write about an admirable life. I want to help us settle on what we would find admirable, what we could agree on as worthy, so we will know the difference between nothingness (nihilism) and fanaticism. Secularity will not do, or it would have done by now. We would know if unbelief were special, for so many have tried it.
The nihilist assumes life will devolve into a sequence of meaningless events. The fanatic assumes his experience, however ennobling or debasing, is normative, to the extreme. as if anyone not living his life is somehow in a depleted, less admirable life. Believers are besieged on both sides, by the nihilist on the one and the fanatic on the other.
The fellow the committee puts forward should be able to tell the difference between nihilism and fanaticism. He has to know which he is, how much of each and how he will keep himself for God. He must know how to answer the Skeptics, for their voices are loudest.
There is real reason for pause. Those who serve on the placement committee will not merely put forth a candidate. They will assume a moral position. If they ignore moral consensus, the name of their candidate does not matter.
Opinions expressed here are mine alone.