Leadership is born out of leadership and management in other arenas of life. This principle is most easily seen by the historical fact that Americans like electing people who have participated in military service. It is not an absolute necessity to have served in the military, but it can often time help. Why? It demonstrates certain qualities and abilities that might be helpful for the office that is being sought. This concept is not new. It is a Biblical one as well. As we continue to offer questions that might vet potential candidates for office, let’s review a couple of items to make sure we are remembering what we are building upon.
* Government Officials are considered “ministers of God”. (Romans 13:4,6)
* No one is “telling” you how to vote, but most people need “training” in how a vote should be cast as a Christian citizen.
* Government begins with answering the question as to how well one governs themselves.
* Our vote involves an action which should give glory to God. (I Corinthians 10:31)
Our founders set up a democracy which is often called a representative republic. This has nothing to do with our current political parties but rather indicates that our views are represented by those we elect. In order for any view or political position to be codified into public policy there has to be a working together of representatives in the Congress and Executive branches to bring forth an agreed upon law. This has been euphemistically called, “making sausage”, due to the messiness of the legislative process. My point is that the process is built upon people’s relationships with their constituency and each other in the political process. These relationships entail trust, values, confidence in people’s word, fidelity, principle, and faithfulness. In fact, it was John Adams who said that our “constitution was made for a religious and moral people” and was wholly inadequate for any other. (Please refer to Part ONE) How might that be measured in a candidate to the satisfaction of those who are voting? This leads us to the next question:
3. Has the Candidate managed (governed) their home, family and marriage?
Since the political candidate is considered a “minister” (Romans 13:4,6) it would not be a burdensome expectation that they would be under the same character mandates as a “church” arena minister. There are many overlapping responsibilities that would be applicable. I Timothy 3:1-7 is a good list of qualities to begin that analysis.
“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
Allow me to say again quickly…I recognize that we are not electing the “Pastor in Chief” or the “Theologian in Chief”. If you dismiss what I am about to say based on that trite analysis then you are being spiritually and intellectually dishonest. No one is advocating a perfection of performance. If that were true then no one could aspire to leadership. However, this list was inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by Paul to remind the Church that leadership has expectations. Leadership means visibility. Visibility means influence. Influence means responsibility. Responsibility means expectations. The point of the passages below need to be summarized as follows:
* Paul was not creating an unreachable list of character qualities, but a standard of leadership which would bring confidence to the ones being led.
* Paul was using ordinary, everyday, measuring sticks of leadership (marriage and family) to determine if the overseer would be good at leading in other venues.
* Paul understood that the spiritually weak or novice would not be a good fit for leadership concerns.
These 3 simple points are easily transferable and critically important in choosing our civic leaders. The home, family, and marriage is a critical area of evaluation. Again, if trust has been broken within a marriage then it reflects on other potential areas of leadership. If it has been broken multiple times and with multiple people then perhaps the problem is with the candidate and not the spouse since that seems to be the constant in the relationship. Has there been any demonstration as to the management of the home or family? It is true that the best management of human beings does not always translate into perfect results (for each family member has a will and a sin-nature too), however, it is a thermometer to measure the candidates steadiness and oversight. If the home and marriage are struggling or has a record of shakiness, it can indicate the candidate’s leadership capabilities.
But the new “Pharisee detectors” arise at this point accusing those of us attempting to apply God’s Word in this arena with “judging”, or having a “religious spirit”, or even being “demonically motivated”. I would respond to them that they too best be sure they are not ascribing a work of God with the devil. To simply dismiss those of us who seek to uphold a Scriptural standard as having a “religious spirit” is simply an attempt to intimidate by throwing their “super-spirituality” into the discussion.
Of course there is redemption, restoration, forgiveness, mercy and grace. That is the message of the Cross. However, the instantaneous nature of reconciliation does not mean the instantaneous nature of leadership…in any arena. In fact, Paul specifically writes against it. Why should we think ourselves wiser than Paul?
NEXT: Part 4, Church Government and affiliation
No Comments