Character Matters For Leaders

It was Alexander Hamilton, chief staff aid to General George Washington and one of the key interpreters and promoters of the U. S. Constitution, who famously said:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

 In that last clause we are not only reminded of the importance of limited government (for human government has a tendency to draw in for itself more and more power), but also of the importance of moral character among leaders. When enough leaders are in power who are lacking in this area, the result will eventually be the overcoming of any controls on government and the exercise of raw, evil power upon civilians. Because of its natural tendency, this is the direction governments usually go.

This reminds us of an answer to a debate that raged in the nineties within the United States: “Does character matter?” Certainly those who were fans of a president who proved to be a womanizer and liar, even though they thought he had done great good otherwise, sought to argue that character doesn’t matter all that much. “After all,” it was reasoned, “if he is doing a good job otherwise, what’s the big deal?” Opponents (and I was among this group) argued that character does matter—at least for this reason, namely that leaders have great ability to change the direction of a nation, either inspiring better and moral living, or to influence a spiraling down (“If leaders can get away with it, why not us?”).

Now, two decades later, as we have seen the further degradation of our culture, our leaders, and the political process in this country, it is hard to argue against those who stood on the side that affirmed, “character matters.”

It is also no difficult task to prove this point from the Bible. Not only can a reader comb the pages of Kings and Chronicles to see that the moral character of leaders shapes for good or bad the direction of a nation (compare, for example 2 Chronicles 12-13 with 2 Chronicles 14:1-5), but the pages of Proverbs can also be consulted. In the latter case, this collection of pithy, memorable sayings about how a person can live a skillful and godly life was most likely put together primarily to prepare young people for a life in the court—in other words, for leadership. Consider some of the wisdom for leaders found there:

·         Proverbs 3:5-7: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. ⁶ In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.
⁷ Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.

·         Proverbs 9:10 (GNT): “To be wise you must first have reverence for the Lord. If you know the Holy One, you have understanding.”

·         Proverbs 15:1 (GNT): “A gentle answer quiets anger, but a harsh one stirs it up.”

·         Proverbs 16:32 (GNT): “t is better to be patient than powerful. It is better to win control over yourself than over whole cities.”

·         Proverbs 28:3-5: “A poor man who oppresses the poor is a beating rain that leaves no food. ⁴ Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them. ⁵ Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”

·         Proverbs 28:15: “Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people.”

·         Proverbs 28:16: “A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”

If moral character matters, this raises some questions. To start, if we have a choice of candidates before us and they all seem to be lacking to some degree in moral character (the situation that most people in the United States believe we now have with the top two presidential candidates), then how do we vote, or do we vote? To move toward an answer, we can paraphrase columnist Marvin Olasky, who recently opined that since both major presidential candidates are lacking in this area, we can expect problems to arise from whichever one is elected. This is where we start in our answer. We admit what Olasky wrote. But I believe we can go farther in our response.

Christians especially should have strong convictions that moral character matters for leaders, but also should remember that all leaders are imperfect. There is only one man who walked the earth who was sinless (cf. Heb. 4:15; 7:26) and so there is only one sinless and perfect leader and what a leader he is (cf. Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1-5)!  Every other leader will be fallible. This understanding should not make us shoddy in our choice of candidates. It should move us to seek, to the best of our knowledge, to pick candidates with the best character we can and whose positions come the closest to agreeing with the sound public policies that emerge from biblical reflection.

So, in the case of this election, if you believe, as I do, that one of the two major candidates will be the next president (and that neither of the second tier candidates is a viable option),[1] we must apply this approach to our choice and vote for the one who would have the most positions that are closest to a Christian worldview and the most sound public policies.

Now, that choice for me is Donald Trump, even though I opposed him strongly in the primary. Yet some Christians have asked the question, “If we vote for someone like Donald Trump, how can the church in any reasonable way still be a voice of conscience for our culture?” I answer that question this way:  “In the same way we could still be the voice of conscience when voting for anyone else.” What we must understand is that a vote for a candidate does not condone all they are or all for which they stand. My vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 did not at all condone his Mormon theology. It did say he was head and shoulders above Obama on policies and was significantly closer to a Christian worldview. Likewise, my vote for Trump in this election does not condone his womanizing in the past or any outlandish comments he has made recently. What my vote does mean—and all it means—is that he will be far better for the country; for our religious liberties; for our protection as a nation; for the nomination of originalist supreme court, federal, and appellate court judges; for the preservation of our constitutional republic; for the economic health of our country; and for the well-being of our fellow citizens than Hillary Clinton. I (and any other outspoken evangelical Christian) will continue to be a voice of conscience as we critique and stand against all that Trump does that is unsound, unwise, and not in keeping with a Christian worldview. In no way should we come to his defense just because we voted for him!

As we think through this matter, we need to ask ourselves these questions: “Even though we know that each candidate has significant character flaws, with which one will we be better off, if we get only ½ of what each promises and with which one will we be better off given the people they are putting around them as advisors:  Clinton or Trump?” I have no doubt on how I answer those questions!

Moral character matters for leaders. Wisdom also matters for an electorate. May we not make the same mistake we did four years ago, stay home because we don’t have the perfect candidate, and guarantee what is certain to be a disastrous Clinton presidency!

---

[1] Let’s say for the sake of argument that we would vote for Gary Johnson rather than Clinton or Trump. Some have advocated this. However, as his own web site words it, we would also be voting for his “socially tolerant positions.” Even if there could be a ground swell of people—enough to elect Johnson—it does not sound promising that he would advocate policies that would be close enough to a Christian worldview that we should be motivated to vote for him, especially when most likely to do so would mean we are contributing to the election of Clinton (whose stances are about as anti-Christian as one can get) as the next president.