Character matters in a President: voting for a president or a pastor?
“When you vote for president you are not electing a pastor in chief.” Christian minded voters hear that every four years or so. It’s a simple way of reminding people that standards for presidents are different than standards for pastors. And on the surface I can fully agree with the point. In my lifetime we’ve never had a president, or anyone running for president to my knowledge, that I would gladly have as a pastor. That’s mainly because belief in God, even faith in Jesus, is not the standard for a pastor, it is the beginning point. A man can be a genuine follower of Jesus and still not meet the qualifications of a pastor. There’s particular standards of character and detailed issues of theology that have to be met for me to support a man as a pastor. So I’m completely on board with the idea that when I vote for a president I’m not voting for a pastor.Does Character matter?More often than not, however, people mean something different, or at least more, when they say, “We’re not electing a pastor in chief.” All to often it’s an attempt to cover over poor choices and actions in the life of a candidate. It’s a way of saying, “The morals, values, and character you expect in a pastor are not necessary in a president.” Family life doesn’t matter, crudeness doesn't matter, pride doesn’t matter, drunkenness doesn’t matter, sexuality doesn’t matter, [insert anything you like here] doesn’t matter, because we’re not electing a pastor. That, I have a problem with. There are no strengths of a presidential candidate that outweigh the weakness of bad character. Here’s why:As voters we know somewhere between 30 to 40 policy positions of a given candidate. Most often candidates will be very clear about their positions on issues that are dominating our society. But what about the hundreds of decisions a president will make that he or she has no official position on, or is yet to even think about? In the 2000 election no candidate was talking about how they would respond to a devastating terrorist attack. No one had a position on the ethical implications of drone strikes or the (permanent?) detaining of enemy combatants. I don’t remember any candidate talking about the role the Federal Reserve should play in the event of a financial crisis. In the 2012 election no one shared their views on ISIS, or who Antonin Scalia’s replacement should be. And all of that is understandable, because we don’t expect presidents to know the future. The point I’m trying to make is that all we have to do is briefly consider the past to realize that presidents are going to make hundreds of decisions about things on which they have no official position.Character MattersAnd this is where character comes in. Our best indicator of how a person will act on unknown future events is how they have acted in the past. In short, their character. It can be helpful to draw a comparison here between a pastor and a president. When Paul gives Timothy the qualifications of an overseer in 1 Timothy 3:1 - 7 he largely focuses on issues of character. Of the thirteen qualifications Paul gives, eleven are about character—the only job specifics being ‘able to teach,’ and ‘not a recent convert.’ Everything else Paul mentions provides a window into the character of a potential pastor. I think the reason Paul takes this approach is simple: there’s no way you can sit down and ask a potential pastor what he would do in every situation he may face. We don’t know the future, so we don’t know the questions we should be asking. But we can know a man’s character. And the implication is clear: if a man has good character, is above reproach, then you can trust him to work through future issues with wisdom, humility, and grace. You can trust him to lead well.When the President is like a PastorIt’s at this point that voting for a president is exactly like voting for a pastor. In both cases character matters. If a candidate has not shown faithfulness and wisdom in his or her previous actions what makes us think they will do so going forward? Take marriage as an example: if a candidate is not faithful to a spouse, a person whom they love and have made serious, lifelong vows to, what makes you think they will be faithful to the American people, most of whom they have never met? Or take being a lover of money. If a candidate has consistently put personal gain over the well being of others what makes you think they won’t do the same as president? Or how about being someone who lives on the opinion of others? If a candidate has said whatever its takes to gain the approval of the masses can you trust him or her to speak the truth when it is unpopular? If I’m going to stand and support a presidential candidate going into the future I need a solid record of character to put my feet on.No, our presidents are not pastors, and we should not expect them to be. But we should expect every president to be of the highest character. So when you vote for president don’t look for a pastor. But by all means, look for a man or woman of character.
Elders: who are they and what do they do?
This past Sunday our church overwhelmingly voted to set aside both Harlen Davis and Ed Sanderlin as elders / pastors at Union View, bringing the total number of elders to four. One question I’ve received several times is, “What do men in this position do?” Another way to put it would be to ask, “What are the expectations, outside of the general qualifications given in 1 Timothy and Titus, for our elders / pastors?” Or to put it even more simply, “What is their job?” While the specific details of a job description may change from elder to elder, especially regarding paid elders, there is a general job description that we draw from Scripture. To get that description we draw largely from the biblical language used for leaders of a local church.Elder, Overseer, and PastorThe three main words used to describe leaders of a local church are elder, overseer, and shepherd (we get the word ‘pastor’ from shepherd—more on that below). Here’s a quick breakdown of each of those words:
- Elder (presbuteros in Greek): The word elder has two general meanings. 1) a man advanced in age (an equivalent english phrase would be senior adult), and 2) an official leader of a church. Context helps us see which meaning we should use, as every senior saint is not an official leader of a church, nor is every leader of a church a senior saint.
- Overseer (episkopos in Greek): Overseer means what you think it would: someone engaged in oversight and supervision. (Some translations use the word bishop instead of overseer.)
- Shepherd (poimen in Greek): Shepherd means someone who serves as a guardian. The Latin word for shepherd is pastor, and as a tradition of sorts we’ve taken to calling church leaders pastors rather than shepherds.
Some church traditions believe that these three words refer to three different offices (positions in the church). In those churches some men would be elders, others overseers, and still others pastors. At Union View, however, we believe the consistent witness of Scripture is that these three terms refer to one office. More specifically, we believe the Bible uses the word Elder as the normal title for the leaders of a church while the words overseer and shepherd normally function as descriptors of what men in that role are expected to do. Here are three biblical examples that lead us to think this way.
Titus 1:5–7 (ESV)5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.
Notice that Paul is instructing Titus on the qualifications that should mark the life of an Elder in verses 5 - 6. Then in verse 7 he says, “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.” The logical connection is that men set aside as elders were overseers. That’s why the word “For” is there; to make sure we know Paul is talking about the same group of people, the same office.
Acts 20:17 - 18, 28 (ESV)17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. 18 And when they came to him, he said to them... 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
In Acts 20 Paul is saying his final farewell to the leaders of the Ephesian church. He sends for the elders in verse 17 and then charges them with responsibilities in verse 28; namely, as God ordained overseers to shepherd the church. This is an important passage because Paul uses elder, overseer, and shepherd (as a verb here) to refer to the same group of men. There is no distinction between the three, as if only some men were elders while others were overseers or pastors. The elders of the church were Spirit made overseers who were expected to shepherd the flock. Here’s one more example for good measure.
Peter 5:1–2 (ESV)1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly.
Here Peter is exhorting the leaders of the church, the elders. Like Paul, when Peter gives his expectations for these men he uses the word shepherd and overseer. Both words are used as verbs in verse two. (“Exercising oversight” translates one greek word, the verbal form of overseer.) Again, there is no indication that elder, overseer, and shepherd refer to different positions. To the contrary, elders were expected to be both overseers and shepherds.We could work through other examples, but these three effectively establish the consistent witness of Scripture. Church leaders were called elders, and they were expected to oversee and shepherd the church.Why does this matter?It’s important to understand the biblical language for church leaders for two reasons. First, it explains why the elders, overseers, and pastors are one group of men at Union View. Eric, Ed, Harlen, and myself as a group are the elders / overseer / pastors at Union View.Second, and finally getting back to our main question, it helps explain what an Elder’s job is. Elders are expected to exercise oversight in the church. They manage the church. They provide vision, maintain the day to day responsibilities directly or through delegation, establish the structure of ministries, and a hundred other things that are involved in managing a local body of Christ. It’s important to note that all of this overseeing is not about an organization. It’s about people. In Hebrews 13:17 Christian’s are told that their leaders are keeping watch over their souls. Every drop of oversight an Elder exercises should be for the good of the souls under his care.Elders are also expected to shepherd the members of their church. In doing this, elders take their cues from Jesus, the chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4). Shepherding is a broad word rich in imagery. Shepherds care for the flock, tend the flock, feed the flock, defend the flock, and lead the flock. They do all of this knowing that the flock is not ultimately theirs. Elders are merely servants who have the honor to tend the sheep of the King. There are two primary tools an Elder uses when he shepherds: Scripture and Prayer. And so a good Elder will labor over the sheep through diligent study and application of the word and fervent prayer.Those two, overseeing and shepherding, are the foundation for every elder's job description, whether lay or paid. We oversee and we shepherd, and we will be eternally grateful for the opportunity (1 Pet. 5:4).For more information on how we structure our Elders click HERE.
Abortion: women's rights or a baby's life?
In any argument is it a tremendous advantage to be able to set the stage for the discussion. If you and I are working through a disagreement and you let me define the terms, as well as what the argument is about, it gives me an almost insurmountable edge. Think of it like home field advantage for ideas.I almost always find this scenario to be the case when it comes to those advocating for abortion--they want to set the terms and the playing field for the discussion, and the field is nearly always women's rights. Pro-choice advocates are often dumbfounded why pro-life advocates don't buy into their argument, why we don't see things their way. The answer is simple. Our playing field is different: it's the baby's life.I'm a massive supporter of women's rights. I have a vested interest in the subject: my wife and my daughter. As a husband and a father of a daughter few things anger me more than seeing women dehumanized, marginalized, and stripped of the freedom and dignity that comes with being made in the image of God. But when it comes to abortion a pregnant woman is not the only, or even the main factor. Remember, the playing field is human life. Let me to say two things about an unborn baby's life that change the questions surrounding abortion.First, an unborn baby is a living human being.This is one of the most hotly contested areas of abortion. Every pro-choice advocate I have ever talked with is quick to disagree with me on this; saying, "An unborn baby is a fetus or a clump of cells, not a human." I find that statement perfectly illogical. We use many terms to refer to the stages of human life: zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, adult and senior adult. The point that simply cannot be argued against is that each word refers to a point in human life. Yes, human life, but what about the fact that an unborn baby is not a self-sufficient human life? It's worth noting that all throughout the stages of human life, especially at the beginning and end, humans are not self-sufficient. A one week old is no more self-sufficient than a baby in the womb. Both rely entirely on other people to care for them--as do many adults at the end of life. From a Biblical perspective this is even clearer: at no point in human life are any of us self-sufficient.
In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind. Job 12:10
At this moment you are more dependent on God to sustain your life than you ever were on your mother.At every stage, beginning at conception, we are talking about human life. The only clear line of distinction in the process is that when the transition from fetus to newborn occurs we can see and hold a baby. However, without question we are always dealing with human life, from beginning to end.If the focus of the discussion is human life then the question of abortion is dramatically shifted. We have to ask, "When is it morally acceptable for a mother to kill a human life insider her?" Notice I'm not saying women have no rights. I'm simply asking when is it appropriate for a women to exercise her rights when it comes to ending a distinct human life inside her. There's a reason pro-life advocates fight so hard against defining an unborn baby as a human life. How can you answer that question in a way that makes abortion on demand look morally acceptable?Second, human beings, in particular children, are valuableNo matter the circumstances that led to his or her life, every human being is valuable, including unborn babies. In recent discussions about abortion I have increasingly heard people say something to the effect of, "Getting rid of abortion is not fair because it punishes women for having sex." The implication, or course, is that having a baby is punishment. Look at how restricting a child is. There is cost involved, in money and time. A child restricts what parents, especially mothers, can do. How is that not punishment?The reality is, having any thing of value is restricting. Take owning a home. There is a huge investment in money and time associated with owning a home, both in initial cost and maintenance. The same could be said of owning a car. I wonder though, how many people would consider it punishment if they were given a new home? Here's the point I'm trying to make. It is right to say a child costs. The problem is too many people believe that children are not worth the price. Simply put, we do not place a high value on human life unless it is our own. Scripture stands in direct contrast to that type of thinking. Human life, life made in the image of God, is valuable, enough so to warrant the greatest sacrifices. Again, make the baby's life the focus and the questions becomes, "Why is it wise or good to discard one of the single most valuable things in this world?"There are many, often complex reasons that drive women to have an abortion. But the simple reality is always the same. An incredibly valuable human life is ended. How could I ever support and celebrate abortion?
What Joseph teaches us about faith and obedience
This past Sunday we saw from Luke 1:34 - 55 that God does the impossible. We also saw that when Mary believed God was doing the impossible her life was flooded with Joy. She burst into spontaneous song, "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior." Joy is a fruit of faith. When we believe that God is doing the impossible, not just that he can do the impossible, we are filled with joy. There is a second fruit of faith that God shows us through the birth narrative. It's seen through the life of Joseph in Matthew 1:18 - 24.Matthew's gospel tells us nothing about the angel's visit to Mary. He picks up the birth narrative with a pregnant Mary and a languishing Joseph. "When..Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." Joseph found himself in an incredibly difficult situation. The woman he was to marry was pregnant, and he knew with absolute certainty that the child was not his. The Bible does not tell us how Joseph found out about Mary's pregnancy, only that she was "found to be with child." Perhaps no one but Mary knew about the pregnancy until she was undeniably showing, or perhaps Mary, filled with wonder, went to Joseph and told him about the angels message and her pregnancy. No matter how it happened, there must have been a conversation between the two at some point. I imagine Joseph asking Mary, "How could you do this?," and Mary replying, "I've done nothing wrong. The child is God's." It would have been easier for Joseph to believe Mary had cracked under the stress of having a child out of wedlock than for him to believe that the child "conceive in her [was] from the Holy Spirit." And so Joseph resolved to divorce Mary.Matthew tells us that Joseph was a righteous man, so he planned to divorce Mary quietly instead of exposing her to public ridicule and shame. As frustrated, confused, and hurt as Joseph was, he loved Mary, and seeing her paraded through the public square as an adulteress was more than he could bear. In this moment Joseph's love for Mary was greater than his pride that demanded a public declaration of his innocence in the matter. We should pause here and let God's work through Joseph challenge us. I think of Peter's words, "Love covers over a multitude of sins." The love that God works in his children does not dismiss the seriousness of sin committed against us, but it does remove a prideful, vindictive spirit that demands self-vindication. Now, back to the main lesson.Before Joseph could do anything an angel appeared to him in a dream. The angel commanded Joseph to marry Mary, followed by two truths: Mary's child was from God, and the child will save his people from their sins. Verse 24 records Joseph's response, "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife." There it is, the link between faith and obedience. Joseph was staring the impossible in the face: the virgin birth! Every fiber of his own logic and reasoning told him to divorce Mary. But there was a voice that carried more weight for Joseph than his own. God told Joseph that he was doing the impossible, and Joseph believed. He obeyed and took Mary as his wife because he believed what God said. Joseph's faith fueled his obedience.
And so it is with all obedience--at least obedience rightly done. We obey God when we believe what he says. That's why Jesus could say, "If you love me you will keep my commandments." Obedience to God is always a battle between our own thinking and the revealed truth of God. Our thinking tells us that sin is better, it's pleasures supreme. God tells us that he is better, and a thimble full of his presence brings more delight than an ocean full of sin. All of Scripture is leading us to believe that God is doing the impossible; namely, that he is reconciling the world to himself through the work of Jesus. When we hear and believe that God is doing the impossible, like Joseph, we will wake up and obey what the Lord commands--no matter how impossible it seems.[Tweet "And so it is with all obedience--at least obedience rightly done. We obey God when we believe what he says."]