Last week brief clips of interviews with various voters were broadcast in quick succession. The question was, “Will character be an issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign?” The overwhelming consensus of opinion was, “No.” One’s first response to such shallow thinking is, “No wonder we find so many crooked, immoral, and corrupt politicians in office–since a great number of voters seem totally apathetic to this issue.
How can the mentality of anyone who would vote for a person because he’s “my party” be comprehended? If “My Country–Right Or Wrong” is unBiblical, how much less valid is “My Party–Right or Wrong”? As to the former sentiment, imagine stiff-necked Jews making the same statement–just prior to the captivity!! What if Nineveh had rejected the preaching of Jonah by saying, “We’re not going to repent. Our country–right or wrong”?
The fact is that God sent the prophets to proclaim to the nations their sins. A brief perusal of the first two chapters of Amos demonstrates that God destroys nations because of their unrepentedof sins. He possessed this same disposition even towards His own beloved people (Amos 2:4-16).
Since God never makes exceptions with nations, what makes America think that He will continue to tolerate abominations such as abortion and homosexuality without bringing judgment on us?
Political parties are not inherently moral or immoral, but if they sponsor an immoral candidate (and they know it), then they have acted corruptly. Furthermore, Christians sin when they vote for a candidate who precipitates God’s judgment by advocating pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies).
When Character MattersMany have argued that one’s immoral quirks have no bearing on his ability to govern. In an attempt to establish this point, examples are given, such as the following. Being a homosexual does not affect one’s ability to play the piano or professional tennis. Engaging in numerous “one-night-stands” does not diminish one’s ability to play professional basketball or rock music. These examples allegedly prove that a candidate’s character should be irrelevant when we vote for those who will govern us. Such an application is not even remotely parallel.
Rulers not only communicate to their constituents; they also deal with other nations (which means they must be credible). Furthermore, a nation’s leaders usually set the moral tone for the country. Consider Judah: when she had a good king, most of the immoral practices were done away with, but when an evil king reigned, the nation likewise followed suit. These were not exceptions; they form a pattern throughout the Old Testament.
If a man cheats repeatedly on his wife, he lacks integrity. Obviously, the vow he made when married holds no significance; so how can his word or commitment in any other field mean anything? He is just as likely to disregard any other promise he makes as he has his sacred vow of marriage.
And with what kind of people will he surround himself as he tends to the affairs of state? Generally, leaders select those of like character, which means that the amount of damage that can occur might increase a hundredfold–or more. [Why, the FBI and the IRS might even be used to discredit an innocent man!] What kind of ethics are these for our young people to grow up observing (and perhaps emulating)?
Another consequence of Presidential authority involves the Supreme Court. The views of those who sit on the highest court of the land are crucial. Consider all of the damage done by the Warren court, as well as succeeding ones. In the last forty years, the court has been: 1) unable to define pornography, 2) removed school prayer (as well as caused other spiritual damage to this nation), and 3) legislated abortion-on-demand through Roe v. Wade. [Yes, legislated is the appropriate word because they did not interpret law (the function of the court); they wrote it.]
Appointees should be given important consideration. February’s Reader’s Digest , for example, points out that former President Bush and his staff were confident that David Souter was a conservative. The article concluded that they did not know enough about his views; worse yet, he has reversed himself on the conservative views he once held. In fact, he has become one of the most (if not the most) liberal member of the court. Dwight Eisenhower was similarly disappointed by Earl Warren.
The above Presidential duties reveal just a few reasons which show that character does matter!
The Influence of LeadersConsider how the following men influenced God’s people and decide if character matters.
King Saul was either a weak leader or an accomplished liar (or both). He claimed that he usurped the function of a priest because “the people were scattered from me” (1 Sam. 13: 11). After disobeying God’s instructions concerning Amalek, Saul again credited the people for his actions (1 Sam. 15:15, 21). A weak leader will abide by the most recent public opinion poll and say what he thinks folks want to hear even if it contradicts what he said the day before. The alternative is that King Saul lied and blamed the people, thinking that somehow doing so would absolve his disobedience. It did not.
Ahab was an evil man who did worse than all who were before him. Then he married Jezebel (1 Kings 16:30-31). If he became temporarily impressed with Elijah’s victory over the prophets of Baal, she was there to get him back off track (1 Kings 19:2). And if he grew weak in the practice of evil, she was there to take up the slack (1 Kings 21:1-14). What a helper! Some rulers, although talented (in wickedness) in their own right, are nevertheless dominated by their wives. These were especially dark days for Israel. Did this couple’s character matter?
Jeroboam was selected to rule over Israel when the kingdom split due to Rehoboam’s stubbornness (1 Kings 12:20). Jeroboam may have seemed like a good choice at the time, but his character also proved to be deficient. He became intoxicated with power. He could not stand the thought of losing the kingdom; so he devised a strategy to keep the people under his control (1 Kings 12:25-33).
It worked. Of course, he changed aspects of worship as God designed it (just as some are doing today), but apparently nobody objected (or not many did, just like today). So until they were taken captive for their sins, the nation of Israel engaged in unauthorized worship. God destroyed them because they walked in the sins instituted by one king (2 Kings 17:21-23). A defective leader’s character caused a nation to sin by following after his “reforms.” Can anyone successfully argue that “character doesn’t matter”?