01-13-2008

Who to Vote For

By Renae

Rembrandt, The Mennonite Minister Cornelis Claesz. Anslo in Conversation with his Wife, Aaltje, 1641

In the days when election sermons were commonplace, Samuel Willard encouraged his Puritan flock with a message entitled, “The Character of a Good Ruler.” Three hundred years later, these qualities are still relevant. A good leader:

  1. Is truthful
  2. Knows what is just and unjust
  3. Respects the cause rather than persons
  4. Is not given to bribes or flattery
  5. Prefers the public benefit above private and separate interests
  6. Rules in the fear of God
  7. Is a student of the law of God
  8. Is governed by a good conscience
  9. Obeys the law
  10. Promotes piety and honesty in all men

Can these characteristics be found in our candidates today? Are they in us?

Sermon excerpt in The Christian History of the Constitution

Related posts:

  1. Good News from California ...
  2. For Homeschoolers by Homeschoolers ...
  3. My Campaign Promise ...

Filed under Government | Trackback | Comments RSS | Add Comment

Previous: Strength in Weakness
Next: Wordless Wednesday- Initiative

18 Comments

  1. Deb 01-14-2008, 3:09 pm

    What a timely post and great question. My pastor has mentioned this very thing in his sermons the past few weeks. I find all those 10 qualities to be just as important today as then. I see some of the qualities is some of the candidates with only a few being closer to having a majority of the qualities.

    Was there any further explanation to what is meant by the “law” in #9 as to whether this means God’s law as found in Scripture or our civil law in the Constitution or both? We’re just beginning our study and are not very far so we are asking lots of questions.

  2. Renae 01-14-2008, 6:24 pm

    Deb,
    I appreciate your comments and question. I didn’t notice that part of the sermon is left out of the online copy, but the beginning and end are not in CHOC.

    Here is the quote from CHOC (pg.397) that #9 comes from:

    The fear of God will make him not to think himself lawless;…But to use utmost endeavors that his own life may be an exemplification of obedience, and others may learn by him what a veneration he hath for the laws that are enacted for the good of mankind.

    Since the laws in our nation should reflect the law of God, I think it refers to both. But since we cannot judge a man’s heart, we can only go by his record. Does he obey and respect the laws that are “enacted for the good of mankind?” If not, it makes sense that he shouldn’t be a ruler.

    That also opens the whole topic of laws being good for mankind. I fear that some legislation may not meet that simple requirement.

  3. Laura 01-15-2008, 1:15 pm

    Great point!

    I wish that every voter took these points into consideration.

  4. Rain 01-15-2008, 1:41 pm

    I really enjoyed this post and plan to share it as dinner table discussion with my family tonight. I can’t wait to see if we decided any of the candidates meet all the qualifications.

    Also, I tagged you to participate in a meme if you are interested. I really love your blog!

  5. Renae 01-15-2008, 5:44 pm

    Laura,
    Thank you. Since I am working on a few of these areas, I don’t expect elected officials to be perfect. But how many politicians take bribes and lie? Unfortunately, it seems to be expected.

    Rain,
    Sometimes it is hard to find the good with every delinquency broadcast by the media. I am curious what you will decide, so please share your conversation.

    Thank you for thinking of me and for your kind words. I have been tagged a few times since November and have yet to complete one; however, I will see what I can do. :)

  6. Deb 01-15-2008, 10:35 pm

    I agree, no, we can’t judge a man’s heart about his salvation. Yet, as you said, we can observe his record. By “record” doesn’t this means we can evaluate a politician’s/candidate’s ideas, words, decisions, and actions, bills sponsored/voted for, to see if they line up with Biblical principles and or not, to see who comes closest to being the most principled, most submitted to Biblical principles? Even though *ALL* the candidates/politicians are flawed, as I am flawed, can’t this be a way of helping us seeing through a lot of the forked-tongue talk, flip-flopping convictions, money/power motivated siding, etc?

    Although I grew up in a Christian home and a Bible-believing church (also had a government school education) the general idea of the Constitution was that of not being very important and the Bible was all that really mattered most. This unbalanced or lack of teaching about the Constitution and true Biblical government hindered and confused my understanding of God’s laws and government. I have a very limited understanding of the Constitution and our Christian form of government which is why I am studying and learning about it now in the PA. It’s only in studying the PA that I’m learning there really are Biblical principles in the Constitution, & as you also mentioned that those Biblical principles reflect God’s laws.

    Thinking out load here so I’m not sure how clear I will be ….. with God’s laws reflected in the Constitution, and it being the “law of the land”, shouldn’t how well a candidate/politician knows, obeys, and defends the Constitution (keeping those other 9 qualities in mind) be an indicator of how law-abiding he is and how good a leader he could be?

    When looking at the qualities of a candidate/politician, do you think it would be right to say that as an expansion of #9, in order to obey the law, they need to know what the law is, what the Constitution says, believe it, make decisions according to it, obey and defend it? — or maybe my question is: shouldn’t knowing the Constitution and obeying and defending it be a primary criteria (not THE only, but a primary one) in evaluating a candidate’s qualifications as a good leader or how law-abiding he is?

    I have a lot to learn and work out yet. I think I am finally understanding some of this but I could still be way off base. J I appreciate your thoughts on this.

    Thanks so much for sharing.

  7. Renae 01-16-2008, 2:11 pm

    Deb,
    I am still thinking through these ideas, as well, so I appreciate the discussion very much.

    Looking at a candidates record does include all of those things you mentioned. It does help, but I still don’t know who will get my vote in our March primary.

    I want to know that whomever I vote for will not further erode liberty by increasing the role of the government in the life of the individual. The purpose of the civil government is to protect the innocent, not to legislate every choice of its citizens.

    Of course, a politician should know and understand the law in the Constitution. It is the primary document for determining lawfulness in our country. And it is complicated, because of how far from the original intent of the Constitution we’ve strayed. So many “departments” have become federalized that were never intended to be so, and judges are making laws. Elected officials work with what they inherit, and, thankfully, they do not have the power to abolish everything and start over. Too many are dependent on the systems that are in place.

    A self-governed generation has to be raised up. As people say, “No, thank you,” to government programs, they will be replaced by individual enterprise. Homeschooling is an example of that.

  8. Dana 01-16-2008, 7:42 pm

    Are they in us? No. That is why we don’t expect them in our leaders. In fact, when politicians are found to be engaging in unethical activities, we are quite unconcerned, saying, “That’s just politics.”

    It doesn’t surprise us. There is no real outrage. And we even re-elect them. Because they funnel money back to our district our are advocates for our pet issues.

    I don’t worry about the lack of character of our leaders so much as those who look at them and say, “This is what I want in a leader.”

  9. Mister Guy 01-16-2008, 10:07 pm

    Sorry, there is no religious test to be President. We do not have a “Christian form of govt.”. God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Long live the separation of church and state!

    Too bad our current campaign financing system is basically legal bribery. I strongly agree with #5 though. It’s why I’m a liberal. :)

  10. Principled Discovery » Blogspotting 01-16-2008, 11:34 pm

    [...] ago thoughts on what makes a good leader.  If you were delivering the sermon, what would you keep?  What would you [...]

  11. Renae 01-17-2008, 11:25 am

    Dana,
    My husband and I came to the same conclusion. Until we stop being bribed to vote for the candidate who promises the most stuff using “we the people’s” money, we cannot expect our politicians to do anything differently. I refuse to become cynical though. What better time for men and women of solid character to be raised up?

  12. Renae 01-17-2008, 12:09 pm

    Mister Guy,
    God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but neither is “separation of church and state.” The philosophy of our government structure is written in the Declaration of Independence. It does give credit to the Creator for the self-evident truths that are the foundation of our rights and freedom.

    Before America, all nations had kings or dictators. The king’s power in England had been limited because individuals began to realize that their rights were given to them by someone with more authority than the Pope or the King.

    The form of our government is the result of biblical principles applied to the area of government. I assert that Christian government is self-government, and it is not limited to Christianity. We should all be free to go about our business, according to the dictates of our conscience, as long as it is within the law. For an example, someone may feel free to kill me, but that intrudes upon my right to life; therefore, murder is against the law.

    To discuss #5, we would have to debate what truly is the good of the whole. Since your comment was in reply to Samuel Willard’s sermon, I will submit his words:

    Every man in his place owes himself to the good of the whole, and if he does not so devote himself, he is unjust; and he who either to advance himself, or to be revenged on another, will push on injurious laws, or pervert the true intention of such as are in force, is an unjust man; and he who is under the influence of a narrow spirit, will be ready to do so, as occasion offers.

    His idea of separate and private interest is grasping for power, fulfilling a personal vendetta, or using the law in harmful ways. I think we can agree that such a person shouldn’t be in authority.

  13. Mister Guy 01-17-2008, 6:50 pm

    The separation of church and state is critical to the state not advocating for one religion over another, and it is a part of commom law going back to before our U.S. Constitution. What if this country was overwhelmingly Muslim and you were in the minority? How would you feel about the govt. stepping into religion then?

    The Declaration of Independence is a favorite source for “conservatives” in this country, but it is just a glorified “kiss off” document that was directed at Great Britian. It was an important document, but the Constitution setup our system of govt. in this country.

    Our rights come from no one (God or otherwise)…we have rights because we are human beings, period.

  14. Renae 01-17-2008, 9:11 pm

    Mister Guy,
    I never said that government should step into religion. I agree that the state should not advocate for one religion over another, but that doesn’t mean I can’t. :) Freedom of religion is a founding principle of this country.

    It is hard for me to think what my life would be like in a Muslim country. Women are treated as less-than-human in many nations. However, minorities in America have their right to life, liberty, and property protected.

    Yes, the Declaration of Independence is an important document, and it gives insight into why the Constitution set up our government the way it did. The founders realized that power corrupts, and they set up a system of checks and balances to guard against another king coming to power.

    You do not have to believe in God to realize that human beings have rights. It is reasonable. That is why people of differing faiths united together to fight for them and why our hearts break when individuals are murdered by tyrants.

  15. Mister Guy 01-18-2008, 12:00 am

    We are in agreement then. :) Good luck to you…

  16. Renae 01-18-2008, 9:02 am

    MisterGuy,
    I apologize for assuming what you meant in your comment about “separation of church and state.” My reply about “separation of church and state” not being in the Constitution was made in haste. I reacted rather than responding, because that phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson has been used to put down so many benign religious practices and traditions. The phrase is not there, but as we discussed and agreed upon, no law can be made to advocate one religion over another.

    Thank you for challenging me and for engaging in this discussion. I am glad we agree on liberty.

  17. Mister Guy 01-18-2008, 11:33 am

    No need to apologize…good, emotional debate is what this country was founded on. You welcome… :)

  18. Barbara Frank 01-30-2008, 4:59 pm

    I cannot judge a man’s heart, but fortunately, I don’t have to. I pray about it, cast my vote, and leave it in God’s hands. That said, I also pray daily for the leaders we need and not the ones we deserve.

    Thanks for stopping by my blog :)

Add a Comment