Choosing a President

This year, the US is faced with once again choosing a president, something they do every four years. Many have complained about the quality of the candidates this year, some lamenting that we do not have Ronald Reagan on the ballot, or some other favorite from the past. We often wish we had someone with the potential to be a "great" president. That is commendable, as far as it goes, but I am bothered that we use the term "great" with little thought to its meaning. Usually, it means only "someone who agrees with me on the 'issues'" and little more than that. Let us remember, however, that being president is about a whole lot more than expressing opinions on "the issues." Many people who are "right" on every issue, are unqualified to be president for a host of other reasons. In that light, let's look at a list of qualities that are minimally necessary for a president to be "great."

1) An effective leadership style. In the past, presidents have failed to achieve greatness often because they could not lead. They may have had great ideas, and wanted to achieve worthwhile things (or perhaps not), yet they could do little since no one would follow them. John Quincy Adams was one such, as was Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. All three failed to achieve much while in office because they could not lead. Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson both acheieved quite a bit while in office because they knew how to get people to "buy in" to thier plans and make them reality. These were two very different men, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, and they had very different leadership styles, but they both found styles that worked for them. A great president (or a terrible one, too) must find a leadership style that gets things done, or he will be a mediocrity at best (and that is not a bad thing for the country, if the president is a bad man).

2) A political philosophy that is oriented toward justice and freedom and the rule of law.

No president can be great if his goals are unjust, or whose policies inhibit freedom too severely, or who does not respect the rule of law. The "rule of law" means that the law itself is supreme, not the people who administer it. No president, or other government officer has the right to circumvent the law in order to accomplish his goals. (This is one reason why the so called "gay marriage" thing is evil. Judges are creating a new "right" that is not expressed in any constitution and which has never been passed by any legislature. They are putting their own agenda ahead of what the law itself says). A president who seeks to rule by decree, rather than seeing his responsibility as merely to "execute the law" is a bad president. Al Gore would have made a bad president, on this score. In his 2000 race, he kept promising what HE would do, and often it was things the president canno do, without the legislature enabling it. For example he said he would put Social Security in a "lockbox" so that no one's benefits would ever be cut. HE would do this? He hasn't the power, and besides, under the law, no one's benefits can be cut, unless the legislature passes a new law and the president signs it, or if he vetoes it, the legislature overrides the veto. Gore had the idea that justice comes from the man who administers it, not from the law which guarantees it. Don't vote for anyone who has this way of thinking.

3) A solid moral foundation in his own life.

A great president must be also a good man. He must be able to keep his committments, thus having a reputation for being personally reliable. He must be oriented toward goodness--that is he must like good things and avoid bad ones. (A president who drinks, gambles, philanders, steals, lies, etc. is automatically not a "great" president.). He must naturally gravitate toward good people, and enjoy the good things of life. (His hobby may be gardening, or golf, or fishing, or whatever, but it must not be gambling, or porn movies, or cock fighting). If you want to know the quality of a president, look at his lawyer. If the guy is sleazy, the president is sleazy; if the guy is a serious professional, honest, respectful of the law, then the president will be too.

4) Executive experience Normally, governors or business leaders have more potential for effectiveness as president than Senators and Congressmen. Senators have often sought the office (and this election we will elect one, certainly), but they are rarely great presidents.

5) Good communication skills These days, especially, a president must be able and willing to communicate. Many of President Bush's problems stem from the fact that he rarely makes speeches, rarely hold news conferences, and if often less than effective when he does. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, could make a speech, and Congressmen would be flooded with letters from their consituents that week urging them to vote for what Reagan wanted! It worked, certainly. These five are certainly not exhaustive, but they are a start. (Note that there is nothing of partisanship here. I have NOT said, "A great president affirms this policy or agrees with me on that issue." That has been deliberate. I want to be objective here.) I invite anyone to add to this list or to comment on it. Let me know, especially if there are specific things I have missed.

Human Race Nearly Went Extinct--News Story

Spencer Wells of the National Geographic Society has discovered that the human race nearly went extinct sometime in the past. The few people remaining were able to repopulate the earth. See story at http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html But--we already knew that. The account is in Genesis ch. 6-9. Oh, and it was a flood, not a drought--sorry Mr. Wells.

Many Christians seem at times, to want to equate western civilization or America with Christianity. If we read the "Christian" press, we often find those who sound the alarm that Islam is growing in America, and that "Christians need to be aware. . ." etc. It is as if everyone who becomes Muslim in America somehow means one less Christian--as if that person converted from robust faith in Jesus Christ to Islam. It is, however, an error on our part to lament the growth of Islam in the west, on the basis that it somehow takes away from Christianity. Most Americans are not Christians, and in fact, throughout the history of this nation there have only been rare and short lived occasions when Christians were in the majority (it may have happened in the 1740s/50s, and again in the 1820s/30s. Christianity has always been a minority religion in the US. Throughout much of its history here, it has been co-opted by the respectable majority and “tamed” to the point of having almost no influence whatever on American life. This is especially true today, when Christian faith has been “suburbanized,” immersed in a culture that is largely indifferent to it, and which has trained Christians to see themselves as part of the mainstream of that very culture. It is like watering down orange juice to the point where a sip of it tastes more like water than juice, and then insisting that the water is really orange juice. Under these circumstances, how can we lament that Islam might steal “our” civilization. Secular humanism, pluralism, liberalism and postmodernism already stole “our” civilization decades, even centuries ago. Christians do not have a "civilization" in America, and the sooner we realize this the better. (We OUGHT to have a civilization here, for we have enough numbers, even as a minority, to have a real influence, but we are too busy being Americans to make any real effort to change America.) One area where there might be some point to concern over Islam growing in America is that it could some day institute restrictions on religious freedom here, in a couple of centuries, if it continues to grow here. This would restrict the Christian minority in this country in ways we arhave not been in the past. However, considering that Christianity is on the wane in the US—while it is growing around the world, by the time that Islam would become a majority religion here, if ever, Christianity would be almost unknown. One should hope that Christians in those places where it is growing, will eventually send large numbers of missionaries to the US to start new churches here. (Korean and African Christians are already sending a few missionaries to the US for which Christians here should be grateful. Let us hope their numbers grow.) Let us be aware of something else: Muslims have a zeal for righteousness, one that gets warped often, that turns into legalism, certainly. However it is a zeal that, in itself, puts western Christians to shame. Muslims are zealous for sexual purity. Most Christians in the US simply shrug when a single young lady in the church becomes pregnant. Muslims are opposed to porn. American Christians will simply change the channel and go on watching TV. Muslims believe gambling is a sin. Many American Christians, upon hearing that the Sunday School director at church won 100 dollars on the nickel slots, while in Las Vegas, will most likely say, “be sure you tithe on that now!” and envy him his winnings! I am not saying that we should attempt to restrict the media and public morals in ways that Muslims have (we are a minority here, for one thing), but the utter silence of American Christians in the face of moral decay around them and among them, is nothing short of disgusting. We should certainly be more vocal than we are in advocating moral purity in the media, in our lives together, and in society generally. If we do not, we have nothing to say if Muslims engage in anti-American diatribes due to the rampant sin in this country. They, at least, have the moral courage to say something about it. (And they have the moral turpitude to attack this country as well, but we Christians ought not to put ourselves in the place of defending “western civilization” or “our culture” with all of its ungodliness, secularism, pornography, gambling, cheating, stealing, drug abuse, lying, and crime. Yes, “our culture” is threatened by the rise and the zeal of Islam—but—“our culture” OUGHT to be threatened by the rise and the zeal of Christians who insist on respect for truth, purity, self control, and godliness. Too often we Christians have either been silent--and a little embarrassed by those who aren't--except when defending "our culture." Let's get over it, and be about the business of opposing "our culture" and calling "our culture" to genuine repentance--and a good place to start might well be by repenting of our own failure to confront "our culture" in the past.)

Presidential Politics 2008

• Let's face it: none of the remaining candidates are particularly appealing this year. Hillary is perhaps the worst of the lot, but the others do not fare greatly. There is not a statesman in the lot. Nor is there someone who will put principle above politics or who really deeply understands what government is for and how it ought to work. However, a nation in decline will produce poor leaders,. We should not be surprised that America, in its decline, cannot come up with a great presidential candidate. Poor leadership happens in every field—business, politics, religion, families, and everywhere else. Look at the current situation:
• Business—Ken Lay, Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, et al.
• Politics—Hillary, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, et al.
• Religion—Joel Osteen, T D Jakes, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Rick Warren.
• Families—most families are fragmented due to divorce, or because there never was much of a family there at all. All of these things are bound up together in a web. If the nation were healthy in one area, it would be healthy in all of these areas. The nation is spiritually, morally, emotionally, and economically sick. It is the whole body, not just one part, that has problems. As such, we cannot fix one area without fixing others. We need to start at the root causes to do this.

Electing the right president This is part of why I don’t share the Christian Right’s faith that electing “the right president” can really fix anything. We had “the right president” in Ronald Reagan, and his party behind him, and the country continued to deteriorate—in fact the deterioration accelerated during those years, not due to Reagan, certainly, but accelerate it did.

What is needed We need to start at the family/religion level if we are ever to fix the nation. We too easily accept dysfunctional families as “OK.” We too easily accept dysfunctional religion as “what ought to be.” Someone needs to stand up to both and say “enough!” Someone needs to take action to end the cycle of abuse, neglect, and divorce in our families. Those behaviors ought not to be normal! They ought not to be commended or accepted in our churches! We need to admit, OUT LOUD, that dysfunctional families are not acceptable and take steps to ensure, at lest in our churches, that every family is healthy and fucntioning properly. The same is true with religion. We all smile and nod our heads when people in church talk about how much they “just love to hear Joel Osteen" or "T. D. Jakes.” Some smile and nod because they agree! We need to do a better job of teaching these people the truth. Others just don’t want to make waves. (When you don’t make waves, you get stagnant water!) People who know what is morally right, and what is spiritually true, all too often stand by while spiritual sickness infests the churches. We want to be nice, we want to be peacemakers, we want to acknowledge that different people see things differently. We become practical relativists, while saying we believe in absolute truth. A sick religion and dysfunctional families can do little to turn around declining morals, declining leadership, and declining civilization.

Conclusion Before we get too upset over who is being elected President, perhaps we need to look at our churches and families, and get busy fixing the problems there.