he sexual indiscretions of Democratic presidential candidate Bill "Call Me Gary" Clinton are this political season's big game. Genifer Flowers offered the pack of media hounds a bloody shirt with what was, according to her, Mr. Clinton's scent and off they went in a barking frenzy, looking for the (hopefully) sordid truth. Media watchdogs, analysts, and apologists kept insisting that these forays into the Clintons' bedroom (by the way, why can the media go there while the government cannot?) were relevant to "character issues which are important to an informed electorate." Enquiring minds, after all, want to know.
What are Christians supposed to do with information like this? Does a man's "private" life have anything to do with his public qualifications? Yes and no.
None of us are without sin, and no matter what particular sins we have committed, we are all equally in need of God's grace. However, it is also true that some sins tell us more about a man's character and particular areas of temptation than others, and this should be taken into account. The former embezzler may have repented of his sin and been forgiven by God, but that does not mean it would be good for him or the church to place him in charge of the treasury.
From this perspective, a candidate's marital fidelity is very relevant to his fitness for public office. When a man marries, he is covenanting to be his wife's head and lord and to love her as Christ loves the church. This is true whether he knows it or not, and whether or not he believes it. If he is willing to violate this sacred covenant, how far can he be trusted to keep other, lesser commitments? If he does not fear God sufficiently to love his wife as himself until they are parted by death, why should we expect him to fear anyone enough to keep a mere political promise during the next four years?
Should he therefore be rejected as a candidate based only on his moral failings? Not necessarily. Suppose candidates Smith and Jones are both vying for my vote. Smith says that he is a voracious reader of Credenda/Agenda and ranks "Magistralis" right behind the Bible and the Constitution on his list of literature which should guide the nation. He promises to close down 90% of the federal government, eliminate the national debt in one year, and establish a flat tax of $100 per person per year. Smith's only problem is that he has been through five wives, and his current wife is someone else's.
Jones, on the other hand, is an elder in an upstanding church and, as far as anyone can tell, lives a godly life. His wife is happy, his children are well-behaved, and nobody has an unkind word to say about him. Jones, however, believes that the biggest problem with this country is that some people have too much money. He has an aggressive plan to put a cap on salaries and to equalize wages to close the gap between rich and poor. Jones is also concerned about rampant sin, and wants to stock the government with well-trained social workers who will keep tabs on all of us to see that we follow the straight and narrow way.
When I am faced with the choice of Smith and Jones in the election booth, whose lever will I pull? Smith's. Why? Smith understands the proper role of civil government. Jones does not. Jones has confused his role as parent with his role as magistrate, and has assumed an omniscience in economic matters which belongs only to God. The consequences of electing Jones to public office would be disastrous. Smith's character might not be exemplary, but when it comes to the job for which he is applying, he shows a greater grasp of his duties than his upstanding but misguided opponent. And though Smith is more likely to break his campaign promises, he is better than an honest man who will keep his promise to do everything wrong.
Thus, moral character is relevant to fitness for public office, but it should not be conclusive proof of unfitness for office -- provided there are other indications that the candidate in question is more qualified than his more virtuous opponents. It is also more probable, given the fallen nature of man, that those touting their own purity are not more chaste; they just haven't been caught.
Granted, this is not a very encouraging scenario, but neither is it a permanent one. As revival and reformation take hold, we will see more and more candidates who are both men of good character and wise in the ways of civil authority, and we should support and encourage such men. In the meantime, it is important to remember that it is a civil magistrate we are choosing, not a church elder. The qualifications for these positions are quite different, and we should not reject a candidate for public office if our only objection is that he is not qualified under Titus 1.
He may be a corrupt politician, but if Christians are left free to worship and obey God, raise godly families and preach
the gospel, then they will be better able to deal with the corruption later.
