Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No worries. See revised post #19. We were typing at the same time. (copied below)I am sorry if I misunderstood you. The question was "What can we learn from the Bible about choosing leaders?" to which you answered "God is in control". Were you saying that God is in control of choosing leaders? If so, what did you mean?
Since your OP led off with 1 Samuel 8, who do you think actually chose Saul?
(hint, turn the page to Chapter 9, verses 15-17)
Do you think it's the same with leaders now for all the gentile nations as it was with Saul for the Israelites - ie. God picks them?No worries. See revised post #19. We were typing at the same time. (copied below)
Your statement in relation to my post about how to choose leaders seems to imply that there's no point in making any effort to discern between potential leaders because it has already been decided.
God used Samuel to point out who God had chosen.Since your OP led off with 1 Samuel 8, who do you think actually chose Saul?
No I'm not because he made enemies. And he made them because he stood for something. Your leader could never make an enemy because he couldn't stand for anything. Enemies are proof of taking stands. Not always right ones of course, but still better than being led by a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. No guts means no animosity, only contempt. Far better to have enemies like Jesus did.Are you implying Jesus is a butt kisser?
No I'm not because he made enemies. And he made them because he stood for something. Your leader could never make an enemy because he couldn't stand for anything. Enemies are proof of taking stands. Not always right ones of course, but still better than being led by a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. No guts means no animosity, only contempt. Far better to have enemies like Jesus did.
In 1 Samuel 8, the Israelites are unhappy with the leadership of Samuel's sons and demand that he appoint a king. They look enviously at surrounding nations and yearn for their own strongman at the top.
“You are old and your sons do not follow in your ways; appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations.” (1 Samuel 8:5)
They think that their home grown tough guy will provide better leadership than what God has in mind for them and perhaps even than God Himself. Note that they didn't consult with God first or with Samuel, they just looked at other nations and hankered after the strong, decisive leadership others seemed to have.
Well, would it have been good to challenge Samuel on appointing his own sons? Maybe Samuel's appointment of his sons was the root problem? I mean, Samuel is practicing nepotism. Maybe Samuel is exercising unwise leadership? So maybe one lesson to learn from the bible on appointing leaders is to avoid nepotism?
Second, the complaints against Samuel's sons appear valid as we're told in 8:3 that his sons "made money dishonestly, accepted bribes, and perverted justice." So maybe a second lesson to learn is that leaders should not do those things.
I see the issue being whether a man of questionable moral character can be a good leader? David was a great king but also committed great sin, so I would say the answer is yes, he can be a good leader.
It is not a leader's mistakes that define who they are but rather their goals & aspirations for the people ... that is, their policies.
We should ask whose policies are more in line with God's will, rather than sit in personal judgment on the individual.
In David's case, his moral lapses did not prevent him from being a good king.Usually questionable moral character will end up spilling over into policies. On policies, I believe they should be assessed according to how Christlike (selfless) they are.
In David's case, his moral lapses did not prevent him from being a good king.
Policies should be assessed on how well they provide the best for all people.
It is not Christlike to give away the money needed to provide for your own family.
Some teachings of the NT Church you may need to factor into your thinking:Providing the best for all people is what assessing Christlikeness is all about. Jesus teaches us to love our neighbours as ourselves - a very difficult ask - but if everyone did precisely that, then everyone would be our family and so we would not be thinking about giving "our" money away to some others but to family members. I use quotes around our because everything we have is a gift from God and when we give away "our" money we are sharing the gift God gave us.
"43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”" (Mark 12:43-44)
The above from Jesus sets an almost impossibly high bar for us - I think it is encouraging us to share more rather than less. Many Christians say they don't want to pay more in taxes because they feel the church should do more, but then they are unwilling to donate what they might have had to pay in taxes to the church either. I think it's because it's difficult not to think of money as "ours" (and although I try, I still have that difficulty).
The first says to provide for your own household ie. food, accommodation, a roof over their heads - the necessities to live and thrive. It doesn't say anything about what to do with what's left over.Some teachings of the NT Church you may need to factor into your thinking:
Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8)
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Galatians 6:10)
The first says to provide for your own household ie. food, accommodation, a roof over their heads - the necessities to live and thrive. It doesn't say anything about what to do with what's left over.
The second says do good to all people. I don't see how you can do good to all people if you're not willing to spend resources on them. I already mentioned about people not willing to do good to the family of believers by contributing to their church even as they protest at paying any taxes.
I see the issue being whether a man of questionable moral character can be a good leader? David was a great king but also committed great sin, so I would say the answer is yes, he can be a good leader.
"Good" when you are a leader means doing your best for the people you lead.While it is unrealistic to expect perfection, character counts. That doesn't mean necessarily you have to be the most pious from a Christian perspective, but you should exhibit those qualities that people in general recognize as good.
"Good" when you are a leader means doing your best for the people you lead.
So a slave owner could never be a good president, could he?I don't think goodness as a leader needs any kind of unique qualification. Otherwise, ruthless, violent men might be seen as "good".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?