What can we learn from the Bible about choosing leaders?

[Phil 1:21]

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?

No worries. See revised post #19. We were typing at the same time. (copied below)

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)

 

[mcarans]

No worries. See revised post #19. We were typing at the same time. (copied below)

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?

 

[com7fy8]

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.

Since your OP led off with 1 Samuel 8, who do you think actually chose Saul?

God used Samuel to point out who God had chosen.

However, first the people said they wanted a king. So, they made that choice, first. Then God went along with their choice, by choosing who that king would be.

So, humans were involved in it.

But was God in overall control of all that? In any case, they were not honoring and choosing God to be their King, and so they got Saul who turned out to not be good for them . . . or for his own self.

Their character had a lot to do with what they chose, plus what God did with them.

So . . . may be . . . in whichever country, the people's own character could have a lot to do with who they are getting for rulers. Jesus did not stay on this earth to rule people whose hearts He knew were against Him. He would not commit Himself to men He knew were trying to use Him for their own political purposes. And the net result of that was their nation was under the control of the Roman Empire, plus Jesus was not about to make things convenient for them.

So, whether God is really in control of it all or not, our character has so much to do with how things are for us.

But what if we have good character and the rulers are bad? If we are right with God, we have Jesus ruling us as our Savior and Groom. And we obey how He takes care of us . . . anywhere. So, if we are obeying Jesus, we are not determined by the wrong rulers of this evil world.

 

[Phil 1:21]

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?

Is God in control?

 

[section9+1]

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.

 

[mcarans]

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.

The reason Jesus made enemies among the Jews is because He refused to be the warrior Messiah that they wanted and had therefore assumed that their Scriptures predicted. It takes real guts to go against worldly expectations of leaders that they be warriors who crush their enemies and to stand up to people intent on violence against you when you are unarmed and have no army behind you, speaking truth to their power.

 

[Yekcidmij]

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.

 

[mcarans]

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.

"and the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.”" (1 Samuel 8:7) It seems that even if Samuel's leadership was unwise and the complaints against his sons were valid, God's response to Samuel's prayer about their request for a king shows that He feels rejected by the Israelites.

 

[creslaw]

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.

 

[mcarans]

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.

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.

 

[creslaw]

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.

 

[mcarans]

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.

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).

 

[creslaw]

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).

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)​

 

[mcarans]

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

The record seems to show that although democracy can make some huge errors, the record indicates it's more reliable than anything else humans have devised.

I can't wait until we have a theocracy. If God is in charge, we're set. But we'll have one only when He decides to do so. Men who try to do it for him, have a horrible record of abuse, crime and sin.

 

[creslaw]

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.

Every Christian I know consistently gives money & time to help others who are less fortunate. However, Scripture teaches us that we have a primary responsibility to our own family. As parents we not only provide money for the daily necessities, but we also provide guidance & protection. We do not have that same level of responsibility towards "strangers".

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

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.

 

[creslaw]

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.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Good" when you are a leader means doing your best for the people you lead.

I don't think goodness as a leader needs any kind of unique qualification. Otherwise, ruthless, violent men might be seen as "good".

 

[creslaw]

I don't think goodness as a leader needs any kind of unique qualification. Otherwise, ruthless, violent men might be seen as "good".

So a slave owner could never be a good president, could he?