True in 98, True Now: Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials
Image
Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials
Salt Lake City, Utah – 1998
WHEREAS, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Proverbs 14:34 NAS); and
WHEREAS, Serious allegations continue to be made about moral and legal misconduct by certain public officials; and
WHEREAS, The Bible calls upon all citizens to submit themselves to their governing authorities as ministers of the Lord (Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 2:13); and
WHEREAS, Scripture further teaches, “Whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves” (Romans 13:2); and
WHEREAS, Governing authorities are not themselves exempt from the rule of law and must submit to the nation’s statutes, rather than mocking them (Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 2:14; Proverbs 19:28-29; 2 Samuel 12:7; Mark 6:17-18); and
WHEREAS, Some journalists report that many Americans are willing to excuse or overlook immoral or illegal conduct by unrepentant public officials so long as economic prosperity prevails; and
WHEREAS, Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment (1 Kings 16:30; Isaiah 5:18-25); and
WHEREAS, Many public officials and candidates deserve our gratitude and support for their consistent moral character and their uncompromising commitment to biblical principles of right and wrong, resulting in blessing upon their people.
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 9-11, 1998, in Salt Lake City, Utah, affirm that moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God’s people, when choosing public leaders; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we implore our government leaders to live by the highest standards of morality both in their private actions and in their public duties, and thereby serve as models of moral excellence and character; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we urge all citizens, including those who serve in public office, to submit themselves respectfully to governing authorities and to the rule of law; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists and other Christians to fulfill their spiritual duty to pray regularly for the leaders of our nation (1 Timothy 2:1-4); and
Be it finally RESOLVED, That we urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.
Reposted, with permission, from www.sbc.net.
- 71 views
Trump’s sexual allegations and in some cases admitted (in books, interviews, etc) occurred before he was in office. Does that count in this resolution?
Does a public official need a public confession day before taking office so we know all the things they have done to make sure they are pure before taking office?
[Mark_Smith]I don’t see why it wouldn’t. We pretty much always have to look at a person’s life “before being in office” to see if they “serve as models of moral excellence and character.” Of course, things done while in office can influence that characterization as well.Trump’s sexual allegations and in some cases admitted (in books, interviews, etc) occurred before he was in office. Does that count in this resolution?
Does a public official need a public confession day before taking office so we know all the things they have done to make sure they are pure before taking office?I don’t think we have to know “all the things they have done” to determine if someone lacks moral character. Even just knowing a few things about them can tell us that. If someone has an immoral history, then a humble attitude and a spirit of contrition goes a long way toward making that person into a model of what moral excellence should look like. If a person were to claim that they have done nothing that they would need forgiveness for, then that person likely isn’t even trying to have a moral character.
is Trump is a unique character. He is a brash, public figure with decades of celebrity status. He is in someways open about his sins that others hide. He admits old sexual activity. He swears openly. Others hide these things and swear in private. I think some of his old claims from his pre-presidential period may even have exaggerations for the “shock value” of it or the “role” he was playing. He thought those claims made him look more attractive and interesting.
My personal conviction is Trump is no more a sinner than any other president. He is simply more honest about it.
For example, outwardly George Bush and his son were pious looking men. I have no doubt both swore in private, told dirty jokes. I have no doubt both denigrated mercilessly opponents. Shoot, they may have even had affairs for all I know.
In other words, if you have convinced yourself that Trump is a lying, womanizing scumbag, you might want to be sure Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, etc. weren’t as well.
[Mark_Smith]I can totally understand why you would want to believe that.I think some of his old claims from his pre-presidential period may even have exaggerations for the “shock value” of it or the “role” he was playing. He thought those claims made him look more attractive and interesting.
In other words, if you have convinced yourself that Trump is a lying, womanizing scumbag, you might want to be sure Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, etc. weren’t as well.I’ll be sure to try and find that out the next time I’m faced with a decision to vote for one of them.
Judge much?
Wow. If you are so certain of your righteousness, go ahead and fire away. I know I’m not qualified to.
One can guess at likely reasons for re-posting this, but perhaps we ought to simply extend the discussion. For example, is it more significant that someone may have cheated on his wife, or is it more significant that someone supports half a billion bucks per year bankrolling the nation’s largest abortion provider? Is it more significant that someone can’t find a fact he cannot mangle on Twitter, or that someone supports policies used by all the most genocidal governments of the 20th Century, costing tens of millions of innocent lives? (strict gun control)
Going way back, is it more significant that Jimmy Carter’s opponent had been divorced (and may have been quite the man about town in his young days), or is it more important that Mr. Carter was downplaying the dangers of Communism while the CIA was telling him about the killing fields of Cambodia and the Cultural Revolution in China—and while Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s books still smelled of fresh ink?
Or, if one’s on the port side, was Bill Clinton’s serial womanizing more significant, or was it more significant that his opponents would “gut” the welfare safety net and let the poor starve? (OK, wouldn’t have really happened, yes, but it’s a valid port side argument)
Long and short of it is that due to the reach of the government, our political debates do have life and death implications that make a “mere” affair, or a “mere” habit of being a “nonsenser” (to use a much nicer term than many would use), pale in significance. I’m all for taking moral habits seriously, and that extends to the likely results of the policies a politician supports.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Thanks, Bert, for this helpful analysis. Just as the “Never-Trumpers” cannot understand why any Christian could support a man like Trump, the pro-Trumpers cannot understand how a Christian can ignore the dire consequences should Hillary have won in 2016, and if Biden wins in 2020. They are baffled that anyone would think the personal failings of Trump, serious as they are, are more dangerous than the amoral leftist policies of Trump’s opponents. They are puzzled as to why anti-Trumpers cannot understand that we are better served by a shady character who successfully dismantles previous leftist gains, than a leftist who builds upon those gains to push the agenda further to the left.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Thanks, Bert, for this helpful analysis. Just as the “Never-Trumpers” cannot understand why any Christian could support a man like Trump, the pro-Trumpers cannot understand how a Christian can ignore the dire consequences should Hillary have won in 2016, and if Biden wins in 2020. They are baffled that anyone would think the personal failings of Trump, serious as they are, are more dangerous than the amoral leftist policies of Trump’s opponents. They are puzzled as to why anti-Trumpers cannot understand that we are better served by a shady character who successfully dismantles previous leftist gains, than a leftist who builds upon those gains to push the agenda further to the left.
Sadly, this characterization of the Never-Trumper ignores the very arguments we have made over and over. We have no illusions about the absolute disaster of a Clinton or Biden presidency. Our objection to Donald Trump is based on his failure to meet what we consider base qualifications for the presidency and have nothing to do with Democrat whataboutism. Character still counts.
but Trump is the president, and either he or Biden will be president starting in January.
So what are you going to do? Complain for 4 years?
Now do you trust the known grifter, liar, cheater, sexual harasser Joe Biden to do what is abhorrent to God, or do you trust the known liar and adulterer Donald Trump to stumble into doing what is right before God some of the time?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
If my approach to ethics was pure consequentialism, hands down I’d have voted for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020. And I completely get and respect those who approach this in a consequentialist way within a Christian framework of values and outcomes.
It’s just that…
- I’m suspicious of consequentialist ethics.
- During the morass that was 2016, I came to think of my vote as a part of Christian witness more than anything else, and I thought that a vote for Trump would do more to mar than help my Christian witness. (Not like my vote is widely known.)
- On a purely pragmatic level, since I’m not heavily involved in politics, I have no better way to communicate to the candidates, “Your slate stinks; give me better options” than to vote for a third party or something. (But probably some aspect of game theory will explain why my way of thinking will never, ever hit critical mass.)
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
There is another category of never Trumpers. I am in this group and it’s those of us who believe his POLICIES are as disastrous as his character or more. While we aren’t understanding each other, I can’t understand how anyone that calls themselves a conservative (not a neo-con, an actual conservative; although most republicans likely don’t know the difference) can vote for Trump. But, as has been repeated endlessly on SI, many would vote for Bernie if the other guy was a little more to the “left”. I don’t understand that but it’s their prerogative to make that decision.
[josh p]But, as has been repeated endlessly on SI, many would vote for Bernie if the other guy was a little more to the “left”. I don’t understand that but it’s their prerogative to make that decision.
I certainly never said that… Talk about a straw man! Bert where are you. Logic this guy!
Mark, Josh is perhaps exaggerating a bit—probably the results of his recent honeymoon, congrats, Josh ** —but he’s actually pretty close to some things I’ve said about politics being a game of choosing the “least worst” alternative. If the world is going to H*** in a handbasket, you choose the guy putting the handbasket on a donkey cart instead of the guy who would put it in the passenger seat of a Camaro with a teenage driver.
So while I hope our politics never gets the the point where a guy who found nothing amiss after honeymooning in a place with bread lines seems like the saner alternative, it’s fair. (there are those honeymoons again!) Reality is that there are any number of areas where I as a near-libertarian am perplexed at what mainstream politicians will support—it ain’t just the guy who actually got kicked out of a hippie commune for laziness.
** The congratulations is sincere, the wisecrack about exaggerating because of a recent honeymoon is of course a wisecrack.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Mark_Smith]I certainly never said that… Talk about a straw man! Bert where are you. Logic this guy!
No one said that exactly but the idea that no matter how bad the republican is they would always vote for them if even slightly better than the Democrat has been said A LOT. I once used the analogy of Stalin and Hitler and some actually said they may vote for one over the other.
Discussion