Biblical Qualifications for Leadership

La Shawn Barber has written a piece on why she would not support Newt Gingrich as the Republican presidential nominee. She feels his character flaws, especially infidelity, disqualify him for elected office. As much as I like Newt in other respects, I tend to agree. Reading her piece got me to thinking about what qualities we are told in the Scriptures to look for as we are choosing leaders.

Exodus 18:14-24 records the advice Moses' father-in-law Jethro gave him when Moses was burdened by the task of judging crimes and civil cases among the people of Israel. Jethro advises Moses on what kind of men to choose to serve as judges. First Timothy, in the third chapter and also the first chapter of Titus also give us qualifications for church leaders. Using these passages as a reference, I have compiled the following list of biblical leadership qualities:

Able, experienced students of the Scriptures: Moses was to teach the law of God to all the people and then choose "able men" from among them to be leaders. Paul warns Timothy that an elder should not be a novice, which probably refers to both his biblical scholarship and the maturity of his walk in the faith. He tells Titus that the elder should be "able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."

Male heads of households: Leadership in the home is the training ground for leadership outside the home. Those who distinguish themselves in the leadership of their wives and children are recognized as possible leaders in the church and in the state. "For if a man does not rule his own house, how will he take care of the Church of God?" (I Timothy 3:5) (More on what distinguished leadership of the household looks like in some of the later points.)

Men who fear God: The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and men who fear God more than they fear people are less likely to compromise their principles because of intimidation by wicked men.

Truth-tellers: Jethro tells Moses to choose, "men of truth." Paul tells Timothy that deacons should not be, "double-tongued."

Not covetous or greedy: All three of the passages I cited refer in some way to greediness for money and/or covetousness. Men who are covetous or preoccupied with the trappings of this world can be tempted to accept bribes, give favor to the rich, or exert unlawful power for their own gain.

Blameless: To be blameless is not to be without sin. (Or no one would be qualified!) The blameless man is one who has maintained, as long as it depends on him, a good reputation for godly behavior, and against whom no one can make a reasonable charge. Paul says an elder should have a good testimony with those who are outside the church.

A husband of one wife: This is usually considered to mean that a man should demonstrate marital faithfulness, to one wife at a time. A widowed and remarried man, or a man who has divorced an unfaithful wife are usually considered qualified, though some would disqualify any man who has been divorced, even if he was not the party at fault.

Sober-minded: The sober minded man has sound judgment. He is not given to emotional reactions, and is not led by his passions.

Modest: Paul says an elder should not be, "puffed up with pride," lest he fall into the same snare as the devil, a particular temptation for those he describes as "novices."

Temperate: Temperate men are not ruled by the flesh, and will not be lured into irresponsibility by food and drink, sex, leisure, or other self-pleasing pursuits.

Not quarrelsome, quick-tempered, or divisive: Men who are quick to anger, quarrelsome and given to gossip and slander are not able to rule well. It is also interesting to note that the wife of elders and deacons are also to be free from these vices. Perhaps this is a testimony of the godliness of the home and its leadership, or perhaps this is because the wife could become aware of confidential information that could be dangerous in the hands of a gossip or busy-body.

Respectful children: This is another indication of the leadership ability of a head of household. If he has gained the respect of his children, he probably has the skills he needs to gain the respect of those he will lead.

Faithful: Many of the qualities mentioned relate to a man's faithfulness: faithful to sound doctrine, faithful to his wife, and faithful to teach and discipline his children.

Respectful of those who rule him: A man who is insubordinate to those who rule over him is not qualified to rule over others. Perhaps this is because such a man doesn't possess a proper understanding of lawful authority or a proper respect for the authority that is always under Christ. A leader should be willing to be ruled by lawful authorities and by the Word of God.

So where are the men who perfectly meet these requirements? Other than Christ who rules over all, there are none. But when we consider who will lead us in the church or in the state, we ought to seek out this kind of man and avoid calling any man to leadership who has serious shortcomings in any of these areas. When we call unqualified men to office, we do a disservice not only to those who will be ruled, but also to the man who will be placed in a position in which he is unlikely to succeed or likely to fall into temptation.

---
Update: Read Tim's comments at bLogicus on Newt Gingrich.

Comments

[jon]

Great list, Dory (Newt's out in my book too). Don't forget the opening phrase "whoever desires to be." There is a strong emphasis on the pursuit of the office, not resigned to serve because no one else will. Too often church's choose men based upon their tenure in the congregation, or success in secular business. I would recommend "Biblical Edlership" by Alexander Strauch as well. So after you think you have found men who are on the path, how will you place them into office--election or appointment?

[wrpreacher]

So does that mean that you would rule out a woman as a candidate for president? Not that I actually know of any right now who would be actually qualified, but just asking. Are we to take the "husband of one wife" to mean that women are forever out of the running?

[Andy]

Dory, good work. Came over from La Shawn's corner.

To wit, the 1st Israeli king was not of God's choicing, rather a popularity poll given Saul's physical stature. Ultimately, God had to remove him and his heirs from the throne.

[Dory]

Thanks for good,thoughtful comments, folks.

Oh, wrpreacher, you are trying to get this girl in trouble, aren't you??? Since you asked, however, I will answer. I have, in the past voted for some female candidates for political office, as I do not exalt the "male head of household," requirement above others, such as fearing God. I mean, let's face it, we aren't often presented with really good choices. However, ideally, I would like to see otherwise qualified, male heads of households as our candidates, rather than women or men who do not head households.

That is not to say that there are not other leadership roles available to women. It is the issue of mixed headship that I cannot resolve. That is, let's say a husband is head of a household and his wife has authority over him in the civil realm. It seems to undermine the family. What a conflict! Anything with two heads is a monster, right?

I'll just duck now to keep out of the way of those incoming tomatoes! I upset the entire nation of Finland with my "God Does Not Believe in Athiests," post. Perhaps I'll set Belgium on fire with this one? (I hope they throw cheese.)

[Rod Stanton]

I usually agree with LaShawn but here I differ. By the standard you are proposing we could not have elected: Clinton,LBJ,JFK, +FDR. An I have only gone over the last century! One of those philandrers was elected four times. I like Newt.

[Jeremy Pierce]

I wouldn't want Newt to be the Republican candidate, simply because he has no chance at winning a national election, particularly one against Hillary, whose dive for the center, whether real of faked, is going to make her very hard for anyone but a moderate Republican to beat.

I'm not sure why you're applying spiritual leadership requirements to a secular office. That just seems to me to mistake what the whole business is about and the difference in roles between offices of the church (elder, deacon) and political offices. Someone could be eminently qualified for one but not even close to qualified for the other, for any number of reasons. For that matter, qualifications for the civic positions in Israel's clearly religious government shouldn't apply to us either. We're voting for the person most likely to do good and fight against evil.

[Dory]

The passage in Exodus 18 is clearly about civil judges, and the qualities listed overlap quite a bit with the passages that are written specifically about ecclesiastical leaders.

Romans 13 tells us that God has appointed our civil leaders (v. 1), they have God's authority (v. 2), and they are God's ministers for our good (vv. 4, 6). I can find no Scriptural justification for considering civil leadership to be a 'secular' occupation without religious qualifications, responsibilities or implications.