Good morning church family,

It bothers me that NBC can do such a wonderful job telling the life story of an Olympic athlete but seems completely incapable of telling the story of someone running for president. And it’s not just NBC – nearly every media outlet that’s allowed behind closed doors and given access to the candidates, is failing the rest of us who have to stay on this side of the rope line. Americans are better informed about those who represented the country on fields of play in Paris than they are about those seeking to represent them in Washington. Whether that’s by design or not I suppose I won’t try and say but we, the electorate, are certainly underserved by those we’ve empowered to aid us in the important work we’re called to do.

In America, the people and their president operate under an unwritten contract. For the people’s part, they readily acknowledge that the president can’t possibly consult them on the hundreds of decisions he must make every day. There is simply no mechanism that would allow for a true democracy in a nation of millions. So, the people elect to the land’s highest office an autocrat who is pretty much free to do whatever he wants with his term. Of course, the people will boo and hiss; heartened by the safeguards of tricameral checks and balances and the regular chance to yank the chain at the ballot box.

And for the candidate’s part, he agrees to open his mind to the electorate during his candidacy; answering every question that’s asked and going on the record concerning every issue of the day. And the people won’t be satisfied with just a pamphlet drop; their heads being showered with bullet-pointed presentations of policy positions and platform stances. These are important, of course, but hardly provide the measure of a man. The people want to know what makes a candidate tick. They want the clock face to swing back on its hinges; offering a look at the guts and gears inside. The governed want to learn a leader’s life story. What tragedies and triumphs have formed his character? Who were his teachers and what books and studies formed his thinking? How did he fare when life punched him in the mouth? How did he respond to the honey-tongued seductions of the press, the machine politicians, and the super PACs? The answers to these questions help the people know if there’s any fight in the dog or spirit in the horse. After all, those hundreds of decisions that come his way every day – they won’t be made by computer algorithms but by a heart, mind, and gut.

For the most part, this contract has worked well for the country. Whether they had any affection for their presidents or not, Americans have historically seen the occupants of the Oval Office as real flesh and blood folk whose warts-and-all-lives were generally known by all. This created an inexplicable bond and connection. Because citizens weren’t governed by shadowy ciphers whisked out from behind the curtain every now and again but instead by individuals they understood to be more or less like themselves, they couldn’t help but develop a rooting attachment for them. And that’s a good thing.

Over the last few cycles, however, it seems as though this contract has been broken. Candidates seem to make their entrance onto the national stage by catapult now; flung at us out of nowhere. And the press, instead of working to fill the gaping holes in their biographies, create cults of personality instead.

An electorate that votes a complete stranger into office shares the same fate as a woman who agrees to marry a man based entirely on the information provided on his online dating service profile. Of course, it’s possible for such a relationship to work out for her but if it does, she’d only have dumb luck to thank. It would have been far wiser for her to do some old-fashioned digging; gotten to know his friends a little, watched him interact with his mother, observed him captain his ship through some choppy waters, and logged enough time with him to get an accurate baseline for understanding his character.

I find it interesting that in the qualifications the Apostle Paul lists for the position of elder, most require some level of intimate acquaintance. “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer,” Paul writes to Timothy, “he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone doesn’t know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” Reading back through that list of qualifications, it’s clear that one could never really qualify for church leadership who wasn’t known – truly known – by the people. At a surface level, you would know if someone had a side-wife, of course, and you could probably tell if someone was mastered by his money. But how could anyone really know if a man was hospitable based on his public speaking performance or learn if he was sober-minded by watching him smile and shake hands at the gate? To know if someone was respectable, self-controlled, or able to manage his household well you’d have to be given a glimpse behind the curtain.

Now, I certainly understand that precious few people in any land could ever be as intimately acquainted with their governor, king, or president as they could be with someone who might be their pastor. But as long as the people of this great land are given the sobering responsibility of choosing their ruler, they really ought to be afforded the chance to know more than the little they can learn by seeing them in airbrushed stage appearances or from the propaganda splashed about on 6” by 8” mailers.

Obviously, we would all love to have a wise president leading our country. But wisdom, which is different from knowledge or expertise, isn’t something that can be attained through study, hard work, or years of winning the street. Wisdom begins through a fear or reverence of God. The greater a person’s God-consciousness, the more likely he or she is to benefit from the accountability that comes from serving under His watchful eye. The more a person respects God, the more open he or she will be to the counsel of His word.

I hope we all vote in the presidential election this November and I’m well aware that we’ll all base our votes on different sets of values and priorities. I’m quite sure we wouldn’t be able as a church to cast a single ballot. And that’s a wonderful thing as long as we all vote our conscience. But before the campaigns ramp up this fall and perhaps while the cement is yet a little wet, I want to encourage all of us to try and do the work the press won’t do for us. As the designated driver for our drunk country, the church must do the best it can to elect the candidate who will best employ a biblical worldview in all the decisions made on our behalf. Dig a little deeper than Wikipedia’s summary biographies. Listen not just to the positions the candidates take but for any clues they might give as to the reason for their stands – the “why” always being more important than the “what”. Finally, pray and ask for discernment. Voting need not be a secular activity but should be an act of worship – not of the candidate of course – but of the Sovereign we must trust to rule over it all.

It’s going to be so good to gather together in the morning for fellowship, prayer, worship, and encouragement. Thank the Lord for the gift of His church! Come prepared to both give and receive of the good things God has given throughout the week. See you in the morning:) May the Lord, mighty God, bless and continue to keep us!

-Pastor Tate