Where are our Christian Statesmen and Stateswomen today?

With the loss of yet another christian statesman in the person of Chuck Colson and a generation that is leaving us it begs the question as to who will carry that role in the future. When Billy Graham goes to be with Jesus the most visible statesman of our generation will be gone and in many ways his voice has been fading already.


Because many of us can play that role in our small corner of the world I have been reflecting on what the characteristics of a Christian statesman or stateswoman would look like. Here my thoughts.


They are deeply grounded in Jesus and in a thoroughly Christian worldview. These are people who think deeply about the issues of society and how those issues intersect with the values and priorities of God. Issues like justice, fairness, the ability to speak in the public square, bringing our deepest values into the marketplace and  congruity between what we espouse and how we live. Chuck Colson, John Stott, Francis Schaeffer, Mother Theresa and Timothy Keller are examples of those who have bridged the sacred/secular divide through a Christian worldview. Each brought or bring spiritual wisdom to bear on the challenges of our society.


They are publicly non-partisan individuals who build bridges instead of walls. One of the great barriers to Christian statesmanship today is the divisiveness of our political system. I honor each individual of faith who works in that difficult environment but by its very nature it is partisan and dividing rather than bridge building and uniting (with few exceptions).


Jesus is not the God of the Green Party, the Libertarians, the Republicans or the Democrats. He is the Lord of all and His truth supersedes all partisan squabbles. Thus it is a huge mistake for those who would speak for God on any issue to become spokespersons at the same time for any political party. We do speak to issues that are close to God's heart. We do not marry our position with a party because God is not the God of any political party. In western democracies, no party has a corner on the truth and all have a corner on some truth.


All of us have political views but Christian statesmen and women speak to the issues that transcend any party. They speak from a position of truth, not politics and from a deeply held Christian world view. In doing so they can build bridges across political parties and do what politics can only rarely do - bring people together rather than divide.


They are deeply humble individuals who are not looking for personal fame or recognition. Here is an irony. While power, fame and position are the coinage of our world, people are drawn to the truly humble who are not trading on any of those but only on deeply held belief and truth. What else did Mother Theresa have? Certainly no power or position and her fame (what she did not ask for) was a direct result of her humble service. Mother Theresa could speak truth in places of power where it made people deeply uncomfortable because of the power of her very life.


The minute that humility gives way to pride, the Christian statesman or woman have lost their ability to speak with clarity on any subject and indeed the desire to fan the flame of adulation will cause them to modify their message because truth is rarely popular in the long run.


They are diplomatic and loving even in their truth telling. One of the reasons that Christian states-people build bridges is that they are kind, compassionate, humble and kind with people - especially those who disagree with them. What soul was more kind and gentle than John Stott? Who could not like his self effacing personality, easy smile and kind actions? Why was it that Chuck Colson, one of the most partisan individuals prior to his faith could build bridges that transcended politics? Even when Mother Theresa was at her feistiest who could get in her face?


When prophets get angry they lose their audience, with good reason. Christian states-people reflect the character, attitudes and relationships of Christ. 


I don't know who the next Christian states-people will be, at least the prominent ones. I do know that all of us can live out these qualities in our corner of the world, with the people we know and perhaps hundreds of thousands of smaller Christian states-people is more powerful than an well known handful.

Ends, means and everything in between

I don't meet many leaders who at the end of the day don't claim that they want the best results for the organization or team they lead. To the best of their ability, their motivations are reasonable (who of us knows all of our real motivations?). However, I do meet leaders whose means of achieving their desired ends do not meet the ethical standards that we would want in the ministry world.

As leaders, we spend considerable time thinking about where we want to lead our organizations. Wise leaders spend an equal amount of time thinking through how they get to those goals and that their means are as noble as their goals. If we sacrifice the means for the ends we have sacrificed our credibility and often our personal ethics. Or, we skate the ethical edge.

The challenge for leaders in this are several.

First, leaders are focused on the end goals. If the end goals are right and healthy all is good. That focus, however, can manifest itself in impatience to get where we want to go quickly and quickly often means cutting corners. Those corners may be the violation of people - using them instead of serving them, or ethics or finances or any number of ways we can get to where we want to go. Getting to the right place is only one half of the equation. Getting there in a healthy manner is the other half. 

Second, leaders are usually pragmatic. In itself this is a good thing and a mark of a leader.  There are enough visionary leaders who don't know how to get from point A to point B to point C. However, there are pragmatic decisions and strategies that are ethical and healthy and pragmatic decisions that work but which are not ethical or healthy. Pragmatism that violates ethical standards, violates people or is simply unwise is unhealthy and will undermine the moral authority of leaders.

Third, leaders are often impatient. On one hand this can be healthy because without healthy impatience, nothing important is likely to get done. Inertia is ubiquitous since people like the predictable and comfortable while leaders should bring a sense of urgency to their organization. On the other hand, impatience can cause leaders to push faster and harder than the organization can reasonably move. Under pressure, people start using other people or choose to look away from questionable decisions or strategies under the guise of achieving our ends and getting there quickly.

The best leaders monitor carefully the ends they pursue and the means that the organization uses to meet those ends. Both are equally important and both require a great deal of thought and diligence. No ends, however noble, are worthy of means that do not meet the same noble and ethical standards.

Here are some questions leaders should ask all the time regarding the means to their ends:
1. Am I using people or serving and leading people? 
2. Is there anything we do that skirts ethical boundaries or could look to others like we are?
3. Do we always tell the truth no matter what?
4. If we had to open our financial books to Jesus, would He be OK with what he sees? Would those around us?
5. Do we have an open and candid atmosphere where others can ask questions, question decisions or share concerns?
6. Do I as a leader have any twinges of conscience regarding how we do what we do? 
7. Do I have a hard time explaining my strategies or decisions to others and having them understand and accept them?
8. Am I OK if someone questions me on an ethical, financial or staff matters?

Got a situation? Try being candid.

It is an interesting phenomenon. Leadership spin.  Communications or answers to questions that are designed to equivocate or put the best face on something when in reality everyone knows it is not an accurate picture. 


Why cannot leaders simply be candid? Sure there are times when one would not reveal everything because it would hurt others but why not try simple honesty. The irony is that people appreciate transparency and don't appreciate spin. They know and when we choose spin, we lose. 


I suppose we do it for image control but it does not work. We watch public figures spin embarrassing situations and dig deeper and deeper holes until they are forced to come clean. If they had simply been honest in the first place, people would have been forgiving. Image control is pride. Truth is humble. People get the difference between the two.


Scriptures have a lot to say about truth. When Christian leaders are not honest about a situation with their constituents it is not just spin but it is dishonest. And it breeds mistrust. Jesus was refreshingly candid. I have found that the more candid I am as a leader the more trust I get. 


Got a situation? Try being candid. It is what it is and trying to make it something else does not work in the long run. Transparency works a whole lot better than the alternative.

Redefining what it means to be pro life

I would like to redefine the "life" issue from a one topic agenda to a holistic view of life from a broader theological framework. Being pro life for me is not being anti abortion (although I am) but about understanding the sacredness of all human life and what it means to be a life giver like Jesus (John 10:10) in all situations. 


Why is human life sacred? Because God imbued it with an eternal soul! This is part of what it means to be made in His image. This is why God was so angry when Cain killed Able in the worlds first homicide. He had taken the life of a living person with an eternal soul who was made in God’s image. That eternal soul is a reflection of God’s eternal being and to treat it without the greatest dignity is to demean God Himself.

How we treat other human beings matters because they are made in His image. Unlike the animal kingdom they have eternal souls. This is the foundation of the command, “Thou shall not kill.” This is why Able’s blood cried out to God when Cain killed him (Genesis 4:10). This is also why God demanded strong punishment for those who murdered others, "For in the image of God has God made mankind (Genesis 9:6)."

Based on this understanding of the sacredness of human life, it was the early Christians who fought against the infanticide of unwanted infants in the Roman empire. It was Christians who cared for those dying of the plague throughout the Middle Ages, at the risk of their own lives. It is why Christians established orphanages, hospitals and homes for the elderly. Human life is sacred. It possesses an eternal soul. It is to be honored, cared for, and treated with dignity and respect. Anything that detracts from the dignity of human life is to be resisted. It possesses an eternal, God given soul.


This is why we care about those that others often ignore: the sick, the elderly, the marginalized and the disabled. It is the "widows and orphans" that scripture talks so much about. This is why we care about issues like human trafficking, pornography, prostitution, racial discrimination, injustice, famine and the atrocities of war. Human life is sacred and anything that takes away from its dignity is an affront to God and the image He gave each one.


Being pro-life is caring about the dignity of all people, understanding the intrinsic value of all people based on their eternal soul and being made in the image of their creator. I want to be pro-life in every relationship I have by treating each individual with dignity and honor.

Healthy character traits

Character is the foundation that gives us influence in ministry. Think about these markers as you evaluate yourself as a ministry leader or a person who values character.


Truthful
Character is always based on truth and never on lies. Jesus called the evil one the father of lies while he said that His word was truth. Whenever we skirt the boundaries of truth we compromise our character. As Mark Twain said, "If you always tell the truth you never have to remember what you said."


Forthright
Being honest, upfront and forthright is a mark of Character. There is no question in the minds of others what you are thinking and there is never a need to say different things to different people for the forthright individual. What you see and here is what you get. Part of character is being self defined and willing to state your views.


Non defensive
People of character are not afraid of being challenged or people who disagree with them. They have developed a non-defensive spirit because they know that life is not about them but about honoring Jesus and being all that we can be, personally and organizationally.


Controlled
People of character are able to control their emotions so that they don't hurt others. They are slow to anger, quick to forgive, love reconciliation and are careful of what they say - so that they build others up rather than tear them down. They have learned to control their emotions and reactions in ways that are healthy.


Without hidden agendas
People of character never hide their true agendas. It is not that we don't have an agenda but whatever it is it is stated and in the open. Hidden agendas lack a truth component which is so important to character. Truthfulness and forthrightness preclude hidden agendas. This is a person who is without guile.


Trustworthy
People of character keep their word and can be counted on to fulfill the promises they make. In other words, they can be trusted to do what they say they will do. Our word is our bond and our promises are sacred. 


Fair
People of character are fair in how they treat people and do not play favorites with those they lead. Even when decisions are not what they hoped for, they know they have been treated fairly.


Consistent
People of character display the same character in the dark when no one is looking as they do in their public life. They are integrated people whose private life matches their public persona. 


Humble
At the heart of character is humility. It is what makes possible all the other traits of good character. Humility is necessary for teachability, for growth, for character development and for healthy relationships with others. Pride makes for poor character. Humility makes for great character.

Ethics in hiring staff

We often don't think of ethics when it comes to hiring staff but the truth is that there is a significant ethical dimension to hiring, for the organization doing the hiring, for the individual under consideration and for the individuals that the new hire will impact. Consider these issues:


One: From an organizational point of view, we obviously are looking for staff members who will help us accomplish our mission. One of our key responsibilities, however, is to be as candid, honest and forthcoming about the strengths and weaknesses of the organization. Unless the potential staff member knows the true state of the organization, they are not in a position to make a fair analysis of their potential fit. 


One way to facilitate this is to invite the individual to talk with as many key individuals in the organization as possible to receive candid and unvarnished feedback. When hiring individuals who will be working for me, for instance, I invite them to talk to others who also work for me so that they get the best picture of what they are getting into as possible. They will hear things that I would not even think to share because they are not on my radar screen. My bottom line is that I don't want a staffer to tell me he/she was surprised by something six months in. My ethical responsibility is to ensure that they get the best information possible.


Two: From the candidates point of view, I need to ensure that the job being offered is truly in the lane of the person under consideration. If I hire someone who does not fit the position, I have messed with their life. Yes, they have a responsibility to answer the question of fit as well but if I am hiring it is my job to do the best due diligence possible to mitigate against a bad fit which will hurt them and the organization should it not work out.


This means that I should be willing to make whatever time and financial investment is needed to ensure a good match. On the time front it includes dialogue and discussion the potential staff member and with references. On the financial side it may well mean testing to determine competencies, wiring and fit. While we may not get it right all the time, our commitment is to have done all that we can to get it right.


A key practice here is never to do the hiring by yourself. None of us have the insight necessary to see all the angles, upsides and downsides of a candidate. I involve as many people in the process as I need to in order to ensure the best evaluation. If one of my key staff members has a yellow or red flag, I pay great attention to that and am unlikely to hire until that flag has been resolved. The stakes are too high. In this process, one of the most important questions I am trying to answer is whether the candidate has good Emotional Intelligence (EQ) or not. The answer to that question will be one of the chief determiners of a successful hire. (For more information on EQ, see blogs with the EQ label).


Third, from the team's point of view I want to ensure that the potential hire will be a good fit on the team they will serve on. That means that I need to involve other members of the team in the decision. Every hire has an impact on the rest of the team. I have a responsibility to them to ensure that the hire will serve the team well rather than hurt it. Not to involve them is both foolish and potentially harmful. Never hire an individual that cannot work in a healthy team environment no matter what their brilliance or skills. To do so is to disempower and therefore hurt the rest of the team.


In the hiring process, a guiding principle is that we pay now or we pay more later. In other words, the cost of getting it wrong is high, in disruption to the staff member, disruption to the organization and the complicated process of letting someone go. One either does good due diligence on the front end or one ends up paying significant costs to sever the relationship. There is no upside to a bad fit for anyone.


It is a sign of carelessness with people when we do not take the hiring process seriously. Too much is at stake for the individual, organization and team. 

Boundaries matter

All of us have boundaries in our personal lives, our work and our relationships. Those boundaries are designed to keep us in moral, ethical, legal and healthy places. When we start to violate those boundaries and play with the boundary lines we are in dangerous territory.

How well we keep our boundaries is a matter of our humility. Pride says, "those boundaries don't matter for me." Humility says, "Those boundaries apply to me just like they apply to others and they are there for my own good." The human heart has endless ability to move the boundary markers in our own lives and to rationalize the decision. It is the nature of sin to think that the rules don't apply to us. It is actually narcissism - the rules don't apply to me, I am above them.

In ancient times, boundaries were marked by stones and it was a major offence to move a boundary stone: they were sacred and immovable. So it should be in our lives. The ethical and moral lines laid down in Scripture are there for our protection and represent the immovable boundary stones of a righteous God. We have other boundary stones in our workplaces that are equally immovable. The moment we start to move the stones, our hearts are in jeopardy and the deceit of pride has reared its dangerous head. God says the markers matter. The evil one says they don't - at least for us.

We ought to ask ourselves periodically if we are playing with any boundary markers in our lives. Have we moved any? Are we skating across any? Are we thinking that any of them don't apply to us? None of us is exempt from moving the markers. All of us are tempted to do so. But it never turns out well and once we have moved one it is easier to move another and another and another. The boundaries in our lives matter and the wise humbly acknowledge that they apply to them not just to others.

If any markers have been moved the smartest thing we can do is repent and put them back where they originally belonged. Boundaries matter.

Seven questions for every leader

Christian ministries have a special responsibility to live out the convictions they espouse within their own organizations and with their staff and constituents. The actions of leaders speak volumes about the true integrity of their ministry. Here are some questions ministry leaders should ask themselves and one another on a regular basis.

One: is there any stated ministry conviction, value or commitment which we proclaim that is not practiced internally? For instance, many ministries talk about dependence on God in all they do. Is that dependence practiced within the ministry itself in a tangible and significant way? We should not ask of others what we ourselves do not practice.

Two: is our treatment of our staff consistent with how Christian relationships are described in Scripture? This includes fairness, compassion, kindness, patience, consideration, forgiveness, redemptive spirits, a commitment to grow them and help them become all they can be. Does our internal persona with staff match our outward persona with the public or our constituency? How we relate to and treat those who work for us is the test of our relationships.

Three: are we truthful and candid with both our staff and constituents about issues related to the ministry? Truth and honesty is one of the highest values of a holy God. Skirting the truth for spin purposes or withholding truth when it is inconvenient is a violation of God's character. This includes what we communicate to our constituents about the results of our ministries. Falsehoods are lies and do not reflect the character of God.

Fourth: do we handle conflict in our ministries in a God honoring way? Do we invite honest feedback and dialogue even when it challenges us? Do we keep short accounts when relationships have been breached? Do we forgive and extend grace when needed?

Fifth: would our staff describe us as humble, non-defensive, open to and inviting dialogue, teachable and committed to ministry success above our own success? Our staff read us well over time and their answers to these questions may be more accurate than our own. Ministry humility and openness starts with ministry leaders and is caught by staff - if we are modeling them.

Sixth: would our staff describe us as servant leaders committed to their success? Servant leadership does not start with our constituents but with our own staff. We are either deeply committed to helping them succeed or we are not. Ours is either a generous or selfish leadership.

Seventh: are we focused on the mission of the organization or are we distracted by our own agendas? Many leaders become more enamored by their personal agendas then staying focused on the mission of the organization they lead. The temptation is natural as leaders are given many opportunities outside their immediate responsibilities. When those opportunities get in the way of their primary mission, however, they lose leadership capital internally.

This is really about authenticity: being who we say we are with our own staff who know us best and never allowing ourselves to be something different internally than we are to the public. It is having the integrity of living the convictions we espouse.

Rupert Murdock and a failure of leadership

Rupert Murdock failed his ultimate leadership test this week when asked whether he was ultimately responsible for "this whole Fiasco" in British Parliament. He tersely replied "No." When asked who was he said "The people that I trusted to run it and then maybe the people they trusted (The Nation, Thursday July 21, 2011)."

Murdock failed his leadership test on three counts. First leaders always take responsibility when something goes south in their organization. His explanation that he has 35,000 employees and cannot keep track of what they do means nothing. Leaders take responsibility when there is trouble. They do not point fingers at others and blame them for ultimately the buck stops a the senior level. Further, if you are going to  blame others that you hired, who is ultimately responsible if not the one who did the hiring! And, if your senior leader ducks the blame, why should not everyone else down the chain?


This is not only a failure of leadership but a failure of courage. It is like a kid getting caught and pointing his finger at another kid and saying, "He did it." Leaders man up! They don't blame others.


Second, Murdock failed his leadership test by hiring and keeping individuals who did not have a strong moral compass. Perhaps they made money for him and that was enough. Leaders lead through the quality of the people they hire - first their moral convictions and second their business expertise. He certainly had business expertise but he failed to hire people with high moral convictions. If there is one failure common to many such situations it is that corporations have filled their ranks with many who have no moral foundation allowing the widespread practices as in this case of immoral and illegal behavior.


Third, Murdock failed as a leader by failing to set a high standard to ethical, legal and moral practices that were the expectation of all those who worked for him. It strains credulity to believe that he did not know that corners were being cut - all he needed to do was to read his own papers and it would be obvious that there was something going on. If others could figure it out, so could he. But the company lacked a moral compass that only he could both model and insist on. Obviously it was possible to work in a culture where illegal and unethical practices were either ignored or accepted.


These three failures of leadership are fundamental flaws that would sooner or later have come to light. Those of us who lead ought to take notice and ask if we share any of these three threats to our own leadership.

Can you legislate morality?

In a recent address, the president of Trinity Law School in California made the point that most evangelicals would answer no, you cannot legislate morality since morality is a matter of the heart. However, morality is being legislated every day.

When the state of New York made gay marriage legal yesterday, putting it on par with the marriage of a man and a woman they were in effect legislating morality.  A generation from now few will question that this is as life should be (I have gay friends whom I love dearly but I cannot find justification for the redefinition of marriage). When the Netherlands made it legal to euthanize infants with serious abnormalities it is legislating morality – just as Germany did in the days of Hitler. Countries that have made abortion legal – and even promote it as a means of birth control,  have made immorality legal and largely accepted. 

When people try to take Christianity out of any and all public discourse, they are legislating morality – their morality. Indeed, little by little, chip by chip, the underpinnings of Judeo-Christian ethics are being intentionally legislated out of the law both in the United States and elsewhere.

It was William Wilberforce who through his undaunting opposition to the slave trade and the institution of slaver who led the passage of the abolition of both in England leading to its eventual abolition in the United Sates. Wilberforce was a politician who rightly brought his biblical convictions to bear on one of the most insidious institutions in modern history. Through law, a grossly immoral practice was outlawed. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, congress through law, outlawed racist practices embedded in American society.

Certainly one cannot legislate the condition of the human heart. But, the laws that we pass and the court decisions that are made impact the morality or lack of morality of whole nations by their consequences. In effect, the law can move a nation either toward or away from biblical morality: issues of justice and poverty included.

I thank God for men and women in the public arena who are willing to bring their biblical convictions to bear in bold ways from all parties.  The liberal elite, after all have been bringing their version of morality to the public square for a long time. They have an agenda for our society that is in large part antithetical to morality as defined by Scripture. While the law and courts are not the answer to all evils, their laws and decisions impact the moral behavior of entire nations. Both morality immorality can be legislated.

Osteen Moments

In our politically correct climate and culture, there is confusion regarding right and wrong and on what issues we can or should make judgments. Making judgments on many issues today is neither popular nor easy. And, if we do, the mantra, “Christians should not judge” is often the response – from both Christ followers and others.

We need to be reminded, however, that Jesus and Scripture make judgments on many issues. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me.” In other words, there are no alternate routes to God except through Jesus. That is unambiguous and offensive in our culture but it is the truth of God. In our age of materialism, Jesus says, “you cannot serve both God and money.” We must make choices about who we serve and therefore the priorities we choose.

Of all the offensive words of Jesus, perhaps none are as offensive as His words that there is eternal life for those who follow Him but eternal suffering for those who reject him: “The Son of Man will sent out his angels, and they will weed out of his Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear” (Matthew 13:41-43).

Because we are called to be Holy as God is Holy and because Scripture reflects the character of God, Scripture makes judgments on many issues and is clear, unambiguous and definitive on those issues. Jesus, Paul and Scripture are not always comfortable and almost never politically correct. As Christ followers we too must make judgments on many issues, even when they are unpopular.

Joel Osteen found himself in this position recently when pressed on a national television show as to whether homosexuality was OK with God. Clearly uncomfortable with the question given his desire to not offend anyone he finally said that he did not believe it was God’s best and that it is sin. The surprised host said that he was being judgmental and Osteen will never again be seen as the all inclusive person his preaching seems to portray. Osteen, when pressed, like all of us, must make judgments where Scripture makes judgments – if we are going to stand with Christ. For many, Osteen has lost his luster because he is no longer politically correct or all inclusive of all lifestyles.

Jesus made judgments all the time but He was not judgmental toward people – with the exception of the Pharisees and hypocrites. With the woman caught in adultery, for instance, Jesus did not condemn her but did say, “Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11). He made a judgment regarding her lifestyle but expressed, love, compassion and grace to her personally. He was not judgmental toward her but made a judgment regarding her behavior.

This is the Biblical balance. Jesus had grace, love and compassion toward all who came to him (with the exceptions mentioned above) and did not condemn people. But He was clear at the same time about truth and its path and untruth and its ultimate path. In His Osteen moments he was always gracious but always defining. He did not hesitate to draw people to Himself or to be defining about the issues.

All of us have Osteen moments when if we are going to stand with Jesus, we must be clear about what He and scripture say. Much of the politically correct Christianity is nothing less than heresy and there is huge illiteracy regarding Scripture. But when those moments come we do so with love, compassion and grace. It is a tough but necessary balance.

Cultures of Life and Death

The culture of Christ is a culture of life in all of its dimensions. It sees people as made in the image of God with eternal souls. As men and women and children in His image it sees them as infinitely precious and rejects all actions, attitudes or institutions that demean or diminish that image. 

As image bearers - no matter how flawed the image by the fall, every individual on this planet has infinite value to the Creator, and therefore to us as His family members. 


But just as the culture of Christ is a culture of life in all of its dimensions, the culture of the evil one is that of death and destruction in all of its dimensions. Jesus put it this way in John 10:10, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." Christ brings life. Satan brings death.


It should not surprise us, therefore, that the predominate culture of our world is one of the devaluing of human life. Think of all the things that devalue life: pornography, sexual promiscuity, lack of justice, corruption, the sex trade, abortion, the indiscriminate killing of civilians in warfare, spousal and child abuse, slavery, discrimination, and all behaviors that devalue people. Wherever people are marginalized, mistreated, denied basic rights, oppressed, used and denied justice, the culture of the evil one prevails - and that is most of our world.


The Gospel is good news for the soul - and the only route to eternal life - but its implications are far broader than that. Jesus invaded our world to right what had gone wrong in the fall and which will be completed in his return. We are told to pray (and therefore act) that "His will would be done on earth as it is in heaven." The gospel brings eternal life but it also must bring a culture of life to a world that has a culture of death and devaluation of people made in His image.


As Christ followers we are called to live and to promote a culture of life where the dignity of individuals is lifted high, where those things that devalue life are seen for what they are and to the extent that we can have an influence, eradicated. 


Think about this: Prison ministry brings a culture of life to a dark place; abstinence education globally brings a culture of life rather than a culture of using people for our own gratification; those who stand up for justice bring a culture of life; those who help women with unwanted pregnancy stand up for a culture of life; those who minister to orphans and widows the same. Every time we act to help those who are marginalized, mistreated, oppressed or uphold the dignity of people made in God's image we support a culture of life.

The thief comes to steal and destroy in every way He can. Jesus comes to heal, save and restore in all dimensions of life. When we join Him in that work we support Him and push back the culture of death with His culture of life.

A personal code of ethics

Have you ever considered a personal code of ethics? Defining those commitments that you are committed to live by? None of us live perfectly but God continually calls us to a higher standard – one that reflects His holiness, righteousness and character. Since I am a ministry leader, my code of ethics reflect my calling. Having a defined code of ethics that we come back to regularly gives us road markers that keep us in the right lane and paid attention to, keeps us from losing our credibility, influence and even our ministries.



I WILL LIVE WITH TRUTHFULNESS AND HONESTY


When truthfulness and honesty are compromised, everything is compromised because every one of the ethical commitments that follow mean nothing if we are willing to be untruthful with others, with ourselves or with God. The lie was at the heart of the Adam and Eve and has been at the heart of sin ever since. For ministry leaders this includes not inflating ministry results, and always attributing sources when preaching and teaching. It is a life of transparent honesty in all areas.


I WILL TREAT ALL PEOPLE WITH DIGNITY AND HONOR


How we treat people: those we like and those we dislike, those like us and those unlike us, those who agree with us and those who don’t is an ethical issue. Jesus treated all people with dignity and honor with the exception of the hypocrites with whom he simply told the truth about their condition. For ministry leaders this is a major ethical commitment because our work is all about people – some who will like us and some not. The ethics of the world do not require us to treat all people with dignity and honor: the ethics of the Kingdom do.


I WILL LIVE WITH FINANCIAL INTEGRITY


This means that I will live within my means, I will model generosity toward God and others and I will be scrupulous in using ministry dollars and account for those ministry dollars used. When financial integrity starts to slip, that dishonesty has a ripple effect on other areas of life and an entitlement mentality takes the place of financial integrity. As a ministry leader I reject any entitlement mentality and live with gracious thanks for what God gives whatever that may me.


I WILL LIVE WITH MORAL INTEGRITY


Sexual purity goes to the heart of men and women made in the image of God and temples of the Holy Spirit. There is no room for ethical compromise here as it has devastating effects on our person, relationships and relationship with God. This means that I will be faithful to my spouse, will guard my relationships with the opposite sex, guard my thought life and intentionally avoid moral impurity of the heart, mind or actions.


I WILL BE A PEACEMAKER AND RECONCILER


Our world is filled with broken and unreconciled relationships. Jesus came to bring reconciliation between people and Himself and between brothers and sisters. The ethics of the Kingdom require that to the extent that it depends on us that we will live at peace with all men and be proactive in seeking that peace. This means that we will do all we can to keep short accounts, seek to understand others and live in peace rather than conflict with others.


I WILL ALWAYS LIVE WITH ACCOUNTABILITY TO OTHERS


All of our ethical commitments depend on honest and deep relationships with others where others have the ability to speak into our lives, challenge us, tell us truth when we need to hear it and help keep us faithful to our God and our calling. In the Kingdom we live in community not autonomously. Autonomy is at the root of ethical slippage.


I WILL NEVER HURT THE BRIDE


The church is the bride of Christ – His prized and beloved possession for which He gave His life. I will everything I can to build His church and never to hurt it. This means that even when I believe I have been mistreated by God’s people that I will do nothing that has the potential to hurt the congregation or congregations I serve.


I WILL CHOOSE A POSTURE OF HUMILITY RATHER THAN PRIDE


Humility is highly esteemed by God while pride is antithetical to life in His Kingdom. Humility means that I understand how God has gifted and wired me and wants to use me coupled with an understanding that in all other areas I need others. A life of humility is one where I submit to both God and others, work together rather than alone and value the contribution of others.


I WILL PUT GOD FIRST IN MY LIFE


All people have an ethical framework. My conviction is that the best ethics are the ethics of a holy and righteous God. Therefore I will seek to stay close to Christ and allow Him to transform my heart by grace, my thinking into His thinking so that His priorities become my priorities and my relationships reflect His relationship with me. I understand that my ethical understanding grows and becomes more complete as I become closer to the source of ethical conduct.