On the one hand, we live in a time when more and more people think of themselves as leaders – more than six out of ten adults say they fit that description. This is probably egged on by the “everybody is a leader” nonsense that some people teach. What a happy day it will be when serious trainers of leaders realize and communicate that leadership is not something you choose to do, it is a calling that God gives to some; that relatively few people are called to this challenge; that those who are called are discernible by the gifts and abilities they are given by God so they may succeed in fulfilling the calling; and that godly character is one of the prerequisites for receiving and maintaining that calling.

On the other hand, we have been witnessing a revolving door among leaders, perhaps as a reflection not of the public’s fickleness, but of the absence of the calling, character and competencies that enable one to succeed in leadership in their times of intrusive media scrutiny, public micro-management, unreasonable performance expectations, and widespread skepticism and cynicism. As you explore the downfall of many of these so-called leaders, you find several things in common. One is the absence of vision, which is a clue that the “leader” is merely playing a role without the requisite substance. Over the years I have made it a practice to study the vision that propels people in leadership positions forward, and have found a galling paucity of vision among those attempting to lead. In my experience, a majority of those who seek the chance to lead are simply pandering and posing in order to get the platform to pursue outcomes that are peripheral to the needs of the public they seek to represent – not necessarily bad outcomes, but certainly not the critical results that the audience they serve deserves.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that a recent Pew study discovered that about three-quarters of Hispanics in America are unable to identify America’s primary Hispanic leaders – that is, the people who best represent their needs and interests in this multicultural society. With all due respect, the most frequently named Hispanic “leader” – recently appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor – is hardly the kind of leader that the Hispanic community needs at the forefront. I do not mean that she is not skilled, intelligent, or trustworthy. The issue is that her position precludes her from providing frontlines leadership. Justices are discouraged from publicly speaking out on issues, do not organize people to fight for causes, typically write about matters of policy and social substance (other than Court opinions) only after they retire, and maintain a low public profile. By the way, Justice Sotomayor topped the list even though she was mentioned by only 7% of Hispanics.

Hispanics are not alone in struggling with this leadership vacuum. A recent study among registered Republicans revealed that six out of every ten party members were unable to identify who they believe is the true leader of their party. While we’re at it, let me note that Christians are in the same boat. Past Barna Group studies found that both Protestant pastors and individual Christians are generally unable to agree on individuals – other than Jesus Christ – whom they believe are providing significant leadership to the Christian body in America.

It is not hard to list a plethora of reasons why people are unable to identify leaders. But one of the reasons that may get too little attention is that we have ceased to understand what a genuine leader is. It is not someone who has a title, training, tenure, or even popularity. It goes back to the marks of leadership that we can readily distinguish: a clear and compelling vision, upstanding character, commitment to serving people, skills that facilitate progress, a track record of accomplishment in leadership situations, ability to attract a competent team of leaders to work with, a history of openness and accountability, and a blend of courage, confidence, wisdom and humility.

I think there are more of these kinds of leaders out there than the media would have us believe. We encounter them every day in business, government, churches, schools, non-profits, and families. And how great it would be to begin highlighting the good ones, and being able to support and learn from them.

Who are some of the leaders – not by virtue of position, but as recommended by their calling, character, competencies, vision, performance, and commitment – who have impressed you? What have they done that has made that impression upon you? Surely we can all point to alleged leaders whom we have found to be disappointing, or even counterfeits – people more interested in the position, perks and power than in serving people with humility, justice and righteousness. We don’t need more attention cast upon those who are not getting the job done. Instead, focus on those whose behavior you believe deserves some credit. What did they do that set them apart from the rest? What can you and I learn from their example?

1. Republicans should not be crowing about their “victory.” For the most part, they were not elected because they are favored by voters; they won because voters wanted to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Democrats. Both of the major parties have an overwhelmingly negative image among voters. And most voters do not like the candidates they have to choose from, regardless of the party represented.

2. After being subjected to weeks of mud-throwing and unscrupulous campaign tactics, I cannot help but think that we hold politicians in such low regard – and have such contempt for the work they do – because of the ugliness of the campaigns they run. Does a person of character stoop that low? Does the Golden Rule have no applications to the political process? How did Americans lose such respect for people, for themselves and for the political process that we have allowed such garbage to become the norm? I suppose it’s no different than how we have allowed a faceless contingent of media executives to dictate what decency means in media content. Why don’t we demand a more dignified process?

3. For those who believe that this election will bring better policy outcomes during the next two years, think again. All that happened as a result of the 2010 election is that we pretty much guaranteed a lack of significant legislative progress for two years. Congress will be gridlocked worse than New York City at rush hour. The President will begin running his re-election campaign … today. And certainly we can expect the 2012 election to be the ugliest yet. Both parties will be desperate. They will break the record for campaign expenditures, doing everything within their power to buy whatever seats they can by frittering away obscene amounts of money. No amount of party, candidate and PAC spending, though, will eliminate the public’s disappointment in its elected leaders, and its frustration with the political process.

4. Despite what the pundits have been saying recently, party identification is still critical for candidates. In campaigns in which so much misinformation is bandied about, the issues are so complex, and endorsements mean less than ever, party ID has become a simple (if imprecise) means of determining whom to vote for. Consider this: 95% of registered Republicans voted exclusively or mostly for Republican candidates, and 92% of Democrats voted exclusively or mostly for Democratic candidates. In an ADD culture, where distractions are the norm in our daily experience, labels help cut through the clutter, enabling people to make decisions.

5. Young people, as expected, did not show up for this election. Based on their behavior in other facets of life as well as their attitudes toward the political environment, my view is that their interest in politics and government is based on personalities more than policies. They turned out in 2008 because they were drawn to Mr. Obama (an exciting, young, black, energetic, articulate, charismatic person) and they loved the thought of playing a significant role in a social revolution of sorts. 2010? There wasn’t much that appealed to them. Without a national race to galvanize their attention and passion, they were nearly 40% less likely to vote this year than two years ago. (Among all voters, 18% were 18-to-29 in 2008; just 11% were in that age group this year.)

6. The Protestant community stayed true to form in 2010. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported conservatives and Republicans; non-evangelical born again voters were more evenly divided, but leaned Republican to a greater extent than was the case in 2008. (In that election, 48% supported Mr. Obama – serving as a major reason why he prevailed.) Black Protestants overwhelmingly supported Democrats. Skeptics went with Democratic candidates by a 2:1 margin. The only noteworthy shift was among Catholics, who returned to the Republican side of the ledger to a greater degree this time. Catholics voted exclusively or mostly for Republicans by about a 3:2 margin. That’s a reversal of their behavior during the past four years. However, their choices were driven largely by economics, not by moral or theological considerations.

7. Do not lose sight of the fact that Americans are typically pragmatic and logical. That translates to being very middle-of-the-road in their political thinking. They have shifted slightly to the right during the past two years, but that has been mostly with regard to economic matters, and even that repositioning has not caused them to lose their centrist orientation. Accordingly, this election was not really about ideology; it was about survival for the present and hope for the future. Millions of Americans have lost their optimism about the future and voted yesterday in ways designed to restore it. They do not consider themselves politically astute or ideologically pure. They consider themselves economically worse off than they were two years ago and do not foresee that changing in the immediate future. Their vote was their mechanism for protecting whatever economic stability they presently possess, and to hopefully communicate that they do not want their children to live with overwhelming debt and financial struggle for the duration of their lifetime. Essentially, they want no more and no less federal government services than they absolutely need in order to get by. With the notable exception of a significant minority of the public who are liberal Democrats committed to substantial government intervention related to social conditions, Americans remain more comfortable with the private sector handling their needs.

8. Having observed Mr. Obama during the past two years, it appears that he believed his eight-point margin of victory over John McCain was a “mandate” to radically redefine the role of government as well as the nation’s political tenor. It seems to me that the election results of 2010 are a correction to that view. Even if people were voting for “change they could believe in” back in 2008, it was also change they did not understand the financial and global ramifications of at that time. Now, more fully apprised of those implications, they have indeed voted for change they can believe in: a return to a less aggressive federal government.

9. The Hispanic vote remains one of the most sought after – and elusive – votes in the electoral game. Although they represent 15% of the population, in 2006 just 8% of the votes cast were by Hispanics, and the number was exactly the same in 2010. At some point this refusal to exercise the right to vote will hamper the gains Hispanics hope to experience in this society. Such consistently low turnout can only hurt them.

10. These past two elections drive home a significant point for leaders: when the public provides permission to lead, the window of opportunity to act and to act appropriately is limited. One of the best indications of that is the complete flip-flop among “independent” voters. In 2008, 52% of independents backed Mr. Obama. This year, that dropped to 39%. If someone is chosen to lead, he/she must get on with it, in ways that reflect the heartbeat of the people, not the whims of the leader. Leadership is not about pursuing the leader’s dreams; it is about representing the people’s best interests and clearest expectations. Immediacy, urgency and competency are critical components necessary to defuse the rampant skepticism and mistrust that characterizes the American political scene.

11. One of my greatest fears is that we may see an escalation of violence in the U.S. in the near future. Why? Look at the combination of conditions and attitudes present. High unemployment and under-employment. Rising taxes with the threat of additional increases in order to diminish an overwhelming national debt. A declining level of public services, and the perception of diminished quality of services. The widespread, nearly universal belief that the public is regularly lied to by its elected representatives. Two out of three adults say the nation is on the wrong track. Three-fourths are angry with the federal government. The same proportion disapproves of the job the Congress is doing. For more than two consecutive years nine out of ten adults have argued that the national economy is in bad shape. A large majority believes that Washington is deaf. Growing numbers of Americans believe they are in a no-win position. They prefer business to provide more services than government. Yet they don’t trust big business, and small businesses are struggling more than at any time in the past fifty years – largely due to forces controlled by the government and big business! Even though they want less government, Americans also have greater needs and fewer resources. What’s a citizen to do? At some point, people become sufficiently fed up with the system that they take more aggressive measures. Time is of the essence for our political leaders to shape up. The people’s patience is running thinner than many assume – or have bothered to notice.

12. My sense was that churches played a very low-key role in the 2010 election. That is extremely unfortunate. Americans are dying for guidance, especially from people whom they trust. Many pastors were scared to participate in the political process, unaware of the extensive rights they have to discuss candidates and policy matters from the pulpit with their congregants. Various political and non-profit organizations have caused tens of thousands of pastors and other church leaders to be fearful about engaging people in political discussions and activity through the local church. In other cases, pastors claimed to be too busy to engage in the political process, or insufficiently knowledgeable about political issues and candidates, or fearful of dividing the congregation by raising such matters. The Christian body needs leaders who will lead them in all dimensions of life, not just regarding theological matters on Sunday morning. Choosing to avoid the electoral process in relation to all but the safest of activities is exactly what has landed America in the moral and spiritual condition it is in today.

END.

One of the intriguing aspects had to do with the presence of local politicians. Because the event took place five days before the state’s primary election, we had invited sitting officials as well as candidates to attend the event. They were aware that they would not be introduced and would not be given any time to address the crowd, since the event was a benefit for the service agency, not a political rally. As best I could tell, we had exactly one candidate (who is also an incumbent official) present. He did nothing to draw attention to himself. And he actually stayed awake throughout my entire presentation on why poverty lingers and how we might attack it.

At one point during the presentation I noted that we are not likely to defeat poverty without committed leaders – those who do not just campaign against poverty (after all, who’s for it?) but who are truly devoted to doing what it takes to overcome poverty as efficiently and quickly as possible. It’s a matter of justice: doing what’s right simply because it’s right. I encouraged those in attendance to sharpen their focus to listen and watch for cues that suggest a public figure isn’t using the issue of poverty for political advantage but is fully committed to paying the price and staying the course to ensure positive outcomes.

After the event ended, the incumbent official came forward to introduce himself to me. We bantered about some of the strategies the city was employing to combat poverty. And then an unexpected thing happened. He asked if I was aware of one of the newest strategies the city was introducing. I was not. He explained it and talked about the very positive results that were emerging in the early stages of the rollout and how many of the city’s poor people had benefitted in some lasting ways. And I noticed that he began to tear-up as he described the wonderful changes that were happening in those broken lives.

I had my cue.

When I did the interviews for Master Leaders last year – a book that conveys the leadership wisdom of some of America’s greatest leaders – I was reminded that whenever I encounter a leader who is genuinely passionate about serving people, especially in an area of shared passion and concern, the ball is then in my court to do whatever I can to support that leader. It’s easy to be cynical about political leaders, but one of the life lessons I derived from working in state government many years ago for a state legislator and Speaker of the House was that there are numerous people in public office who really do want to serve people. That blew my mind – and changed it. But they cannot lead well if the rest of us fail to serve them as willing and dedicated followers. If only more of us realized the power of passionate followership.

Recent surveys have shown that a majority of voters are comfortable with the Republicans for playing the role of naysayer in the face of an aggressive push by Democrats toward expanded government and government spending. The media, whose liberal tendencies have been well-documented, has positioned Republicans as negative and unproductive because of their efforts to block the Democratic wish list from becoming law.

At the very heart of leadership is the determination to remain true to your vision. A crucial dimension of staying true is being able to say “no” to things that are do-able and sometimes even popular. The Republican vision may not be easy to discern these days, but it is certainly vastly different than the dreams of the Democrats now in power. Regardless of which approach you prefer, we have to appreciate the consistency of the Republicans for resisting government expansion as much as we appreciate the vision behind the Democratic dream of expansion. The challenge to us as individuals is to clarify in our own minds which vision reflects our own view of what is best for society. Neither party is bad for pursuing its vision. It is our constitutional responsibility to study those divergent strategies, embrace one of them, and get involved in the governing process.

At the same time, we have to be wise consumers of information and reject the temptation to accept media characterizations, often supported by public statements from one party or another, that Republicans are somehow inferior lawmakers because their primary response over the past few months has been the “no” vote. First, a more careful reading of the Congressional Record (which can be boring and long-winded but also revealing and insightful) indicates that Republicans have offered more than just “no” votes. Second, with media bias so entrenched – on both ends of the ideological continuum – that most Americans are no longer even aware of its existence, we have to become re-sensitized to the dramatic effect media filtering and embedded ideology can have on our perspectives. Third, we might be well-served by demanding a more objective reporting of events and perspectives in exchange for giving the media our attention and trust.

The democratization of information in America comes with a cost: i.e., that you and I must do a better and more diligent job of seeking the truth of events than what might be delivered to us by subjective media sources. Further, we have to take seriously our responsibility as the protectors and developers of our nation’s destiny by understanding the value and the power of “no” as much as the value and power of promoting new ideas and laws. Both of those approaches can serve us well and both reflect a different vision of leadership.

Because I am a professional researcher, I wanted to get everything just right; it’s a matter of professional pride. So I read the cover letter carefully. I read the simple questionnaire form a couple of times to be sure that I understood what they wanted, to see if professionally I could learn anything from their questionnaire construction, and also to address my surprise at just how short the form has become. (The Bureau now supplements the decadal census with massive monthly surveys, allowing them to reduce the census questionnaire to just a handful of questions – much shorter than the versions used in previous cycles.)

I filled in the information about myself and my wife without problems. Smooth sailing. Quick and simple. But then I got to person #3 in our household, our oldest daughter. She is adopted from Guatemala. Under question 4 – a question about origins – marking her down as Hispanic was a no-brainer. But the related query, question 5, stumped me. It’s about racial identity. The options provided were white, black, American Indian, Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian, Other Pacific Islander, and Other Asian. Nothing that fits anyone from Guatemala. Or Mexico, the nation that has provided the U.S. with the largest number of non-native residents. In fact, there was no category that would describe American citizens of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origins who came from any country located in Central or South America.

It made no sense that there’d be categories provided for groups that represent less than one-half of one percent of the population, but no category for those who represent 16% of the population. And yes, I understand that the Bureau will combine the two variables of origin and race to create a Hispanic origin category, but without instructions, how will the more than 50 million Hispanic residents of the U.S. complete that second question? Will many of them check one of the boxes provided, assuming they apparently belong to one of those groups since infinitesimally small racial groups had their own category to mark? Surely the uber-funded Census Bureau, with the nation’s professional and scholarly talent pool available to draw upon, and a 10-year window in which to create their six question survey, would not have developed a confusing, incomplete question. Especially with trillions of dollars at risk. Clearly, 30 years of experience and advanced degrees in survey research notwithstanding, I was missing something.

And the problem was compounded by my realization that I’d face the same dilemma for person #4 of our household, our next-oldest daughter, who was also adopted from Guatemala.
Stymied, I called the Census Bureau. First, I got the recorded messages which walked me through the process. However, the pre-recorded explanation did not address my concern, so I indicated a need to speak to a representative. Once a live Bureau staffer came on the line I explained my dilemma. She offered to read me the same statement that I had just heard from the automated voice. After I respectfully declined the offer, she indicated that she was not allowed to tell me how to answer the question. I explained my frustration with that, knowing that real money was on the line here – how my tax dollars (and trillions of others) would be allocated according to the percentages emanating from the Census statistics. She was well-trained, though, and refused to help me beyond telling me she was not allowed to assist me in figuring out how to answer their question.

So I hung up feeling as if my concern had not been heard or cared about – which, of course, is nothing new when dealing with the federal bureaucracy. And for my two daughters from Guatemala, I half-heartedly checked the “Other” box and wrote in “Hispanic/Mayan.”
What a bizarre situation. Robert Groves, who heads the Bureau, is a very competent, experienced, and respected researcher. I doubt that he would let a gaffe of this magnitude go unrepaired, if he had the ability to make revisions. Perhaps the questionnaire contains this unfortunate question because the most dreaded event in the life of a researcher occurred: questionnaire design by committee. Departmental committees. House committees. Senate committees.

In the end, the bad news is that there will inevitably be a lot of inaccurate information collected and reported from our government’s $15 billion tax-funded research project, resulting in inappropriate financial allocations of our other tax dollars. But the good news is that I did not have to wrestle with this issue over person #5 in our household, our youngest daughter, who was adopted from Russia. I’m pretty sure she is “white.” And the best news of all may be that I am not the Director of the Census Bureau, forced to have political committees approve the art of survey research and having to deal with complaints from people like me.

Recent experiences in the worlds of sports and politics, though, remind me that when you are doing God’s will, great things can happen in spite of pressing circumstances. Specifically, if I were a professional golfer over the past several years, I probably would have resigned myself to the idea that as long as Tiger Woods was on the scene coming in second was the moral equivalent of taking first place. And then, out of nowhere, Tiger is gone. A whole pack of skilled professionals suddenly had a new lease on life, completely unforeseen or predictable. It is unfortunate that it came at the expense of another person, but the outcome was undeniable: new life and opportunity for the rest of the field.

Barack Obama’s recent fall from the heights of popularity is another case in point. One day he’s “the next big thing,” he handily wins his first national campaign, and then he’s coronated. The next thing you know, he’s no longer the man of the people. The same abilities that were widely heralded – his intelligence, deft instincts, smooth communication, regal presence – suddenly became liabilities, now interpreted as naiveté, misreading of situations, teleprompter expertise, and arrogance. Incredibly, studies show that his presence on the mid-term campaign trail actually hurts the prospects of some of his colleagues seeking re-election.

Granted, our culture changes very rapidly, producing an abundance of new information, connections, opportunities, heroes and villains. We are able to influence some of those shifts, but not others. Perhaps more importantly, we sometimes forget that in a society in which few people have a solid, consistent worldview based upon permanent truth principles, everything is always up for grabs. The implication for leaders is that you have to be driven to lead by appropriate motivations. You are more likely to finish the race – and to finish strong – if your reason for participating has less to do with you than it reflects a desire to honor God by using the gifts He entrusted to you.

With the 2010 mid-term election approaching, I have watched in dismay at the nature of the political conversation that has emerged in several key states, the national media, and the blogosphere.

While I am not a fan of some of the public servants who are being excoriated in the media, I am nevertheless saddened by the superficiality and coarseness of the conversation related to their performance in office and their re-election prospects. Perhaps the most disturbing monologues are those that savage various public officials for outcomes over which they have no control. Among those who seem to be skewered most unfairly are Arnold Swarzeneggar, Ben Bernanke, and even Barack Obama. Yes, I am aware that all three of these gentlemen, and many other officials like them, asked for and willingly accepted the jobs in which they are serving. And I certainly realize that when you campaign for and then are given the mantle of leadership, criticism is part of the package.

But don’t we, as American citizens, have a responsibility to be well-informed before we hurl our criticisms as these people? Don’t we have an obligation to accept some share – and frankly, sometimes a major share – of the responsibility for the unfortunate results that plague the jurisdiction in question? Isn’t it part of the bargain that before we insult or criticize a public official we should do some fact checking and be measured in the tone of our critique? Add another layer of responsibility – that of being a Christ follower – and we have to consider if our task is to criticize or the assist those who seek to do good, regardless of your party affiliation or ideological leanings.

We have become an attack dog society, happy to take unfair shots at those who are striving to serve us. To my knowledge, few elected or appointed officials – even those whom I do not care for, ideologically or in character – have ever claimed to be perfect or capable of solving all of our problems without some missteps. Together, we create absurd expectations and then declare those who fail to meet them to be incompetent, an enemy, or an incompetent enemy.

We live in a complex age. It is also an age when communications opportunities abound. Perhaps one of the lessons we ought to teach our children – and, of course, personally master – relates to self-restraint. There are times when a public response or critique is appropriate and other times when it is not; it’s important to know the difference and to behave accordingly. Ours is not only an over-stimulated society but also an over-communicated society. Just because we possess an idea or feeling, and the tools with which to share it, doesn’t mean it should be broadcast to the world. Self-restraint will help us filter those comments that make us feel good from those that produce good.

And, of course, the challenge for leaders is to know whom to respond to, when to do so, and with what content and tenor. Leadership is not about having the last or the loudest word. Just as there are times for people to raise their voice in protest, so there are times when it makes sense for leaders to not respond to specific charges. In the course of speaking with many leaders over the years, and most recently in the interviews for the Master Leaders book, I learned that leaders are sometimes better off absorbing the body blows of criticism and continuing to move forward than halting their progress in order to strike back. The media love to cover a good blow-for-blow confrontation, but great leaders do not get distracted by the public’s morbid curiosity about such battles.

Knowing when to resist the temptation to respond or retaliate depends upon the self-control of the leader as well as his/her capacity to read the situation and discern whether a response would add value to the lives of the people being led. Effective leaders also realize that should a response be desirable there are different ways of responding that might defuse an explosive situation. Understanding the different types of responses available (e.g., through a spokesperson, using a different medium, by providing facts and figures that expose the absurdity of the criticism, etc.) is a significant part of the leader’s cache of tools.

All leaders must be able to take the heat. No matter who you are and what you lead, if there are people involved then there will be criticism. Some of it will be unjustified, based on inaccuracies, emotion, competition, or irrelevancies. Having enough confidence in your motivations and choices to handle such criticism wisely – i.e., knowing when and how to engage your critics – is one mark of a good leader.

How is it that so many intelligent and articulate members of the media consistently misunderstand leadership as well as the political process? A non-negotiable truth of leadership is that people must trust the individual before empowering them to lead. Should Huckabee be disqualified as a “serious candidate” because he has an accessible weekly talk show? Is it inappropriate for him to dispense political perspective in ways that the average voter finds more appealing than the mind-numbing and audience-repelling exercises that typify the content on Meet the Press and This Week in Washington? Should he be spanked because he does things in an unconventional way? Is he wrong to believe that Americans do not want a four-year presidential campaign? Was Ronald Reagan a lightweight because he had personality? Can we name a president in the last 40 years who has not had a book that he was “hawking” while he was not in office? Is it accurate to argue that to be a serious Republican contender one must be “the voice of an intellectually vigorous conservatism”? If a viable candidate must discuss serious proposal regarding the economy, why doesn’t Huckabee’s oft-mentioned support for the “fair tax” qualify, along with his weekly statements on his talk show and his daily radio program regarding unemployment, taxation, trade policies and federal bailouts? He has written extensively about his views on such matters as well.

Mr. Douthat describes President Obama as an example of a leader who “prefers the responsibilities of leadership to the pleasures of celebrity.” Really? It strains credulity to label Mr. Obama an effective leader at this stage of his presidency. Roughly one year into his reign millions of Americans have already lost their trust in Mr. Obama because of a string of broken promises. Among other campaign promises, the President told voters that he would allow five days for public comment before signing bills, eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, allow Americans to withdraw funds from 401(k) and retirement accounts without penalties, ban lobbyists from serving in his administration, reform earmarks, bring all combat troops home from Iraq in 16 months, sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” give Americans $4,000 in credits for college, and run a “transparent” administration. (Of course, there were over 400 other campaign promises made, but fairness requires us to give him time to implement all those promises. It shouldn’t require more than two decades…) Great leaders are honest and transparent, qualities which millions of Americans hoped were part of the man they voted for. Sadly, the President has turned out to lack the strength of character to make good on his promises and to transform the political process.

So, what do you make of Mr. Douthat’s allegation that candidates like Ms. Palin and Mr. Huckabee are lightweights and are unqualified for the presidency because they are operate effectively within the mainstream of pop culture?

Because so much of the debate relates to the needs of the poor and disadvantaged, Americans are playing this one a bit more cautiously than usual. Most adults define themselves as living a middle-class life, and believe their levels of comfort are a direct result of their own hard work and diligence. As politicians plead their case regarding health care provisions, citizens are conflicted, vacillating between a hard-line stance that expects others to work as hard as they have to get good health care and showing some compassion toward those who are less fortunate.

Views of Poverty
Our surveys underscore the fact that about three-quarters of all adults believe poverty is one of the most serious issues facing the nation. Even more significantly, most Americans also contend that when it comes to alleviating poverty, that’s mainly the government’s responsibility. Two-thirds of adults look to the government to solve issues related to poverty – including health care deficiencies. Just one out of every five adults believes that solving poverty is an individual duty, and a mere one out of 25 people assigns that task to non-profit organizations, and another one in 25 assigns it to churches.

As we assess how individuals deal with poverty on a personal level, we find that Americans do get involved, but in a kind of arms-length manner. For instance, the most common responses are for people to give money, food, and clothing to someone else to get the job done. In contrast, the most personal responses are the least common. Relatively few Americans talk directly with the needy, tutor them, build homes for them, visit them, befriend them, or engage in other types of personal activities to address the issue.

One might say, then, that we mean well but we’re too busy, too disinterested, or feel too inadequate to actually address poverty personally, head-on. Given that mind set, it’s no wonder that the current health care debate centers not on what every American can personally do to help alleviate human suffering, but on how we can get the government to provide a more efficient alternative that will neither break the bank nor hinder our lifestyle.

In essence, what Americans seem to want is increased government services, more efficient delivery of services, no increase in taxes, and no personal involvement in the process. In a nutshell, our argument is: it’s not my fault and it’s not my job, so let the paid professionals deal with it.

Jesus the Healer
Given the fact that devout Christians mirror these attitudes, it raises the question of what a Christian’s obligation to the poor is in the matter of health care. Should Christians feel comfortable accepting the “let the government handle it” philosophy?

If a Christian were to turn to the Bible for guidance in these matters, a simple read through the gospel according to Luke would provide some answers. Luke, the author of the third gospel account in the New Testament, was a physician and would have been especially sensitive to how Jesus dealt with people’s medical needs.

In fact, Luke’s narrative contains 26 different passages describing how Jesus responded to people’s physical and medical needs. The book shows that Jesus healed hundreds of people. But it also gives us some consistent patterns from Jesus’ ministry to the poor and suffering people He encountered that we might use as principles to guide our personal responses to today’s health care challenges.

There were at least seven noteworthy perspectives that underlie Jesus’ health care strategy.

1. Jesus healed people because He believed that good health matters. People with serious medical challenges lack hope – and people without hope have no reason to keep living. Since life is a precious gift from God, and He wants people to enjoy and celebrate life, as well as the God who gave it to them, restoring health was a viable means to an end. Whenever He had the opportunity to do so, He healed people and sent them on their way.

2. Jesus invested Himself in their healing because He loved and cared for people. In Luke 6:13 we read that “His heart overflowed with compassion” for those people. He did not heal them because it showed His power or grabbed attention as much as He healed them because He felt their pain and knew their desolation. Healing was a practical demonstration that God was not wrathful but graceful.

3. Jesus healed everyone who presented a medical need because He saw no reason to screen some out as unqualified. Whether He knew them or not, He helped them. Whether they supported Him or not, He helped them. Whether they were adherents of His faith or not, He helped them. He did not set up conditions and hoops in order for people to qualify. He just healed them because He could.

4. Jesus healed every kind of illness He encountered. No malady was too simple (such as a fever) or too complex (including paralysis, leprosy, and demonization). He even took on the impossible – death – and raised people from the dead on three separate occasions!

5. Jesus pursued them because He saw Himself as a servant. A servant does what he can to address the needs of those being served, whether the needy one comes to the servant or the servant must go to the needy. Jesus did not get caught up in the ego games of who should pursue who; when He saw a need He went out of His way to address it.

6. Jesus allowed them to disrupt His schedule because He realized that people’s pain and suffering was their top focus in life. Because the main value in His life was giving love, things like remaining on schedule, following His pre-determined agenda, maintaining orderliness and predictability all took a back seat to the chance to affect other people’s lives with genuine love.

7. Jesus expected His closest followers to heal others. The needs of the people were substantial and providing a healing touch grabbed people’s attention so they could see Him for who He was and what His message to them was. Consequently, Jesus included healing in the marching orders He gave to not only the 12 apostles, but to another group of 72 disciples that He had been mentoring in the ways of grace. (Luke 9:1; 10: 1, 9, 17)

Jesus Health Care Strategy
In short, Jesus Christ showed us that anyone who follows Him is expected to address the most pressing needs of others. You can describe Jesus’ health care strategy in four words: whoever, whatever, whenever, wherever. Whoever needed to be healed received His healing touch. Whatever affliction they suffered from, He addressed it. Whenever the opportunity to heal arose, He seized it. Wherever they happened to be, He took care of it.

Contrast the Jesus model with the preferred American model. The latter might be described as deciding to throw some money at the problem – but not too much – so that somebody else can do what needs to be done, for those who qualify, in a manner that does not inconvenience us. The former approach was the whoever, whatever, whenever, wherever strategy.

It’s quite a contrast, isn’t it?

The Underlying Foundation
Don’t overlook the fact that Jesus called on His followers to personally attend to the health care needs of the poor and disenfranchised. Not only did Jesus model healing for His followers, but He supported such outreach with ample philosophical underpinnings. You see Him teaching His followers before, during and after instances of healing. We are familiar with the principles, but perhaps not their application to health needs.

• Do to others what you would like them to do to you (Luke 7:31). Jesus asked His followers to see themselves in the people who yearned for a healing touch and to respond accordingly. Although He was mocked and opposed for His efforts to heal, such opposition never stopped Him from treating others as we would want to be treated.

• Produce results (or, in biblical language, bear fruit) (Luke 6:43-45). These days, we might think of His teaching as admonishing His followers to not pass the buck. He reminded them they had been given gifts and resources so that they could affect reality. He warned them against simply discussing solutions and instructed them to conceive and implement solutions.

• Do whatever it takes to love God and all people with your heart, mind, strength and soul (Luke 4:8, 6:27-36). Jesus used love as a verb, not an adjective. He exhorted His followers to prove their love by doing compassionate things for those in need. Jesus showed them what was important by focusing on the act of giving, rather than receiving. Often, those whom He healed did not thank Him, and He was never paid for his medical care – but He healed them regardless, because it enabled Him to love those who lacked hope.

• Always try to do the will of God (Luke 12:29-31). Your life is not about what you want; to be a follower of Jesus your desires should match God’s. The way we demonstrate that we understand this principle is by allowing God to change your heart, and by following His plan.

A Personal Challenge
So, if Jesus went to such lengths to put feet on His health care strategy, what is yours? He did not seem inclined to wait for the government to provide for the poor. His strategy called for people to help people, through the power and ability that He entrusted to His followers. One must wonder if the American preference for government programs is the best solution to the existing needs – and if a nation where 83% of adults label themselves “Christian” can blend that religious connection with a desire for state-based solutions.

Government clearly has a role in people’s lives; the Bible supports its existence and circumscribed functions. It is unfortunate that when God’s people, collectively known as the Church, fail to exhibit the compassion and service that He has called us to provide, we are comfortable with the government acting as a national safety net. In a society that has become increasingly self-centered and self-indulgent, we simply expand our reliance upon the government to provide solutions and services that are the responsibility of Christ followers. Some Christians have heeded the call, as evidenced by the medical clinics, pregnancy centers and even hospitals across the nation that were initiated and funded by small numbers of dedicated believers who grasped this responsibility. Imagine what an impact the Church would have on society if it truly reflected the model Jesus gave us of how to care for one another!

As we think about the elements embedded in the national debate, perhaps each of us should be asking ourselves a few simple questions. What kinds of people within your realm of influence need health care assistance – and how do you respond? How do you figure out who to help – and who to serve them in partnership with? How do you decide when and how often to invest yourself in helping poor people who have health needs? What limitations do you place on the kind of health care assistance you offer to the needy? What gifts, talents, and resources can you be more aggressive at applying to the health care needs of the poor?

I don’t know what God is asking or preparing you to do in relation to the needs of the poor and disadvantaged. All I know is that we have been told to imitate Christ, and His health care strategy is whoever, whatever, whenever, wherever.

Note: This post originally appeared in September 2009 on Barna.org and was moved to this blog in January 2010.