Does parenting experience provide an advantage to someone seeking public office?
The conversation culminated with the resurfaced footage of Senator J.D. Vance, President Donald Trump’s running mate, speaking to Tucker Carlson about the situation in which many prominent Democrats are childfree.
“This country is effectively run by childless cat ladies through the Democratic Party and the corporate oligarchy. The entire future of the Democratic Party is controlled by childless people. What does it mean that we’ve handed this country over to people who have no direct stake in this country?” Vance said.
Reaction from the left has focused on three criticisms of Vance’s position.
First, leftists argue, it’s unfair to people who can’t have children. Second, they argue that being childfree suggests people are less capable of making wise, moral decisions in the long run. And finally, they argue, it’s none of your business: you can make whatever unique life choices you want.
The problem of selfish decisions made by young people, or childless people who have no interest in the future, is a bane of modern politics.
But I want to take a step back and consider how Bible-respecting Christians might think about the question of whether children play a special role in developing individuals fit for public leadership. Because, whether fair or unfair to those who are single or physically unable to have children, both the Old and New Testaments link a person’s family life to their fitness to rule.
The apostle Paul, in listing the qualifications for appointing a board of elders to govern, wrote, “For if any man know not how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?”1 Timothy 3:5 ESV).
Similarly, Paul, in listing the qualifications for the official position of deacon, states that deacons “must be good managers of their own children and their own households” (1 Timothy 3:12 ESV).
Some have asked, “Does this mean that single people cannot hold these offices? So does that mean that those who are childless, like the apostle Paul who wrote these words, and like Jesus Christ, who was single and celibate, are not eligible to attend elder councils?”
My answer is, “Yes, Paul and Jesus are not suitable candidates for these two positions.”
This understanding that a certain lifestyle equates to a certain position is very uncomfortable for Western culture because we teach our children from as early an age as possible, “You are anything We see the ability to attain a particular status as primarily a matter of identity, not a matter of service or role.
However, these modern lenses are not the lenses used in ancient times or in the scriptures.
In ancient cultures and in certain parts of the world today, the path to becoming a village elder begins at home, where the fruits of parental stewardship are visible to all by observing how those under their stewardship live.
That is why Jesus quoted the ancient proverb, “Wisdom is justified by her children.”Luke 7:35The word “all” is important in this proverb: fathers and mothers with several children have to deal with a very difficult situation of different personalities, but their wisdom is justified if, despite this great challenge, all the children grow up under their leadership.
But the second factor that explains why raising children qualifies one to rule is the time of life. The Greek word for “elder” is the same as the English word for “older man.” It literally means “old man.” In other words, we want those who have less time left to live, more grandchildren and a greater stake in the future of the village to make the decisions and set the policies for our community, whereas younger men may be more concerned with their own interests and what they will gain when making decisions for the whole village.
The problem of selfish decisions made by young people, or childless people who have no interest in the future, is a bane of modern politics. We all know it has become commonplace, and it is one of the causes of political turmoil. Congress’ approval rating is at its lowest In recent years, we have begun to suspect that politics is a game in which each person pursues their own self-interest.
Thus, when considering the variable of parenting as a qualification for leadership, most positions on the subject fit into three categories.
Bucket #1: Success in raising healthy, happy children No signs About whether someone is qualified for leadership.
This seems like an extreme position, but my guess is that many Democrats are moving to it not because they don’t understand the benefits that parenting experience can bring to a candidate, but because recognizing these benefits is unfair to people who cannot or choose not to have children.
In other words, they care more about perceptions of fairness than about leadership suitability.
I fear that it is becoming increasingly likely that people who have never ruled a home before will come to rule the homes of millions of other people.
Bucket #2: Raising healthy and happy children One of many It is a variable and an achievement that should be considered in the candidate’s favor.
This seems like a moderate position, and it is hard to imagine anyone debating it in good faith not acknowledging that it should play some role in assessing a candidate’s fitness for office.
And there is a third, more extreme position.
Bucket #3: Raising healthy and happy children necessary Qualifications required for public leadership.
This seems to me to be too narrow a position in a pluralistic society.
My position, and that of J.D. Vance, seems to fall broadly into the second category. Vance is pointing out the trend of childless leaders as a worrying development, but he is not arguing that they should be banned from holding public office.
I fear that it is becoming increasingly likely that people who have never ruled a home before will come to rule the homes of millions of other people.
Finally, it is fair to ask those who choose not to have children, and to prioritise their political careers over their family life, why they made that decision. There are probably good reasons for their decision, but let’s ask them why.
If you wish to control us, we have a right to know why you choose not to make the sacrifices necessary to raise a family.
Ultimately, I hope we can all agree that we need fewer leaders who use public office to fill a void in their identity and more who see public office as the next, and perhaps final, step in a long line of successful leadership roles that begin at home, continue in the workplace, and ultimately end in public service.
