Lately we have having a national debate over the issue of the private actions and personal character of public officials. Specifically we have been confronted with the issue of whether such a person ought only to be judged by his official performance in office, or also by his personal actions and his private lifestyle. I would like to examine this issue in the light of both scripture and of history.

The scriptural example that I have in mind is Ahithophel. By all accounts he was David's most competent, most trusted, and wisest advisor. Absalom certainly thought so, and he made sure that he recruited him into his treasonous conspiracy against his father David.

And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counsellor, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom.  2 Samuel 15:12

David certainly thought so. He feared the results of Ahithophel's advice to his enemies for when he discovered that Ahithophel had gone over to his enemies he prayed that God would confound his counsel. Ahithophel was a man to be reckoned with.

And one told David, saying, Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom. And David said, O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness. 2 Samuel 15:31

David felt compelled to take specific steps to defeat the effect of Ahithophel's wisdom and counsel in the camp of his enemies.

And it came to pass, that when David was come to the top of the mount, where he worshipped God, behold, Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat rent, and earth upon his head: Unto whom David said, If thou passest on with me, then thou shalt be a burden unto me: But if thou return to the city, and say unto Absalom, I will be thy servant, O king; as I have been thy father’s servant hitherto, so will I now also be thy servant: then mayest thou for me defeat the counsel of Ahithophel. 2 Samuel 15:32-34

And finally, most importantly God himself in his word testifies to the great wisdom of Ahithophel.

And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had inquired at the oracle of God: so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom. 2 Samuel 16:23

Ahithophel's advice to Absalom may have been very wicked, but it was certainly wise according to the wisdom of this world. Ahithophel knew how to get things done. His advice worked. It would bring success if followed.

Moreover Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Let me now choose out twelve thousand men, and I will arise and pursue after David this night: And I will come upon him while he is weary and weak handed, and will make him afraid: and all the people that are with him shall flee; and I will smite the king only: And I will bring back all the people unto thee: the man whom thou seekest is as if all returned: so all the people shall be in peace. And the saying pleased Absalom well, and all the elders of Israel. 2 Samuel 17:1-4

God answered David's prayer in a different way than he had originally prayed. Ahithophel's advice was not turned into foolishness, that is God did not strike Ahithophel with a bout of foolishness and confound his mind with bad advice. Rather God caused Absalom and the elders of Israel united with him to accept the bad advice of Hushai, and to reject the "wise" counsel of Ahithophel.

And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For the LORD had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom. 2 Samuel 17:14

Ahithophel certainly was a "wise" man. He immediately saw the disastrous results that the bad advice of Hushai would bring onto the rebel camp.

And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father. 2 Samuel 17:23

We can readily conclude that Ahithophel was a very wise and astute counselor. A more competent adviser could probably not have been found in all Israel. In his official capacity this was man without peer. But the issue here is more than competency. There is a character issue here. Ahithophel betrayed his lord, David the King. He also betrayed his Lord, Jahweh, the true King of Israel, who had made David his chosen, his anointed. As David himself penned it one of his psalm as he speaks of Ahithophel's treachery...

Destroy, O Lord, and divide their tongues: for I have seen violence and strife in the city. Day and night they go about it upon the walls thereof: mischief also and sorrow are in the midst of it. Wickedness is in the midst thereof: deceit and guile depart not from her streets. For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him: But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company. Psalm 55:9-14

He hath put forth his hands against such as be at peace with him: he hath broken his covenant. The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords. Psalm 55:20-21

What was going on here? Why did Ahithophel betray his king and seek David's life? We can nor be absolutely sure but the scriptures give us a significant clue. From the following verses we can glean the fact that Ahithophel was Bathsheba's grandfather.

Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maachathite, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite. 2 Samuel 23:34

And David sent and inquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 2 Samuel 11:3

David had seduced Bathsheba into adultery and then murdered her husband. It may be that Ahithophel had never forgiven David for this. He may have taken this opportunity to avenge his daughter and Uriah, his son-in-law. These were after all crimes, both adultery and murder, that under the laws of Israel were punishable by death. But God had forgiven David. God's prophet, Nathan, had declared...

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man…Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 2 Samuel 12:7,9-14

God had forgiven David and God had himself pronounced the judgments that would result from his sin. God had declared that his sin was put away and that David would not die. It seems that Ahithophel could not accept this. It seems that he continued to bear a grudge against David and to secretly plot revenge on him. His bitterness against and hatred of David caused him to cast aside God's judgments in this matter and to substitute his own. It caused him to break his oath as a public official, his oath to David and to David's God, the covenant that he had sworn, and to plot David's downfall and death.

This is preeminently a character issue. There is no question about Ahithophel's competency to be David's chief counselor, chief of staff, prime-minister, or whatever. However his desire for personal revenge and his willingness to break his oath of office cast his character in a very bad light. If David had known the type of man that Ahithophel was (but not necessarily how this would manifest itself in his future actions), should he have kept him on as his chief advisor? Should David have reasoned that he was an excellent advisor? Should David have reasoned that character doesn't matter? Should David have presumed that only performance of one's official duties matter. Or should he have realized that one's character will ultimately affect one's official acts, as Ahithophel's so tragically did? The answer here, with our hindsight, is perfectly obvious. Character matters. And Ahithophel's character flaws almost cost David his life. Character issues can not be so easily dismissed.

Now, I would like to take a look at an example from recent history. In the aftermath of the First World War Germany, like Egypt after the ten plagues, was destroyed. She was disarmed and allowed only minimal armed forces. She was stripped of her colonies and her naval fleet given to the Allies. The illegal (under international law) blockade of her coasts that had caused thousands of civilian deaths during the war was continued for a period after the armistice adding thousands more casualties, mainly women and children. The armistice that had been based on Woodrow Wilson's famous fourteen points was reneged on and a harsh, punitive peace was forced on Germany. She was saddled with a huge war debt and staggering, unpayable reparations to the Allies. As the loser, she was unjustly blamed for the war, and treated as a pariah among the nations. The nation was in chaos. Unemployment rose to massive proportions. Inflation was rampant. Men were paid twice a day and the wives picked up the morning's pay at noon so they could rush to the stores and spend it before prices doubled again. The social fabric was coming apart, revolution was in the air, and the communists were poised to seize power. The government, any government that accepted and conformed to the Treaty of Versailles, was held in contempt by the people. What happened to change all this?

A strong leader took the helm in Germany. He repudiated the hated Treaty of Versailles. He rebuilt Germany's armed forces. He strengthened the economy and restored the nation to full employment. He suppressed the communists and restored law and order. He restored the nation's pride and made Germany again a respected power among the nations of Europe. He was able to restore to Germany some of the territory taken from her after the war where millions of German citizens had been living under foreign occupation. And he was able to do all this without involving the nation in war. As some historians have pointed out, if Hitler (yes, you guessed right) had died in August of 1939 before the invasion of Poland, and the outbreak of the Second World War, he would have gone down as one of the most effective rulers in Germany's history.

However there is no happy ending to this story. Hitler and the Nazis went on to lead German to another disastrous defeat and to national dismemberment. This time they were justly looked upon as a pariah among the nations. Again, what happened? What happened is that the character issue surfaced again. In spite of standing for many things the German people justly desired, and besides accomplishing some amazing things on behalf of the nation, there were from the beginning serious warning signs about the true nature of Adolph Hitler. He had already launched an aborted coup to seize control of the Bavarian government in Munich. From the prison cell where he wound up he had written a book, "Mein Kampf", outlining his radical program for the German nation. He conducted a bloody, murderous purge of his more radical followers to make himself more acceptable to the nation in his bid for power. Once in power he speedily moved to subvert the ordinary forms of constitutional government and to seize totalitarian power for himself. The German people however seemed prepared to overlook these "character flaws". The nation was strong and prosperous. Employment was good. What reason was there to complain? So they looked the other way as he seized total control of the nation. They acquiesced as he established a ruthless secret police and began to crush his political opposition. They accepted the concentration camps for undesirables and the politicization of the justice system to serve the ends of the Nazi Party. Finally they looked the other way as he began to implement his radical racial theories by persecuting Jews and Gypsies etc.

In short the German people gave their answer to the issue that lies before the American people today. They decided that character doesn't matter. They decided that all that mattered was performance in office. Hitler had delivered. The nation was better off than ever before. Long live Hitler! But neither Hitler nor the Third Reich had long to live. Ultimately Hitler's character flaws brought the nation to ruin and destruction. Ultimately character mattered.

Today we have to decide the same issue as a nation that confronted the German people in the 1930's. We have to decide does it matter if an elected official breaks his oath of office. We have to decide if it matters that he breaks his marriage vows, that he lies to the nation, and perjures himself under oath. We have to decide if a man who can't be trusted with another man's daughter can be entrusted with the welfare of the nation. We have to decide if all that counts is good employment figures and a rising stock market, or if character does actually matter. The jury is still out pending the 2000 elections but so far the signs are not encouraging that the American people will be any wiser than the German people were a generation ago. If they are not, then they too will ultimately have to learn that lesson the hard way.