Categories - Blog

Can a woman who can’t lead herself lead a nation?

It’s one of the oldest questions in politics and leadership: does moral integrity matter? Should we judge public figures by their private lives, or only by the outcomes of their public actions?

If a man or woman leads a country out of war, rescues an economy, or inspires a generation, should it concern us that they live a private life of chaos — sex, drugs, and rock and roll behind the curtain? Would Churchill’s whisky, Kennedy’s women, or today’s presidents’ indiscretions cancel out their public legacy?

Or is moral character inseparable from public trust — a person who cannot lead their own life or family surely cannot lead a nation with consistency, compassion, or restraint?

The convenient split

We like to split our heroes into compartments: the “private sinner” and the “public saviour.” It’s a comforting division. It allows us to admire brilliance while ignoring hypocrisy. But the two lives often bleed into one another.

A politician who cheats on his spouse might also cheat the public purse. A bishop who silences victims to protect the Church’s “reputation” might also protect power over truth. The capacity to lie at home often mirrors the capacity to lie in office.

Yet we’re also inconsistent in how we apply moral judgment. We forgive King Charles for betraying Diana — perhaps because his failings feel very human, almost Shakespearean. We condemn Prince Andrew, perhaps because his moral failures are no longer deniable. We elected a U.S. president with a criminal record, while deriding other nations for their corruption. And Boris Johnson — a man who fathered children by multiple women and lied with theatrical ease — remains, for some, a symbol of British optimism and charm.

Why? Because we admire confidence and results more than truthfulness. We are addicted to charisma, even when it’s dishonest.

The hypocrisy trap

Double standards abound. Politicians who campaign for “family values” are caught in affairs. Leaders who condemn crime are found embezzling taxes or funnelling money through offshore accounts. Religious figures who preach humility dress in gold and cover up abuse.

We seem to accept a quiet hypocrisy as part of public life. Perhaps we believe everyone is flawed. Perhaps we have grown cynical. Or perhaps, deep down, we know that to hold others accountable would mean holding ourselves accountable too.

But what about results?

The counterargument is simple: results matter. If a morally ambiguous leader ends a war, rebuilds an economy, or brings stability, should we care what happens in their bedroom? Isn’t the private life a private matter?

Yet the danger lies in normalising duplicity. If we say integrity is optional, we lose the right to expect honesty at all. The same man who cheats his wife may one day cheat his country — and we will have taught him that it doesn’t matter.

The measure of leadership

True leadership begins with self-leadership. A person who cannot govern their own impulses, desires, and relationships will eventually govern others with the same inconsistency. Integrity is not about moral perfection — it’s about coherence. When private truth aligns with public duty, trust becomes possible.

A man who cannot lead himself, or his family, may command authority, but he does not inspire it. Without inner discipline, power becomes performance.

The uncomfortable truth

Perhaps the question is not whether moral integrity matters — but why we keep pretending it doesn’t.

We can tolerate imperfection. We can forgive mistakes. But when deceit becomes normalised, leadership turns hollow. A man or woman who cannot tell the truth in private cannot be trusted to tell it in public.

And that, surely, is where the line must still be drawn.

False Fundamentalism: Erasmus v. Luther

Hans Holbein the Younger, Portrait of Erasmus of Rotterdam

Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536) is often regarded as the pioneer of historical-biblical criticism — a discipline that continues to polarise attitudes to the Bible today.

A highly gifted academic, a Catholic priest, and in many ways one of the first genuine citizens of Europe, Erasmus was also the illegitimate son of a priest. Both his parents died of the plague when he was a teenager. These hardships helped shape his lifelong belief in synergism (salvation is a work of both God and human co-operation), in contrast to the monergism (salvation is a work of God alone) preached by Luther and many Protestants since the Reformation.

Erasmus the Humanist

Erasmus was a pacifist who wanted Christianity to be lived out in daily practice. He feared that Luther’s belligerence would fracture the church — which is exactly what happened. Yet Erasmus was also a product of his time: a humanist who sought to move faith away from lofty scholastic debates and root it once again in the lives of ordinary people.

That concern drove him to produce accurate translations of the Bible from authentic manuscripts, placing them into the hands of ordinary believers.

The Problem of the Vulgate

For centuries the church relied on the Vulgate, a 4th-century Latin translation. When Erasmus compared it with manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew, he found countless errors — mistranslations, omissions, outright mistakes.

This raises uncomfortable questions for fundamentalists:

If the Bible is the infallible Word of God, why did God permit flawed versions for the first 1,500 years of church history?
If Christians are meant to base their lives on Scripture, what did they do during the early centuries when no agreed New Testament even existed — and when its canon was decided by human choices?
What if more accurate manuscripts were discovered tomorrow? Would faith collapse?
Why did God wait until the 18th century for scholars to unearth more reliable manuscripts, leaving believers with errant texts for nearly 1,700 years?

Pragmatists vs. Fundamentalists

These questions split Christians into two camps. Erasmus and his heirs take the pragmatic view: human errors in transmission do not negate the central message of Jesus.

Fundamentalists, by contrast, insist that every word of Scripture is directly inspired, perfectly preserved, and must be correctly interpreted in “synergy with the Spirit.” They claim a monopoly on truth while conveniently overlooking the centuries of textual mistakes God apparently permitted.

Seeds of Criticism

Erasmus thus planted the seeds of modern historical-biblical criticism. If the text contains human flaws, then textual criticism is necessary. From there follow source, form, and literary criticism.

To many fundamentalists, these methods are “tools of the devil.” But the devil himself is a mythical construct — a figure invented by those in power to keep ordinary people in fear and obedience. What fundamentalists really fear is the erosion of their authority over naïve believers.

Erasmus Ahead of His Time

Erasmus held on to his synergistic convictions, alienating many theologians of his day. In hindsight, he was far ahead of his time.

And the core question remains: Which kind of Christian most resembles Jesus?

The one who lives daily in gratitude, prayer, and service, applying the main tenets of Scripture with humility?
Or the one who thunders fundamentalist slogans while ignoring beggars, railing against minorities, and collaborating in the destruction of the planet?

Which vision reflects the heart of Jesus more closely: Erasmus’ synergism, where humans freely cooperate with God to make the world better, or Luther’s monergism, where salvation is a matter of predestined grace and the rest are damned from birth?

After all, in Matthew 19, Jesus gave the rich young man a choice.

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
— F. Scott Fitzgerald

The mirror we all hold

“For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
— 1 Corinthians 13:12

In the Bible’s finest chapter on love, we find the core of what all human beings seek: to know the truth and to be loved unconditionally. Some are forced to abandon the search by war, famine, or disaster. Others numb it with money, power, routine, or religion. But painters, composers, writers, and prisoners ache until the search is done. Life may be a poor player strutting its hour upon the stage, yet it remains a miraculous gift. In my own search, this is what I have learned:

Our reality is socially constructed. It is not simply out there, an objective truth. It is shaped through interaction, language, and shared meaning. What we take as natural or real is the result of human processes. We create culture, institutions, and practices until they appear objective, unquestionable. Society is a human product, and humans are also a product of society.

So, God is not dead; she was never alive. Human beings are distinguished by language, and only with language could we invent the search for truth and love and confront our fear of death. We created narratives to explain, console, and control — each shaped by its ethnicity. When those narratives masquerade as religion, they breed arrogance and division, and evil flourishes in the shadows they cast.

In postmodern times, these grand stories have been dismantled, leaving behind fragments of wisdom, still priceless, still relevant. With their collapse comes the dissolution of absolute truth, the perfect mirror. We are left with fractured mirrors that blur and distort. We will never see face to face. We will never fully know.

Yet one certainty remains: we are constellations of atoms, stardust reassembled by chance and time, hurtling around our sun on a rock at 67,000 mph. DNA coils like ancient runes in every cell, issuing silent instructions: become, live, persist. From this choreography comes breath, thought, memory: a mother’s laughter, longing for distant places, a lover’s hand in the dark. We invent gods and heroes, build cathedrals and poems, grieve, and love. All this from fragile molecules wrapped in skin. Just chemistry. An echo of evolution. And yet: is it not a miracle that matter dreams at all?

As animals without God, we are capable of both the sublime and the grotesque, like a spider whose web can dazzle, yet devour. Both poles dwell in every heart. When misaligned in childhood, they consume more than they weave. Our destruction harms others as much as ourselves. Only when such misalignment is brought into the light, described and objectified, can disaster be averted. There is no cure, but it can be managed.

And yes, we need others. The fool thinks he can do it alone, with drugs or double lives. But we are social creatures, destined to create and to destroy together. We are the same story, written in different ink, linked like islands beneath the ocean. We need one another to hold up the mirrors in which we might glimpse truth — and love.

Love is the fiction we live and die for. Our need for sex and closeness becomes sonnet and story, until the invention feels more real than the words that birthed it. Yet in that fiction, light is found. And only in that light do the mirrors reflect enough to end our search.

The arts are our vehicle for this search. Education is archaic. It is preserved that way by an oligarchy masquerading as democracy to secure the success of its offspring. Were curricula ever to be revised, the arts must not be replaced by AI or science, but contextualised by them. Only then might humanity move toward security and enlightenment, instead of decline and crime.

I’d be very interested in your comments.

The Myth of Inerrancy

When I was part of a charismatic, Bible-believing church, I was taught — and I believed — that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God.

God the Holy Spirit, I was told, had inspired men to write down exactly what He wanted them to say. As proof, our teachers would point to 2 Timothy 3:16:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Only recently did I realise that “Scripture” here refers to the Old Testament — as it does in the other fifty places the New Testament writers use the term. We were taught, largely on the shaky basis of 2 Peter 3:16, that the New Testament was also “Scripture,” and therefore equally God-breathed and inerrant. Hence, everything in our Bibles was presented as authoritative beyond question.

Life Inside the Sect

When you live inside a sect, you accept such propositions because:

you love and respect your leaders,
you fear rejection by friends,
and above all, you dread God’s wrath lest you “distort the truth to your own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

But once you leave that environment and begin to research the topics never addressed by preachers, the cracks appear quickly.

The Chaotic Canon

First: the New Testament canon itself.

The books and letters included were chosen during the three centuries after Jesus’ death through arguments, compromises, and confusion. To call that process “inerrant” is impossible.

If you believe instead that God guided the church flawlessly through this chaos, then the church itself becomes higher in authority than Scripture. That is precisely the Roman Catholic position — long condemned as heresy by Protestants since Luther separated the apocryphal writings.

A Flawed Text

Second: Erasmus (1466–1536) showed clearly that the church lived for over a thousand years with a New Testament full of errors and omissions.

So how can the Bible be the inerrant Word of God if millions of Christians were following the wrong Bible for centuries?

Arrogant Certainty

Third: in the sect where I spent twenty years, there prevailed an arrogant certainty that “our” interpretation was the only correct one.

Historical and cultural context was dismissed as irrelevant. The Holy Spirit, we were told, would simply provide our preachers with flawless understanding.

So, if Acts 10 describes baptism in the Spirit with tongues, miracles, and prophecy, then this must be the norm for every Christian, forever. Anyone who preached otherwise was a heretic — including the entire Baptist Church. I actually believed this.

And yet I never questioned why women in our services didn’t wear head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:6), or why they were allowed to speak and prophesy when Paul wrote that women should remain silent and it was “disgraceful” for them to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:34–35).

Selective Literalism

The same inconsistencies plague the Old Testament.

Why do fathers no longer present disobedient sons to be stoned to death?
Why are women not excluded from worship during their periods?
Why are practising homosexuals not “annihilated” as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah — a story which, in fact, has nothing to do with homosexuality?

This selective literalism always comes down to the same thing: an abuse of authority cloaked in divine certainty.

The Bible and Its Abusers

The Bible is an extraordinary piece of inspired literature. For many, it is genuinely a revelation of God.

But those who wield claims of inerrancy as a weapon — to bolster their arrogance, to demand obedience, to silence dissent — should be ashamed. For centuries, such misuse has caused division, pain, and even death in the name of Christ.

“When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”
— Desmond Tutu