Should raising children be a qualification for public office? Here's what to consider

Does the experience of raising children confer an advantage on those seeking positions of public leadership?

This conversation hit a fever pitch when a clip resurfaced of Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance, telling Tucker Carlson about the childless status of many prominent Democrats.

"We’re effectively run in this country via the Democrats via our corporate oligarchs by childless cat ladies ... the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. How does it make any sense that we have turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?” Vance said.

The left's reaction has centered on three critiques of Vance's position.

First, leftists argue it's unfair to those unable to have children. Second, they claim it's a suggestion that a childless person is less capable of making long-term wise and moral decisions. And third, they declare that it's none of your business. People can choose whatever unique life choices they want.

The problem of the younger person — or childless person without a stake in the future — making self-interested decisions is a plague on our modern politics.

But I’d like to take a step back and explore how a biblically minded Christian might see the question of whether children play a unique role in making someone qualified for public leadership. Because, fair or unfair to those who are single or physically unable to bear children, the Bible in both the Old and New Testament links a person’s family life to his or her fitness for governance.

While listing the qualifications for appointing a council of elders for governance, the apostle Paul writes, “If someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?” (1 Timothy 3:5 ESV).

Likewise when listing the qualifications for an official position of serving, Paul mentions that deacons must “manage their children and their own households well” (1 Timothy 3:12 ESV).

Some have asked: Does this mean that single people are not able to hold these positions? Does this make a childless person — like the apostle Paul, who wrote these statements, or Jesus Christ, who was celibate and single — unqualified to sit on a council of elders?

I would answer yes, Paul and Jesus are not appropriate candidates for these two positions.

This understanding that certain lifestyles align with certain positions is deeply offensive to Western culture because we tell children from the earliest age possible, “You can be anything you want to be,” and we see the ability to attain certain positions as not primarily a matter of service or role but of identity.

However, this modern lens is not the lens used in ancient times or in the scriptures.

The pathway to become a village elder in ancient cultures and in certain places in the world today begins in the home. In a village, everyone can see the fruit of every parent’s management in how those subjected to it are fairing.

This is why Jesus quotes the ancient proverb, “Wisdom is justified by all her children” (Luke 7:35 ESV). The word “all” is important in this proverb. Fathers and mothers with multiple children have to manage the very tricky circumstances of a variety of personalities, and if, despite this enormous challenge, all of their children are thriving under their leadership, then their wisdom is justified.

But the second element that explains why raising children qualified someone for governance was their season of life. The Greek word for elder, like the English word, literally means “old man.” In other words, we want those who have fewer years ahead of them and have a huge stake in the future of the village through their growing number of grandchildren to make decisions and set the policies for our community. A younger man, on the other hand, might be more worried about himself and what he can gain when making decisions for the whole village.

The problem of the younger person — or childless person without a stake in the future — making self-interested decisions is a plague on our modern politics. We can all see how it has become the norm, and it's one of the factors responsible for Congress' abysmal approval rating in recent years as we’ve grown to suspect politics to be a game of every person out for him or herself.

So as we consider the variable of raising children as a qualification for leadership, there are three buckets that most positions on this topic fit into.

Bucket #1: Having successfully raised healthy, happy children gives no indication as to someone’s qualification for leadership.

This seems to be an extreme position, and my guess is that many Democrats are moving to this position, not because they are unable to see the benefits that the experience of parenting may give to a candidate, but because admitting these benefits is unfair to those who cannot or have chosen not to have children.

In other words, they are more concerned about their perception of fairness than fitness for leadership.

I’m concerned by the prospect of more and more people who have never ruled a household but who nevertheless rule over millions of other people’s households.

Bucket #2: Having successfully raised healthy, happy children is one of many variables and is an achievement that ought to be considered in that candidate’s favor.

This seems to be a moderate position, and it's difficult to imagine someone arguing in good faith and refusing to admit that this should play some role in evaluating a candidate's fitness for office.

Then there is a third, more extreme position.

Bucket #3: Having successfully raised healthy, happy children is a necessary qualification for public leadership.

This appears to me to be too narrow of a position in pluralistic society.

My position and the position being described by JD Vance sounds like it fits broadly in Bucket #2. Vance was pointing to the trend of childless leaders as a troubling development — not arguing they be banned from public office.

I’m concerned by the prospect of more and more people who have never ruled a household but who nevertheless rule over millions of other people’s households.

Finally, for those who have chosen to be childless and to put a political career above family life, it’s fair to ask why they’ve made that decision. Perhaps there are good reasons for making that decision — but let's hear them.

If you want to rule over us, we have a right to know why you chose not make the sacrifices required 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 leaders who see public office as the next and perhaps final stage in a long progression of successful leadership roles that began in the home, continue in the workplace, and conclude in service to the public.