
In the course of the election and the death of Jimmy Carter, I heard these two statements or the equivalent from different people:
“Donald Trump is a bad man, but he was a good president.”
“Jimmy Carter was a good man, but he was a bad president.”
I also heard contrary views–that Jimmy Carter was not a good man and that Trump is–but I don’t want to discuss the alleged virtues and vices of our presidents. I want to discuss how such observations fit with the doctrine of vocation.
Is it possible for a “bad person” to carry out his or her vocation well? Or is it possible for a “good person” to do a bad job with his or her vocation?
I know that “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18). I’m referring to external civic virtue and/or the sanctified righteousness that is fruit of faith. I’m not thinking of a “bad job” in the sense of, say, a business failure, but in violating or for some reason failing to carry out the vocation as it should be done.
Clearly the phenomenon exists. Henry VIII was a bad man, but historians consider him a pretty good king; while Edward the Confessor was literally a saint, but he was a bad king. The most beloved figures are good in both senses (Gustavus Adolphus; or, for presidents Washington and Lincoln). We see something similar in less exalted kinds of leadership. A bad man might be good at running a company, while a good man might be ineffective.
What about other vocations? Can a bad man be a good husband? If so, in what sense is he bad? Can a good man be a bad husband? If so, in what sense is he good? What about the vocation of pastor?
Considering such paradoxes might help us fine tune our understanding of vocation. Help me out here.