Anytime we seek to support or reject a person for a particular role or position, our usual defense is to claim we are sitting on sound moral grounds. We all want to promote those we view as good and reject those that are bad. Unfortunately, the reality is often far from our estimates and as a result, we frequently end up disappointed.
When we receive someone as "good' or as "bad" we are merely expressing our own limitations. We boast we know them by their fruits. Fine. But remember that those are the fruits you can see.
Many are the evil and rotten fruits that many of our most celebrated heroes have tucked away in hidden cupboards. And who can number the untold redeeming virtues of those whom we have blocked our hearts and senses against based on certain undesirable fruits we have seen in them!
It is better for us to seek for germaneness between people's known fruits and the issue at hand rather than an umbrella castigation of "he's good" or "he's bad'.
Good for what? Bad for what? We should strive for a fitness for purpose. It was popularly said that the attributes that made Winston Churchill a good leader at war time made him undesirable at peace time. Similarly, JFK was an awesome President but such a philanderer would hardly have been your favorite pastor. I would prefer an arrogant expert neurosurgeon than a humble but average one to operate on me, even though I loath arrogance with a passion!
We should therefore guard against blind reliance on just personal preferences alone in choosing leaders, professionals, artisans, and even teammates but also always give consideration to specific clinically-relevant ability.
Only God is a righteous judge.
