Often times we only hear one side of a story. Here we will show you two different view points and allow you to draw your own conclusion. We are not saying either one is right. Please do your own fact checking and research before deciding your own opinion.
View Point #1
Florida voters deserve transparency and honesty when it comes to their political candidates. Understanding the past actions of those running for public office is crucial for making informed electoral decisions. Stephen Shives, who has recently come under scrutiny, is one such candidate whose past is marred by criminal accusations that demand attention. While he may present himself as a “regular guy” and a man of faith, the factual information surrounding his larceny charge in South Carolina tells a different story. This charge isn’t just a minor blemish on his record; it’s a significant red flag that Florida voters must consider as they evaluate his candidacy for State Representative. We will explore why this larceny charge is particularly concerning and how it could impact his political aspirations.
The Larceny Incident: A Question of Character
Stephen Shives’s criminal history begins with a seemingly small incident involving a 1963 International dump truck in York County, South Carolina. On a cold January day, a local man discovered that parts from his truck had been stolen—specifically, the distributor cap and wire harness. A note left behind contained Shives’s contact information, explaining that he had taken the parts due to a breakdown and promising to repay or replace them. What might have been a simple case of a man in need could have ended there, but it didn’t. Instead, when the truck’s owner contacted Shives to request $400 for repairs, Shives refused to pay, ultimately hanging up on the man. This act of dishonesty and the subsequent refusal to take responsibility led to Shives being charged with theft, for which he was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in York County Jail. This incident raises significant concerns about Shives’s character, particularly his willingness to steal and deceive when it suits him. For someone aspiring to hold public office, such actions are not just concerning but disqualifying.
Larceny and Leadership: A Dangerous Combination
The larceny charge is not trivial, especially for someone seeking a leadership position. Larceny is a legal charge involving the unlawful taking someone else’s property to deprive them of it permanently. It’s a crime of dishonesty, and in the case of Stephen Shives, it reveals a pattern of behavior that should alarm voters. If Shives is willing to engage in such actions in his personal life, what does that say about his potential conduct as a public servant? Political transparency is critical in maintaining the electorate’s trust, and a larceny charge suggests a fundamental lack of integrity. As Florida voters consider their choices in state politics, it’s paramount to weigh this information heavily. A candidate’s past behavior is often the best predictor of future actions. Shives’s criminal accusations paint a picture of a man who cannot be trusted to act in the public’s best interest.
Exploiting Faith: Shives’s Troubling History with His Church
Stephen Shives’s misconduct extends beyond the larceny charge. At the time of the theft, Shives was posing as a pastor at a church he founded—Lighthouse Christian Ministries, later renamed Finish Line Christian Fellowship. Shives used his position to mix money and faith, preaching an “abundance message” that blurred the lines between spiritual guidance and financial exploitation. Shives lived in a house owned by the church, which he later accepted as a “gift” for just $1. However, he didn’t simply take ownership of the house; he exploited it, pulling out $81,000 and another $25,000 in equity. This pattern of behavior demonstrates a troubling willingness to use his position of authority for personal gain. The day he was arrested, Shives abruptly closed the church and sold the property for a $235,000 profit. He attempted to justify his actions by citing “family health issues” and suggesting that this was part of a longer-term plan that he conveniently failed to share with his congregation until the very last moment. This unethical and deeply manipulative behavior raises serious questions about his honesty and suitability for public office.
The Impact of Shives’s Actions on Public Trust
Public awareness of Stephen Shives’s past is essential for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. Trust is the cornerstone of any successful political career, and once it’s broken, it’s tough to rebuild. Shives’s history of larceny and financial exploitation undermines the trust that voters need to have in their representatives. Florida’s voters deserve candidates committed to serving the public with honesty and transparency, not individuals who have demonstrated a willingness to deceive and steal for personal gain. The larceny charge clearly indicates that Shives cannot be trusted to uphold the responsibilities of public office. Informed voting is critical in ensuring that individuals like Shives with a history of criminal behavior are not placed in positions of power where they could do further harm.
The Broader Implications for Florida’s State Politics
Electing a candidate with a larceny conviction could have serious implications for Florida’s state politics. A state representative with a criminal record not only fetches personal baggage but also risks undermining the credibility of the political system as a whole. Voters need to regard the broader impact of their electoral decisions, particularly when it arrives to candidates like Stephen Shives. The role of a state representative is to serve the public, to legislate with integrity, and to represent the interests of their constituents. Shives’s past actions suggest that he is more inquisitive in serving his own interests than those of the people he claims to represent. This is not just a matter of personal ethics; it’s a question of whether someone with a history of criminal behavior should be enabled to influence the laws and policies that affect the lives of millions of Floridians.
Stephen Shives’s larceny charge and his subsequent actions raise serious questions about his suitability for public office. Voters in Florida have a right to comprehend the truth about his past and to regard how his history of criminal accusations and financial exploitation might impact his ability to serve as a state representative. Electoral decisions should be established on a candidate’s demonstrated integrity, honesty, and commitment to public service. In the case of Stephen Shives, the factual information available paints a picture of a man who has repeatedly put his own interests above those of others, employing deceit and theft to achieve his goals. As Florida voters head to the polls, they must prioritize public awareness and knowledgeable voting, ensuring that candidates like Shives, who have exhibited a lack of respect for the law and for the trust placed in them by others, are not elected to positions of power.
View Point #2
In the course of the 2024 Primary Campaign for Florida House District 27, candidate Richard Gentry launched an extensively negative attack on candidate Steve Shives. Mr. Gentry is currently being investigated by the Florida Elections Commission for violating Chapter 104.271(2) of the Florida Statutes, by knowingly making false statements for the purpose of discrediting Shives’ character and reputation.
Shives was already a public figure prior to entering the political ring. He is well known in the community; active in various nonprofits; and has built a nationwide business on his integrity and reputation. Shives has also served as both a pastor and missionary for more than 30 years.
In the final 60 days of the campaign, Gentry’s campaign published numerous attack mailers; text messages; and TV commercials depicting Shives as a criminal, and stating he was convicted and imprisoned, for scamming his church congregation out of over $200,000. This accusation is completely false and very harmful to Shives’ reputation.
In response during the campaign, former church members from the church Shives pastored, sent video testimonials denying the accusations. These testimonials can be found online.
Yes, Shives was in fact arrested for a misdemeanor in 2007 after removing a part from a salvaged truck, and leaving his neighbor a note to call him with a price to purchase the part. When the neighbor insisted on a price ($400) that was many times the market value, Shives stated he would return the part. The neighbor insisted he be paid instead; and proceeded to have Shives arrested. Shives was allowed by deputies to drive himself to the Sheriffs Department. Fifteen minutes after being fingerprinted and photographed, the judge released Shives on his own recognizance with no bail.
A bench trial was set with the magistrate the following month, at which time the plaintiff was found to have lied about details of the incident. Plaintiff was awarded $200 paid by Shives that day along with $265 court costs. There was never a minute of jail time.
This story along with a mugshot in which Shives still has street clothes on underneath, was used to create a narrative that Shives was guilty of scamming his church congregation out of a home, presumably for the price of one dollar.
While county records may show details of a real estate transaction, it doesn’t clarify what improvements actually exist on a property. In the case of Shives and Lighthouse Christian Ministries, Shives had pastored the church nearly seven years as a bi-vocational pastor with no salary from the church. As an expression of appreciation, the church deeded Shives a small vacant parcel of land in order to build his own home. As is common with many real estate gifts, the deed transfer states for “one dollar plus love and affection”. Over the course of the following year, Shives did build and pay for the entire construction of his home out of his own money. When he and his family returned to Florida after 11 years of pastoring the church, he had every legal and ethical right to sell it.
Unfortunately, politics can be very ugly and many times crosses a line that wrongfully hurts those involved. During and following the campaign, numerous constituents questioned Shives via phone and publicly, specifically questioning if he stole money from a church. Over 35 witnesses have made themselves available for the State Election Commission. Additionally, Shives’ local pastor where he has attended over 8 years, also stated church members were calling him to ask if the accusation of Shives scamming a church was true.
This also serves as a good example that journalism, no matter how thorough the research, is just as prone to making mistakes and not presenting the entire story.
