This is meant as a discussion starter.
I have to admit a couple of things. First, I am pretty passionate about politics. Though I believe the church should not be devoted to political work, I am quite interested in it myself.
Second, I’m having a struggle with voting this year in the presidential election.
There is no way that I could ever vote for Barack Obama as president. First of all, I made a commitment long ago that if someone believes that killing a baby in its mother’s womb is acceptable, they do not get my vote. Abortion isn’t the only thing I care about, but it is certainly a big issue. Obama’s disregard for the deficit is troubling – four more years of him may bankrupt America – or at least set us on a course that will inexorably lead to European-style bankruptcy. His flip-flop and now passionate advocacy of homosexual marriage is troubling, at best. Frankly, there is just not much that I like about Barack Obama’s policies.
Under no circumstances would I even consider voting for Obama for a second term.
And I’m not much for third party candidacies that have about as much chance of succeeding as do the Kansas City Royals. The Royals are not going to win the World Series and neither is a third-party candidate. Most of the third party candidates being floated seem like they would help Obama gain a second term and I cannot support that.
But, I am less than enthusiastic about voting for Mitt Romney.
While he holds several of the same positions I do, too many of them are late-life conversions. When he was governor of Massachusetts, he was liberal on some issues, but “saw the light” about the time he decided to run for national office as a Republican. That is concerning. How deep is his opposition to abortion? How real is his commitment to the issues I care about?
But one of my biggest quandaries is his Mormon faith. I consider Mormonism a false and deceptive religion that leads its adherents away from saving grace to a Christless and eternal hell. Yeah, I said it. Not only that, but Mormonism is actively evangelistic, attempting to sway people, especially nominal Christians, into believing their bizarre lies as the truth.
I am aware that Romney is not running for “Pastor-in-chief.” But he is a Mormon, who speaks openly of his faith. A Romney election would likely benefit the Mormon faith in some way, and I cannot consider that a good thing.
One more thing. I do not think that politics and biblical faith should be divorced. Our understanding of the Bible should inform our voting.
So, here’s my discussion question today.
Explain, biblically and theologically, the basis of your intended vote. I’m not so much interested in policy things right now. Tell me, according to scripture, why it is okay for me, as a Christian, to vote for a man who adheres to a false faith that damns its followers to eternal hell. Or, tell me why you think that it is wrong. I’m interested in hearing the theology that informs your politics.
(Wow, this discussion could SO go haywire!)
Oh, and one more question. Is it biblically acceptable to “make the best of a bad situation?” Is it enough to vote for Romney because “he’s not as bad as Obama?”
I guess if you can provide a biblical rationale for voting Obama, we could hear that as well.
I will delete political rantings that are not moored in biblical truth. I think that political operatives monitor blogs and we get a lot of suspicious traffic when a post like this goes up.
My interest here is specific – what is the biblical and theological rationale behind your vote?
I’ll get into how I plan to vote later, but I will point you to this question about whether not electing Romney would advance Mormonism to the detriment of Biblical Christianity:
Did Bill Clinton’s being a Southern Baptist really advance us that much? Or Jimmy Carter’s?
Did we see advances for the Methodists under George W. Bush or the Episcopalians under George H.W. Bush?
I think that this is a case of choosing who to hire to do a job, and while that job may echo into religious life, it is not explicitly religious. Whether or not that’s good is another discussion. However, in this case I think the goal here is to determine who is best fit to do the work.
And I’m with you, I have a hard time getting past a person’s stance on the value of human life. I know, though, that I have changed in my opinions over the years, so that someone’s position has changed is not the biggest issue for me. How deeply they are willing to act on what they claim now is a bigger question.
Third-party sounds great, but our system as it stands pretty well flattens those chances. Maybe it will take a successful third-party run to really shake that up, but this does not seem the year for it.
I cannot give you chapter and verse that says one way or the other–Christianity spread under the most wicked of Caesars and has sometimes faltered under the most well-intentioned of people.
You make a good point Doug. However, Southern Baptists, Methodists and Episcopalians already had a much more developed perception. Mormonism has been shrouded in mystery and has been less mainstream.
I guess my concern is about the mainstreaming of the perception of Mormonism.
I think even among Christian circles there is so much Biblical illiteracy that Mormonism is already mainstreaming just fine. After all, Joel Osteen has said that Mormons are Christians, and I have encountered plenty of folks who count that as good enough for them.
In other words—Romney’s candidacy will do all of that, win or lose. To me, that’s not really much of a factor for November. I would have voted against him in the primary on those grounds, but by the time we had the primary here, everyone else had quit, so I just voted in the non-partisan judicial part of the election and skipped it.
Dave,
Did you consider Rick Santorum to be an orthodox Christian? He seems to strictly adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
If Santorum is not orthodox, not a biblical Christian – in what sense is Santorum that different than Romney?
Unorthodox is still unorthodox. Heresy is still heresy. Do degrees of difference really matter if one is not orthodox?
Romney as President would certainly give Church of LDS much greater public credibility. No doubt. But the mainstreaming of Mormonism began long ago. There are well-known Mormons in just about every profession. There’s Glenn Beck. You’ve got Mormons in Hollywood. And you’ve got multiple Mormons as United States Senators – one who has served for a while now as Senate Majority Leader.
I can understand if you don’t want to personally contribute in any way to the mainstreaming of Mormonism. Romney may lose. Even if he does, he was still the GOP nominee for President. He will still have received 47-49% of the vote. Millions of people will have voted for a Mormon.
No, I do not consider Catholicism to be genuinely Christian, though there is enough truth in it that many Catholics have found saving grace in spite of the falseness of the Church.
Catholicism has a larger part of the truth than Mormonism, but neither is orthodox or proclaims the gospel faithfully.
But the Catholic church is already mainstream in America. My concern is that by voting for Romney (which I’m sure I will eventually do) I will help in the mainstreaming of Mormonism.
If it mainstreams as “Mormonism” rather than continuing to try and slide in as “another form of Christianity” then we’re better off, are we not?
Dave,
All I know is we as Christians are to participate in Government. As a citizen, I cannot sit out a year knowing men and women gave their lives for me to have the freedom to vote. I cannot deny their sacrifice. or how could we deny that Bible teaches our involvement and yet sit it out? I can’t nor do I think any Christian should.
Doug said it well – I doubt seriously that Romney winning would do much for Mormonism. He proves the point that no President has ever brought much recognition or boost to their religious label. I think people are over thinking this one.
So, we are to participate and participate we must. We vote for the best possible and trust God with the rest while we get busy telling the story of Jesus.
That’s my take!
That’s the eternal quandary. Do we vote the ideal, or do we settle for the best available?
We take what’s available and strive to make it ideal. The more I look at things, the more I think that is going to take a stronger effort to re-localize much of the decision-making in this country. Perhaps with the Federal Government as a “referee” to make sure that certain boundaries are not violated–the most common response to people that want more state’s rights is that we here in the South used those for Jim Crow, and I do NOT want those days brought back.
However, much of the rest of the things the Federal Government does are not necessarily a fed operation. That’s where many of the religious issues come to bear: I doubt that many, if any, in Arkansas County, Arkansas, object to the county jp’s opening their meeting with prayer, but in New York they might. Why not let NY have what they want and let us have what we want?
You look at delivery of social assistance. Down here in the South, the first place people come to for help is typically churches. Even the raging pagans do so (from experience)–going to the government is the last option that many will not take. Why put up barriers to using state food aid funds to fill the pantries at religious food pantries? Again, California might not want that, but it could be done here. Instead, though, the government is pouring money into overhead costs that could be skipped because churches are willing to do the work and foot that much of the bill. We just can’t keep enough food on the shelves with the money we’ve got sometimes.
So, to me, the ideal or the best available that I will vote for is the one that might possibly return many of these issues to a local decision. At the very least, that returns control of many items to the state instead of being concentrated in Washington. After all, whoever wins AR House-13 has a lot fewer of us to answer to than whoever wins AR-1 in the US Congress. In fact, I know where both candidates for state house live, and don’t mind going to knock and ask them when they’re going to do something useful.
In that light, the limiting-power vote goes to the guy who has to fear the next election. President Obama does not. Mitt Romney does. And yes, I would apply that test in 2016 as well–perhaps one-term is all any modern politician should have in the White House.
Dave,
One more thing – look at Daniel! He served in two unGodly Governments and was used by God in a huge way. In fact, he was a BIG TIME leader in both!
God never said we would have a Christian Government. He just said serve and live Godly!
That would be an interesting thing to chew on a little – Daniel and his service to wicked kings.
Gotta chew on that one. Interesting.
If Romney was so dedicated a Mormon we would have seen a greater devotion to conservative stances on moral issues his entire political career. I do agree with Tim G. Our government is a tool that God is using and sometimes He will use the lost for His purposes. I think of Joseph in addition the example of Daniel working within a government that was pagan. That said, if I were to vote for Romney it would be because I don’t believe he would allow infringement on religious freedom or intrusion by the government into the church but at the same time once we vote him in we are stuck with him again as our Republican candidate in 2016 and that does not excite me either.
At the moment I am seriously considering sitting out this year’s Presidential Election because I see nothing in either candidate that would give me reason, as a Christian, to support. I do plan to vote in local and state elections and in the Congressional election because I can sense an element of goodness in the granting of my vote. However, in the presidential race, I cannot see my way to vote for either candidate because neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney has grasped the essential transformative aspect of being in Christ. Leaving aside the spiritual dimension, I see nothing in the civic aspects of either presidential candidate that would make me want to vote. Barack Obama has a philosophy of government that is fundamentally different from mine. He sees government as the central unifying and guiding force in our lives and I do not. I believe that while government can do some good, it remains a force to be viewed with suspicion and restraint because ultimately it acts to preserve and enhance its power. Barack Obama sees government as the ultimate arbiter/guarantor/enforcer of an arbitrary sense of fairness, prosperity, and wellness while I tend to look to love to bind us together and ameliorate our difficulties. As for Mitt Romney I sense he is merely a resume in search of an anointing. While he would certainly tend to be more conservative, I still get the sense that his candidacy is about power, i.e. the reclamation of the Executive Branch by the Republican Party. While I can see some good that might come from Romney’s election (i.e. elimination of governmental support for abortion), I do not see any conviction behind these positions of goodness, only the political expediency of keeping its “base” mollified. Thus, right now I am undecided. I certainly understand my civic responsibility to vote and, having served as an Infantry officer in Viet Nam, the cost of that right. Still, it ought to mean something and right now I do not see the meaning.
Well put Jim
I desperately want all of our American citizens to have the right to vote in this election, according to their consciences.
As for myself, I DO know from sacred Scripture many things about the dignity of the human person, and the Source of that dignity.
I also know the complex teachings of my Church on social doctrine issues (hardly ‘one issue’) , so for people like me, ‘it’s complicated’ is a expression.
And, as an American, with a say in what happens as a result of MY vote,
I must consider the REALITIES of what IS happening in our country to many of our citizens for whom I have a most Christian obligation to stand WITH, in solidarity, in the way of my faith.
So, what forms my conscience regarding ‘voting’ IS affected by
sacred Scripture,
by the Compendium of Social Doctrine of my Church,
by the realities of what has happened to so many of our citizens,
by a deep need of conscience to stand WITH them in their trouble
at this time,
and by a deep respect for the fact that people have DIED so that I can go to the polls and vote . . . my vote is made sacred by their sacrifice, also.
I know, for many, ‘one issue’ suffices. I can respect that for them, but for me, it is NOT so easy. Not if, by voting without a careful examination of consequences, I could bring down suffering directly on so very many vulnerable people of all ages in our country.
DAVID, the sacred Scriptures that I am relying on to inform my vote are located at the end of this reference:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#INDEX%20OF%20REFERENCES
I do focus intensely on the references to sacred writings within the four gospels of Our Lord, but there are HUNDREDS of other references which impact my conscience.
I hope this comment responds somewhat to your wish for references in sacred Scripture that will influence a vote.
I understand the reservation that some have concerning the voting of either candidate. I agree with Tim G. that so many have dies so that we might have the freedom to vote. I feel that anyone who does not vote for Romney because of his Morminism does not see the big picture. At least, Romney supports many of the same social concerns of the conservatives. I will hold my nose and vote for him. I am electing a president, not a pastor. I beleive that the alternative is a step toward socialism and a much liberal government that will be anti-conservative values and even a determent to our freedom as Christians.
Vote against Obama. Pray for the next Reagan. Ignore arguments of Little Merritt.
If abortion really is the #1 priority, then what’s the value of praying for the next Ronald Reagan.
Reagan delivered to you Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, two Supreme Court Justices that repeatedly upheld the right to an abortion up until the Third Trimester.
Is that what you’re praying for? A candidate and a party that speaks the language you want to hear, you give your vote and in return, you get what exactly?
Would love to see you engage Jonathan Merritt’s arguments rather than try to be cute. I disagree a good bit with some of his arguments but his critique of partisan Christianity and its accompanying rhetoric that lacks civility is certainly worthy of discussion.
Very true, Aaron.
We have voted for pro-life candidates for whom the pro-life issue was a political stance and not a passion. That’s one reason I liked Santorum – I believe his pro-life stance was genuine. Romney? Not sure. Maybe his conversion was genuine.
Wow, you didn’t like Reagan, the best President in my lifetime. Granted, his SC appointments did not agree with his book, “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation.” That WAS a disappointment.
Speaking of disappointments, nearly everything that comes out of media darling Jonathan Merritt’s mouth is a repudiation of my cherished conservative Christian ideals and values. He is not the Antichrist, but he IS the Antidobson, the Antikennedy and the Antifalwell. Sadly, he would probably consider those descriptions compliments. I do not mean them that way. I don’t believe his arguments are worth engaging, which is why I recommend ignoring them.
Aside from Al Mohler and Richard Land, Jonathan Merritt has been the most publicly visible Southern Baptist over the last couple of years. He’s become a regular on CNN lately.
I don’t see how you can ignore him. Denny Burk and Owen Strachan among others have recognized that Merritt can’t be ignored; that’s why they’ve chosen to engage him. Nevertheless, among Southern Baptists in the pews, I think there’s much that Merritt offers that folks can agree with especially 40s and under crowd.
Meet JOHNATHAN MERRITT
http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m26P02Y8Y3G300/ref=ent_fb_link
I’d say here in Johnathan Merritt, you have a Southern Baptist who sees deeply into the Kingdom of God;
and that in ignoring him, people will have overlooked a profoundly perceptive voice.
I agree with you regarding his regrettable visibility on CNN and other outlets. That’s why I called him a “media darling.” They like Lady Gaga, Howard Stern and Michael Moore as well, all individuals I additionally recommend ignoring, as their political views do not line up with what is best for America. That shapers of Baptist opinion contribute to his growing stature, my own comments included, is a shame. Ironically, when one calls for another’s ideas to be ignored or rejected, it only draws more attention to them.
I never said Merritt wasn’t famous. I simply said, in my opinion, he deserves to be ignored. I believe the left can use his influence just as much as he claims the right has used the influence of Dobson, Land, Falwell and others. He can be a very helpful tool in the hands of the Religious Left, a far more dangerous group than the Religious Right ever was, is or could possibly become.
No, he is not part of the Religious Left per se, but by weakening the strength and the stands of the Religious Right, our system is thrown off balance. Without Southern Baptists offering a strongly conservative stance, I believe the political discussion in America shifts sharply to the left, moving the boundaries in a way that marginalizes conservative Christians to an extreme degree.
Merritt is your fellow Southern Baptist. Be decent and show him a little ounce of respect. Comparing him to Howard Stern and Lady Gaga is beyond over-the-top
What’s wrong with Merritt’s message that no group should be the handmaiden of any political party. In the case of conservative white evangelicals, it’s with the GOP.
The irony here is that conservative white evangelicals have criticized black evangelicals and the larger African-American community for their unwavering support of the Democratic Party. The argument goes that unified voting blocs that consistently support one party are eventually ignored and taken for granted.
Yet, that’s what you want. You want an even more solidified, united voting bloc of white evangelicals for the GOP. Merritt simply points out the historical dangers and pitfalls to this type of partisan Christianity.
I don’t know if you’ve read his book. I have. He’s equally critical of both sides.
The problem with you, Strachan and Burk is that you are quick to take offense to any fellow evangelical who criticizes beloved leaders of the past like Falwell. Well, Falwell was a flawed person as well all are. Hero-worship isn’t healthy, ya know. Many people – including more than a few conservative evangelicals – believe and believed that he was too partisan.
Merritt gets heat for stating what many already believe. Moving forward, I’m not sure why conservative evangelicals feel the need to so closely identify with specific persons like Dobson, Perkins, and the late Fawell.
If you’re going participate in the public square and be a public voice, be prepared for criticism. Those guys aren’t above criticism. They aren’t perfect and their approach to politics is a legitimate area for criticism. This “evangelical code” that Strachan and Burk apparently hold to (don’t openly criticize a fellow evangelical in public) is just weird.
Also voting behavior shouldn’t be a litmus test for any faith. And we all ought to be able to express our faith in the public square in different ways through support for different candidates without one’s salvation called into question (as is often the case).
I went searching to see if there was a LDS document that corresponded to my Church’s ‘Compendium on Social Doctrine’.
I did find something interesting and have included an excerpt.
But how trust-worthy this article and report is, I can’t verify, so take it with a grain of salt (and light):
“Where the LDS Church stands on …
Abortion
The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”
The article is supposedly by Peggy Fletcher Stack,
a journalist with supposed bona fides connected to the LDS faith,
and her article was supposedly printed in the Salt Lake Tribune (again not verified):
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon727.html
The problem with verification: that ‘handbook’ is supposed to be ‘on-line’ but I can’t locate it properly. The handbook is only officially distributed to Mormon leaders.
Like I said, please don’t bank on this info . . . but perhaps one of you all could locate a proper site containing the whole intact handbook.
Stack is a good journalist, her quotation hre is accurate but incomplete. This 1972 quotation from the LDS First Presidency is still Mormon policy:
“The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.”
“Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.”
“Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, ‘Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it’.” [Bold emphasis ours] 3,4
There is no religious test for political office in the USA. When we try to make one, we are wrong.
Had the founders intended there to be one, it’d be in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It’s not.
Were this intended to be a Christian nation, I’d expect Jesus to have been at least mentioned in those documents. He’s not.
Were it to be any different, they might have at least mentioned “Our Creator” by Name. They didn’t.
The task of the public is to vote for the person who will govern the nation most capably. It has nothing to do with the faith. I wish folks wouldn’t try to make it so.
That’s my discussing on the topic.
Have a nice day. I am.
🙂
Bob: I disagree totally. I am to vote my convictions which has everything to do with my faith. I am grateful for the right to vote, but that right isn’t just for the Presidency, I vote in the city elections and other elections.
I cannot vote for Romney and not only because Southern Baptists groomed him in the last election so he knows just what to do and say to win us over(and it’s evidently working) but because he is Mormon I cannot. And yes, it has to do with my beliefs.
Christ didn’t say that the United States had to be a Christian nation because the United States isn’t mentioned anywhere in scripture which was written in first century language and examples. Not 21st century. The Bible should be read in that context.
This may be the first election that I sit out or vote third party.
Debbie (and anyone else), I hope you won’t choose to “sit out”. A “non-vote” is viewed by the political pundits as apathy, where at least a third party vote can be counted and viewed as a different political philosophy, protest and/or disagreement with the status quo.
I misspoke a few times on this subject. This will be the second Presidential election I will have sat out.
Robert: It doesn’t matter to me what political pundits say and it never has. I vote according to my conscience and my faith. I usually vote faithfully in all elections, and when I was a young Christian, wanting to do the right thing, I always followed the religious right in my voting, James Dobson and others being a big influence on me. I voted for a candidate even though I didn’t feel right doing it. That is no longer the case.
Debbie, I don’t “care” what the political pundits say either. I should have said political strategists. You may not care what they think either, and there is a sense in which I don’t care. But the point I’m making is that when people don’t vote, they become thought of like a block voting group — it doesn’t matter what they think — except in this case it is just thought that they complacent and don’t care.
Regardless, I would encourage you to at least check out the third party candidates and see if you can vote for one of them according to your conscience and faith. I wouldn’t expect you to vote for one of them some other way.
Just how serious are your beliefs Debbie? Did they lead you to vote for Obama in 2008? He described himself as a devoted follower of Jesus Christ. John McCain described himself as not a born again Christian.
Or, did you sit that one out?
I observe that people have difficulty in achieving consistency in applying their beliefs in secular politics. There are some things we have to wrestle with.
William: I think you know me enough and from past threads to know the answer to that question. I believe I made it plain as can be and don’t need to repeat myself.
BTW: I sat that one out.
I’m with Bob. Vote for the person you think will govern the most capably.
Whoever becomes the next president will be through your votes, but by God’s design.
Bob you are right that there is no religious test for political office in the USA. And I agree (as our forefathers like Leland) that it should be that way. But you seem to be confusing the idea of national or legal religious test versus individual religious test. One of the other beauties of our Constitution and way of voting is that while there is not religious test for political office, the individual voter can create any test he or she wishes in order to decide on which candidate he or she wishes. If any Christians want to vote for a Christian over a non-Christian they are perfectly free to make this religious test, anyone else’s wishes notwithstanding.
It is my firm position that people who dont vote in an election, have no right to complain about how the election turns out. Simple as that. When even on a “good” year, half of those eligible to vote, dont, this country has an issue with speaking out of both sides of our mouths. And that is simply sad.
Here is a little something to consider. Paul and Peter (Romans 13, 1st Peter 3) tells us to respect and submit to the government, to the rulers and authorities. For the Roman world, that meant to the empire, and the Emperor. For those of us in these United States of American, that should mean to the Constitution of the United States. Why do I say that? Simple, because it is the Constitution in our government where the power of government is rested. Leaders, be it in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches are (at least are suppose to) bound by the Constitution. This is a government unlike any before it, and in brutal truth, unlike most after it. The Constitution gives “We the People” the power. “We the People” have the right to change the Constitution through a set process, when things need to be changed (ie slavery, right to vote for women, ect). We the citizens of this country then have a right, duty, an obligation to participate in this government. And if we do not, then what right do we have then to be upset with how it turns out? So many Christians “sit out” these elections, at national, state and local levels, for any number of silly reasons. Yet these are also some of the first to complain when things like “Roe v Wade” or laws allowing homosexual marriage take place. The simple fact is, they could have had the power to stop it. One more person voting does not matter. But when thousands of people begin to vote, then we have a solution.
In terms of Romney, the issue is that Christians could not solitify behind any other Republican primary candidate for their own petty reasons. Bachmann was a woman. Cain was black. Santorum was Catholic. Gingrich had that messy divorce. Ect…Ect…Ect…. And now, supposidly well meaning Christians are going to say to themselves, “Cant vote Romney because he is mormon.” Mean while, President Obama is reelected, gets to replace Kennedy (the swing vote at the SCOTUS) and appoint his third justice meaning 3 of 5 liberal judges will be there for a very long time. Good luck repealing liberal law or ruling (like Roe v Wade) ever again! Good luck keeping rights to firearms, or for Christian pastors to choose not to be forced to marry homosexuals if they want the ability to marry anyone at all. I could go on with the “doomsday” but you should get the point. If Romney was the worst Republican, where did the supporters for other candidates go? If Obama is worse than Romney, why let one little thing like mormonism put Obama back in the White house?
Another simple truth is that A) no human is perfect, thus we should not expect perfection out of our politicians on every political point. B) the only perfect candidate in our own eyes is ourselves.
If Christians actually got out and participated in this government, I would wager it would not be as bad as it is now. Just food for thought.
Smusch: That is a saying that has been around for years, but that is just a saying. I will still speak out and that is my right that men died for whether I vote this year or not. You may not like it but that is my freedom as an American.
BTW: I do pay taxes which I think also gives folks a right to speak out whether or not they vote in every election.
“”””If Christians actually got out and participated in this government, I would wager it would not be as bad as it is now. Just food for thought.”””
Smuschman: that seems like it should be the case, but in fact it is not. A few years ago we went from a nation that made laws through the legislature (that voters interact with directly) to legislating from the bench (which voters have no interaction with).
So, while I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly, it is not the case many times. I’ve participated in righteous causes that were completely overturned by as few as 3 federal court judges.
Proposition 8 is such an issue. The playing field is not level anymore so participation does not guarantee a positive outcome.
But as judges at all levels (local, state, federal) are either elected by the people directly (most local) or appointed by elected officials (state and federal) if we, Christians, wanted to stop such judicial activism, we would start being active in the elections, and voting for people who would A) stop appointing such judges and B) enact laws that renew the original intent of judicial review, and stop the perversion that it has become. Again, it comes back to the fact that most people, Christians included are apathetic to the voting process, yet insist on complaining when laws and rulings dont go their way.
Since the first national election I ever voted in 1976, it has always been a choice for the ‘least worse’ candidate. I have never been a single issue voter. As an example, I am against abortion. However, if candidate X was against abortion but for 10 other policies that I was against, yet candidate Y was for abortion and also for those other 10 policies that I was strongly for, I would vote for candidate Y. In reality, this rarely happens. Most conservative are against abortion (at least they say they are) and I usually vote for a conservative candidate.
Taking abortion as an issue, we have lived under conservative Republican administrations for 22 of the 39 years since Roe v Wade, yet little has changed and even if we do elect an anti abortion candidate, I doubt it will change then. The best you can do in a two party system like ours is to vote for the candidate who agrees with the weighted majority of your own views.
While I feel that we should work for justice and God’s values in our world, it will never be perfect. Politics is not the ‘end all’ of life in world.
Philippians 3:20
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,
Dave,
Has anyone ever considered the fact that Romney is part of a faith structure that advocates a race of people is a mark of Cain? Isn’t that enough to at least consider in this debate?
Dwight McKissic wrote a rather forcible argument on that point last week. It is one of my concerns with Mormonism in general, though I am fairly confident Romney himself does not share that view, he has not repudiated it either.
I’ve seen no evidence that the Church of LDS “ADVOCATES a race of people is a mark of Cain…”
Advocated, past tense. I don’t claim to be an expert on Mormonism. But, it seems many seem empowered to speak authoritatively on Mormonism on the basis of having read a couple thin easy-reads from Lifeway (I own one myself).
If the Church of LDS still advocates such racist teaching, how have they managed to get to where they are today, with a sizable and growing black membership? That’s a much bigger question than anything related to Romney.
The Church of LDS was definitely much slower than major Christian groups – Southern Baptists included – to ridding itself of racist teachings and embrace racial equality.
I must admit, LDS and Romney appears to be a good match. Both have had some MAJOR multiple flip-flops on big issues over the years 🙂
BDW,
You state this as a fact: “””with a sizable and growing black membership?”””
You may be right that they have a sizable black membership, but based upon my direct experience with several very large stakes, I have to say I do not see the evidence.
Are you confusing “sizable growing black membership in predominantly black nations” with the same happening in America?
Or, can you point me to the statistical studies you are using as the basis for your statement.
I’m no expert on Mormonism, but I feel it is less than fair and civil to suggest I have only read a “few thin books from LifeWay.” One doesn’t have to complete a Ph.D. to be an expert, though many people with Ph.D’s seem to perpetuate such a myth.
My understanding is that much growth has occurred in West Africa and Caribbean.
I was speaking generally with the Lifeway remark which certainly isn’t going to apply to everyone.
BDW,
You need to read the 1976 statement by the then president of the Mormon church. It seems they advocated allowing for various races becoming part of the church but they never denied the teaching that dark colored skin is the curse of Cain. Don’t go looking at the quick reads at Lifeway, go to the source and find a denial of that teaching.
Tim,
What some people will try to argue is that such a racist idea is in the “past” for Mormons, because of an official statement by a prophet, declaring a change under duress and without much enthusiasm in my opinion.
The fact is: the storyline for Mormonism remains as it has always been. The Book of Mormon has not been edited (at least not the last copy I read) to reflect any change in the story.
Frank,
This change, as you have pointed out, was made under duress. AS you also pointed out the issue is not about the priesthood becoming open to African Americans,. The issue is about the teaching of the LDS church that black skin is the curse of Cain.
These discussions are always fascinating. Almost all of us, perhaps all, preferred the candidate in 2008 who was an admitted adulterer, divorced, and who said he was not a born again Christian over the candidate who was married once, faithful to wife and family, and a declared Christian.
Would a man from Mars make any sense out of that?
It is odd that Christians are perfectly willing to assist in the downgrade of our country, a result that would come from another term for our president, with highminded views about orthodoxy.
Sure, Mormonism is error, deceptive, and all that. But exactly what accrued to us politically by having Southern Baptists as president and VP? Not much good, I think. We can be perfectly fine electoral martyrs while the country goes to Gehenna in a sawgrass basket. I don’t quite get the concept.
And have you considered that Mormonism will receive not just greater exposure with Romney as president but will receive far greater scrutiny as well?
I voted for Romney in 2008 in the primary. I will happily vote for him this year and hope to God that he wins. That doesn’t cause me to be accommodated to Mormon theology any more than voting for McCain caused me to be accommodated to adultery and multiple marriages.
I face the same dilema that many of you have already articulated. I will throw a couple of other items into the fray, however.
On one hand, I know I am not voting in November for a “pastor-in-chief,” and yet if I vote–which I certainly will–I must vote either for a Christian who embraces a theology different from my own, or for a man who, as Dave and others have pointed out, embraces a religion which is patently non-Christian despite their attempts to paint it in a different light. That alone make it more difficult for me to vote for Romney than for Obama.
I too have serious qualms about voting for anyone who supports abortion as a form of retroactive birth control, as well as for anyone who advocates homosexual marriage. Although unlike Dave, I have not sworn never to vote for anyone who advocates those positions, it still makes it more difficult for me for me to vote for Obama than for Romney. I will point out though that if Obama does as much to advance either as George W. Bush did to stop either–while claiming to be against both–it will make absolutely no difference, and will show itself to be simply a political manouver, playing to a base of support with no tangible returns. I do not know if that will be the case or not; but it interesting to note if something is done, that the Republican Party, with the Presidency from 2000-2008 and a Congressional majority from 2000-2006 did little/nothing, while the Democratic Party will at least have kept its word.
Bottom line: I don’t think that either of the two candidate’s theology/orthadoxy/orthapraxy can decide for me which way to vote. I will continue to listen to the positions they stake out, AND look to see which party (if either) engages in the most/worst surrogates and mud-slinging, especially through their super-pac’s. It will be even harder for me to vote for the candidate who allows such matters to play and grow. That may well be the deciding factor for me this November, because I don’t want to vote for or have a President who engages in such low politics.
John Fariss
I first present a few thoughts that under-gird my thinking in the area politics and government.
God is the sovereign King of all the earth (Ps 29:10; 47:7; 1 Tim 1:17). Christians are under and uniquely part of God’s Kingdom (Col 1:12-13; John 17:15-16), which is spiritual, not of this world (John 18:36; Phil 3:20; Heb 11:13). As such, Christians are responsible first to God (Matt 6:33; Acts 5:27). Our God to whom we are responsible has ordained the principle of human government/governments (Rom 13:1-6) and is sovereign over the events of the world (Ps 75:6-7; 103:19; Dan 2:21; Ezek 30:20-26; Rom 9:17).
God who has ordained government, also establishes our obedience to law/government (Rom 13:1-6). This includes paying tribute/taxes, praying for and honoring those in authority (1 Tim 2:1-2; 1 Pet 2:17). Christians ought to use what freedoms they have to do good, and so lead others to glorify God (1 Pet 2:11-17). The Christians’ allegiance is to God. The government’s power ends when it conflicts with God’s commands to His people (Acts 4:18-20).
These are not all the applicable verses, but I think it covers a lot of ground. Somewhere within that ground I must determine whether I should vote, and if so, for whom should I vote. In relation to voting, I guess I came to that position by default, and I have not yet determined that it is wrong or unbiblical to vote for human governors. In relation to your question to explain the biblical basis of one’s intended vote, Dave, I would say it is mainly informed by two of the points I made above — that God is sovereign over the events of the world and that Christians ought to use what freedom they have to do good, and to lead others to glorify God. Because I believe God is sovereign, I should not worry that it is my responsibility to “raise up” or “put down” the next “ruler”. I believe He can do that with or without my vote. But as a Christian under the rule of God and commanded to do good, I must vote for what or who I think will do good, and lead others to glorify God. Mine is to vote; His is to raise up and put down. Therefore I will not feel guilty to vote for a third party even though human reasoning (yea, my own reasoning) says that they do not have a “snowball’s chance”. I don’t fault others if their principles lead them to vote differently (e.g. to vote for Romney just to vote against Obama), but I am not comfortable with the principles of either of these men who are the frontrunners — either politically or religiously.
I apologize for this getting so long, Dave. Brevity is not my strength.
I pretty much agree with Robert Vaughn’s thoughts above. My strategy, when it comes to deciding who to vote for, is to look for “candidate selectors” on the internet, and to enter in my own views on different issues, and see who it tells me matches up most closely to those views, independently of which party they represent, or of whether they have a chance of winning or not. Here is one example: http://www.selectsmart.com/president/
The problem with this is that most of the “candidate selector” programs out there are skewed in one way or another. Programs that allow you to indicate the comparative amount of importance you give to different issues are more helpful in this regard. But I have found it is generally best to go through different “candidate selectors” in order to see if there is a discrepancy between the candidates each one recommends as most closely representing my own views on the issues.
In addition to all of this, all other things being equal, I have somewhat of a preference toward third-party or independent candidates, because I would like to see a system in which there are more than two viable choices, and in which Evangelical Christians are not sold out to the interests of any particular party. But, in my experience, there has not always been a third-party or independent candidate who more closely represents my views than either of the two major party candidates.
Because of all this, I am still not sure who I will vote for. I will wait to see if any additional candidates surface between now and the elections, and try to dedicate a moderate amount of time toward studying and understanding the issues better.
Having said all that, I am pretty sure I could never vote for a pro-abortion candidate, though.
I agree, David. The candidate selectors, though limited, can be helpful — especially if you experiment with different ones. I usually wind up with Ron Paul. Like you, I would also like to see a system in which there are more than two viable choices!
I also want to add one thing I may have not emphasized enough. In Romans 13 we see that government/rulers are supposed to promote good and oppose evil. That should be a prime consideration in all our candidate selections.
Call this an educated guess. Romney gets elected (mostly due to default, lesser of two evils reasoning), but little or not changes take place. Reason: Well, if we look at his medical program in Mass., it is much along the same lines as the Obama plan. So why change? Socialism is the aim and the name of the game. Once established and entrenched, it will take a century to get it out. And can it be that the real aim of socialism is to reduce the world’s population by 5.5 billion or more, to get rid of the “Useless Eaters” mentioned in H.G. Wells’ The Open Conspiracy? And why did various forces suppress Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope and his The Anglo American Establishment with the sixth will and testament of Cecil Rhodes telling that he wanted to establish the Rhodes’ scholarships to train candidates for a one world government.//or something to that effect. If the democratic and republican parties simply a Marxian/Hegelian dialectic designed to manipulate the people until they give up in despair or go beserk and strike out blindly in frustration? And why would a state school have a computer program in the Summer of ’83 with a 20 year old black college kid as mentor that would pose a question to an 11 year old like this:”If you were an official in a world government and had an over population problem with a country in Africa, how would you handle it? a. Have a war and kill them off? B. Use an infectious agent, germ or disease and kill them off? C. Let them Starve?” Years later a friend told me that he had that same question on a State Dept. Exam. And I understand now that there are about 15 states that have that same kind of school that our son attended so many years ago. Sounds like big things are in the offing. And by the way Quigley’s work spelled out the theology, the folks run things oppose, the founding theology of Southern Baptists, the theology that produced the Great Awakenings and launched the Great Century of Missions. And the theology the folks of his work support? Pluralism. Right!
BDW,
I’m sorry to hear you’ve read his book. I’ve read enough interviews and articles to know it won’t make my reading list. You can’t do anything about the past, but it’s never too late to start ignoring him.
And you’re right, since he is a fellow Southern Baptist, I should not compare him to worldly celebrities, but to other Southern Baptists (such as Bill Clinton, for example) for whom I have reserved, as you put it, “a little ounce of respect.”
RICK,
would you mind referencing one of those interviews, and would you mind sharing with us what in it you found disturbing? Thanks.
Now that would not exactly be in keeping with my goal to ignore him, would it? Generally, he desires that we move past the culture wars by calling something of a truce, while I believe we have largely abandoned the culture wars, a strategy which is futile, since the other side continues to fight them, thus turning any of our conciliatory efforts into nothing other than a surrender. Thus, in my view, his opinions are naive and unwise, contributing only to a furtherance of liberalism in America.
Hi RICK,
Can you speak ‘generally’ about someone if you cannot speak ‘specifically’ ?
Not unless you are relying on the reports of others who may have told you to ‘ignore’ the subject and take their word for it,
but here’s the problem:
third-party communication is not as ‘accurate’ sometimes as our own fully-informed observations.
And if the ‘third-party’ is not wanting you to see the original source, you then must ask . . .
what is their motive in offering to do your thinking for you in this matter, and why do they specifically want for you not to look at source material?
Christ opened ears to hear, and eyes to see, and touched people into life, and sent people forth unafraid, filled with the Holy Spirit.
I see something wholesome in using the gifts that God has given me to examine first-hand the thoughts of others, and not to rely on ‘what they said about them Southern Baptists’,
and I have learned some fine things about the people of the faith of my Grandmother, of blessed memory,
instead of thinking, as I did long ago ‘oh dear God, was my grandmother’s Church anything like that Westboro Baptist Church
I see on television cursing funerals of our soldiers?’ If I hadn’t come looking for the truth, I might have thought the worst unfairly.
I think it is a good thing to examine the ‘source’ for oneself, RICK.
It takes us past many ‘stereotypes’ and brings us to examine the thoughts and feelings of others in the light openly.
Does this make any sense?
Christiane,
Specifically, then, let me indulge your request with one review of Merritt’s book and say that I agree with most of this “Christianity Today” article: http://bit.ly/LC0i5D.
Merritt is said to “believe we can call a truce in the culture wars while remaining faithful to Christ.” I simply disagree.
According to the writer, “In every story Merritt tells on this theme, people move in a liberal direction after a perceived failure of their conservative outlook to explain their experiences.” That, to me, reveals an unbalanced perspective.
It is further suggested that “Merritt’s writing is poetic and engaging, but it occasionally seems to get away from him.” That is putting it as mildly and politely as possible. He appears confused concerning whether the tone of our disagreements has grown less civil over the years or whether nothing has really changed at all.
To summarize, there’s the specific article you wanted, which showcases very nicely my general opposition to Merritt’s basic premise and philosophy, which, along with Joe, I’m afraid I must frankly characterize as “liberal.”
One cannot help but wonder what Mrs. Merritt does at Thanksgiving Dinner when political topics come up. “Any more pie? What time is the game on?”
If I hadn’t come looking for the truth, I might have thought the worst unfairly.
L’s, in your opinion, people like CB, David Miller, and Rick are equal to the Westboro crowd.
Little Merrit is nothing more than a liberal who doesn’t have the guts to admit that he’s a liberal.
He has no right to believe what he believes, but he most certainly doesn’t have the right to say the things he says publically.
( I didn’t have time to read all the comments…so forgive me if someone already said this)
“Id rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim), than a stupid Christian,”
– Martin Luther
I’m with him. On matters of faith, Romney is a zero. But can he do a better job than the leftist and vacationer in Chief? Absolutely.
Steve,
If Luther said that, it was not one of his more stellar moments.
That’s like saying I’d rather be shot to death than hanged. The result seems to be mostly the same.
I think this Luther quote — Id rather be ruled by a smart Turk, than a stupid Christian — is likely apocryphal. If it isn’t I could see it being much more applicable in an era when both Muslims and (some) Christians killed people for heretical views from the prevailing norm. We haven’t arrived at that point in the U.S. … yet.
Steve: No you probably didn’t have time to read all the comments since you have posted this quote in several forums but with no reference. Can you provide a reference to this quote?
By the way, I would rather be led by a dumb Christian.
Well, since your finely honed research skills can’t find that, here’s the link.
Wait, I take that last line back, I’m thinking of several Christians I wouldn’t want to be lead by. 🙂
1 Samuel 8 is all the Scripture I need to know who is going to be the next President.
Wait, that we want the guy who can’t find his donkeys?
Or that we want someone who can?
Jim Lockhart,
I too am a Viet Nam Vet. I will vote for Mitt Romney simply because I live in a Swing State where my vote could be the difference between Obama getting reelected for a second term or not. Not voting -for me – would be like giving Obama one extra vote. I couldn’t live with that reality.
I really don’t like either candidate. I never thought I could pull the lever for a Mormon but then again I’ve done a lot of things I thought I would never do, like participate in a war that America lost.
Hey, Jim, yes, we do often vote for the lesser of two evils. I baptized two fellows in the Jeff. City area back in the 60s who went to Vietnam and made it back. Some years ago (about 21), I preached the funeral of a vet of ‘Nam who had been in the special forces. He had been exposed to Agent Orange and had 10 major surgeries.
Jim Shaver,
In the end I will also probably vote for Romney for about the same reasons. However, it will be a sad vote because I think a vote ought to stand for something instead of being against something and looking to the lesser of two evils. Or, to put this another way, when I vote, I want to believe I am participating in something, an affirmation by me of the person (and his or her character and position) for whom I cast my vote. I have always found something to vote for. This election I simply have not yet found it in the presidential race.
When I participated in Viet Nam, I thought I was fighting for something. The fact that this country turned from it does not reflect on my decision and my willingness to serve. I thought duty and honor and freedom meant something. John Kennedy’s words influenced me profoundly, especially those in his inaugral speech: “Let every nation know… that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” I cannot imagine these words being said by a national leader today. We lost much in Viet Nam but those of us who served kept the faith.
Thank you for your service, brother.
Jim Lockhart
Please read What Happens When a Country Forgets God. Please written by LUTZER You will then vote for Romney. So worth reading.
Using God’s Sovereignty as an excuse for not seeking, searching, praying, etc., hardly comports with such belief. Just check out how Gill, Leland, Gano, Backus, R. Williams, Boettner and a host of others have used it as a reason to be responsible. Intellectual historians have noted how the Puritans were such a responsible and a persevering people, and they ascribed it to their commitment to the Sovereignty of God.
Here’s the bottom line–there is no biblical, or rational, explaination to vote for a man who worked as hard as he could to make sure that health care was denied to the survivors of abortions.
On the other hand, even though I don’t really like Romney, he has said he is not a racist. I don’t expect him to answer for everything his church teaches or has taught. I will gladly hold my nose and vote for him.
Joe,
Romney’s “church” has not only taught racism, books that he consider the “Word of God” also teaches racism. Should he not answer the question whether or not he affirms the verses in his “Bible” that teaches racism? The issue is not whether or not Romney is a racists; the issue is, will he repudiate the passages in his “Bible” that are racists? If not, I for one, and many conservative-evangelical Black voters won’t even consider voting for him.
Dwight
Nope. The issue is whether he himself is a racist.
Tell ya what, though, I’ll call for him to repudiate whatever garbage is in the book of Mormon as soon as your “beloved” President apologizes for voting to deny medical care to suvivors of attempted abortions. That is infinitely worse than owning a garbage book full of drivel made up by some lunatic who lived nearly 200 years ago.
Joe,
” I don’t see how you can be a Mormon and hold the view that we are no longer racists, but we embrace our racist book.” I forget who said this, but that’s the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. This seems to be Romney’s position.
Dwight
My candidate didn’t even make it into the primary. I really, really liked Herman Cain. My dream candidate would have been Condoliza Rice (spelled wrong) but she’s got too much sense to run.
JOe,
It is such a shame a man with such great potential had such a lousy character.
Joe Blackmon,
Did you realize Condoleezza Rice is pro-choice?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-position-of-condoleezza-rice-us-secretary-of-state
No, I didn’t. So, in retrospect, I’m glad she didn’t run.
It’d be interesting to hear on what basis y’all would campaign, were you inclined to run for public office.
🙂
To NOT vote is to vote! I do NOT understand how any American could who loves their country, could make a decision to cast a vote by NOT voting. It seems we may be forgetting that doing nothing will allow evil to increase!
Exactly!! The best hope for our current President (beloved by some, certainly NOT by me) to get re-elected (just threw up in my mouth a little bit) is for folks to stay home and not vote.
I don’t really like Romney. He is way closer to center than I’d like to see. But if a Supreme Court nomination comes up during his term, I’m willing to bet we’ll get people nominated who actually deserve to be in the Supreme Court, not some “wise latina” or slick Willie’s abortion buddy.
Tim G.,
Your article responding to the Richard Lands controversial remarks at your blog were outstanding. I deeply and richly appreciated and could feel your statement. Thanks again. You were one of a very few SBC pastors willing to jump into the fray on this issue and come down on the right side.
Question: How do you vote for a person who when given an opportunity by Tim Russert to distance himself from the racists founding authoritative documents of the Mormon religion, he refused?; or to vote for a person who affirms same-sex marriage and abortion on demand? Isn’t the better choice not to vote for neither one?
Dwight
Dwight,
In a two-party race–as this election (and all are essentially) an abstain is simply a vote for the winner.
Therefore, it is not a morally superior act, nor a better ethical decision.
In this race, the choices are not as ethically troublesome as you indicate. Those choices are: 1) Obama and more innocent children will die; or 2) Romney who is associated with a racist book but has given no indication beyond that of being racist.
As much as I would expect a Black pastor to be against the openly racist history of the Book of Mormon, I don’t think sacrificing more innocent children is acceptable.
The ethical choice seems clear: vote against Obama.
Frank L.,
My conscience will not allow me to vote for either.
Dwight
Dwight,
That does not address the issue I raised. You’re conscience should not be clear by helping a dedicated child-killer to get four more years — four years in which he will not have to worry about reelection.
It is easy for people to say, “My conscience is clear.” I’ve heard this more than once by someone in my office trying to convince me why their actions are justified.
Unfortunately, it would be no more ethical to vote for a third party candidate because we all know there is no chance that vote will make a difference.
You are faced with two choices: put a confirmed, activist baby-killer who supports homosexual activism, or put into office someone who may or may not be racist.
I don’t think you can have a clear conscience simply by abstaining. However, I am open for your explanation.
Frank,
You view President Obama’s abortion policies more harmful than Mitt Romney’s “Bible” racist views that he refuse to repudiate; I don’t. It is as simple as that. A chicken wouldn’t vote for Col. Sanders, and I won’t vote for Mitt Romney if he does not renounce the racist views of his “bible.” Again, for me, it’s just that simple.
Dwight
Dwight. I can think of a million babies who have been torn apart in their wombs that must be deeply grieved by that statement.
You and I could not be further apart in our views in regard to whether murder trumps a “possibility” of racist views
Frank: Rhetoric like that just isn’t going to work. It’s not going to work on me anyway. My conscience will dictate how I vote and I will be in fine standing with God. So stick to the issues and not silly statements that are simply not true. The blood of unborn babies who are aborted will not be on my hands nor on Dr. McKissic’s hands. It almost makes me angry when such statements are made to manipulate. It won’t work on me however.
I should add or not vote which seems to be the case this year if it is a Romney/Obama race. End of story.
Debbie,
You said, “”””It’s not going to work on me anyway.””””
I’ve never had any illusion that reason or truth would “work on you.” That’s why I’m not addressing you. You fall all over men that you feel are your “heroes” regardless of what they say. I find that troublesome.
You also said, “””So stick to the issues and not silly statements that are simply not true.””” I can assure you that the millions of babies that are killed for convenience in America do not consider this issue “silly.”
I consider your statement, “sad.”
I also do not think God will hold “guiltless” anyone that does anything to promote, directly or indirectly, the continued slaughter of innocents–if we have it in our power to make a stand otherwise.
Dwight is big enough to defend himself. He and I are polar opposites on this issue and this issue–abortion–is a watershed issue for me, and for America.
Enjoy basking in the sun of your own self-righteousness, but I don’t intend to be swayed from a fight I’ve engaged for over 30 years to do all I can to protect the unborn.
Debbie,
PS–I don’t in my wildest dreams believe anything I’ve said is going to cause Dwight or anybody else to change their minds on matters they hold deeply and have come to after much thought.
My only hope is that I can allow others to see a point of view they may have not considered.
My only hope is that I can allow others to see a point of view they may have not considered.
By making a statement that the blood of unborn aborted children will be on their hands? Please Frank, how can you state that with a straight face? To say that the blood is on our hands is nothing more than angry manipulation. It’s ridiculous. It’s why politics is not the answer. If I never voted, if I never got involved in politics, I would be in right standing with God. It’s what Christ has done for us, not my voting or not voting that determines my standing. That should be the message which is in the Bible, not the message you are giving.
As for following men, anyone who knows me and you do, knows that is a false statement. I have been saying what I have been saying for a long time now. I do have a brain and do make my own decisions. If agreeing with someone is falling all over them then yes I am tumbling all over them.
Debbie, Frank might be overstating his case. I think he is to some degree, but the blood at our hands is a biblical motif and not a manipulation, taken from Ezekiel 3:18, which Paul picks upon in Acts 18:6. What Frank’s failure is a lack of understanding and appreciation for is the matter of the evil of racism which for over 300 years produced a holacaust which continues to some degree to this day. Dr. McKissic has rightly called his attention to that fact though I think he should have been much more graphic like telling how Jefferson had two Uncles who killed a Black man and then boiled his remains or how a Baptist preacher in one instance slugged a woman and knocked her out, because she was screaming about the selling of her baby. A Methodist did the same. And shall I mentioned those Baptists who fathered children by their slaves and kept them as slaves and even sold them off. Frank, I doubt, has little knowledge. Nor does he know of a Christian woman in Orangeburg some 40 years ago who said to me, “Mr. Willingham, I cried, when I saw what racism had done to the personalities of those little Black children!” Frank himself would probably rise up in righteous wrath over stuff like that.
Dr. J,
Unlike some white people, I have lived in a primarily black (over 90%) community in a major inner-city.
It angers some to hear a white person describe acts of violence and threats from people of color. But, racism is a gate that swings both ways.
I have stood hand in hand with Black Baptist pastors (I’ve preached in their churches and served with them on committees). I would in no way stand by and let racism continue if I had any option whatsoever to see it repudiated.
I repudiate the racist narrative of the Book of Mormon. I said a long time ago in another post that I was skeptical of a person’s racist views who has not repudiated the racist narrative of his holy book.
However, if I have the forced option of stopping an abortion “or” stopping a racially motivated decision to discriminate in hiring based upon race — I’m going to stop the abortion and save a life.
I guess some people really do not believe abortion is legalized murder sanctioned by the state. Racism as ugly as it is, probably in the whole history of mankind has not resulted in as many deaths as has abortion since Roe v. Wade made it popular.
My vote may be a “write in” this time around: Dr. J. Willingham!
Frank: I think you are trying too hard to make your case. You press on all fronts. You have a lot of talent, and it is evidence you sure pursue the causes you advocate zealously, way better than I do, I think. I can appreciate where Dr. McKissic is coming from, because I have studied racism, traced it through history, found it wanting, deleterious, detrimental, and destructive. The misery and the suffering of African Americans or Blacks as they used that term when I was studying their history has been incredible. Did you know the author of Amazing Grace hauled slaves into Charleston Harbor until God saved his wretched soul and later transformed him into a foe of slavery? Did you know that at least some 20 Africans who had been brought ashore at Charleston rushed into the harbor and drowned themselves rather than submit to slavery? It grieves me to think that the same organizations who sold us slavery are the same that sold us abortion and are selling us sodomy. The links between the past and the present, while tenuous, are often substantial enough to indicate that they are related and connected, but it would take more years than I have left to document the same. We simply need more devoted scholars who see the value of research, etc.
Dr. J,
In a long thread like this, peoples’ opinions can become somewhat skewed.
My latter posts have mostly been about what scholars in ethics refer to as “forced options.” If forced between the two options of “abortion” with Obama and “possible racism” of Romney, it is not an ethical choice to choose to do nothing. That was my point.
Voting for a Third Party candidate would be morally superior in my view to “abstaining,” though in reality it probably amounts to the same thing.
So, my position is in the context of a “forced option.” A middle way may be an ethical choice, but I’ve yet to conclude in my mind what that middle way may be.
I’m still gathering information on this issue, hence my participation in this thread.
Frank: I can appreciate your caution and effort to gather info in order to make a more informed decision. Sometimes, it is exceedingly difficult to get that material. Racism is a great problem even within communities along with ethnicity, cultural differences, and who knows what else. Likewise our responsibility for the innocents who are caught and destroyed in our blindness. I see a coarse effort to change our nation behind this effort to sell us a bill of goods on abortion. Just think of what 50 million children might have contributed to the well-being of our world. I have thought that to maintain the economy, it was necessary to let in the folks from South of the Border and from other nations, folks who have little training, experience, etc., in our way of life and government, folks who are subject to manipulation, etc. American whites have made the reverse mistake with reference to African Americans. The latter have often been the best defenders of the American Way anyone could desire…and that inspite of the fact that they had to fight for even the least bit of place in this ethos. Most people, due to the miseducation we have had for the past 60 years or so, are unaware of how important a place the Bible and the Christian Faith has played in the development of our freedoms. I think of the Baptist ministers in Va. who met with the colonial legislators and made an agreement with them that in exchange for their freedom to practice their faith, they would encourage the young men in their communities to enlist in the Patriots’ Cause (read “enlist in a civil war against a duly constituted government.”). In any case, I can’t say I look forward to voting for Mr. Romney. After all, in addition to being a Mormon, he led in the adoption of a socialized medical program in Mass, and he hardly knows the struggles of middle America and even less of those struggling at the bottom. There are two things I am especially concerned about: One, is that the Republicans might roll back all the social programs (which in a day when automation, robotics, and computerization plus moving plants South of the Border or overseas) would be catastrophic for the average John Doe in the Lower or even in the Middle Class. Two, they might continue to carry out (as they have been doing) things as they are, leading inevitably to a tremendous financial crisis and collapse in which the dogs of rioting, war, and the imposition of a dictatorship will occur, a reality to which both parties seem to be heading, pointing to a unitary outfit behind both. God help us all. He never said this would be easy. However, I continue to press the claims for a Third Great Awakening, beginning in this generation and winning every soul by persuasion and continuing for a thousand generations (about at least 20,000 years) and reaching a multitude of planets (thanks to the man who wrote the book on limited atonement, Dr. John Owen in his Death of Death in the Death of Christ. A sweet heavenly influence with the awesomeness of God evident in it might well be the key to changing the masses on all of these issues, e.g., abortion, racism, etc.
Debbie,
You said, “””Please Frank, how can you state that with a straight face? “”””
In all the posts I’ve read of yours I’ve come to the conclusion that you seldom let facts stand between you and your diatribes.
Those are your words, not mine. My opinion put into more incendiary words to accomplish your agenda.
If you read your Bible, then you know that God holds sins of omission under the same judgment as sins of commission.
You keep trying to equate killing real babies with a “possible” racist view. That for me is an untenable position. If you feel comfortable equating the death of real babies with the unlikely racist practices of a candidate, I can only thank God you were not my mother.
Abortion kills real babies. Obama unequivocally supports the killing of real babies. Romney has given “zero” evidence he personally supports racism. He has never been accused of supporting racism.
If you cannot see the lack of logic in your view, then I rest my case.
As far as you hitching your wagon to certain male celebrities, I think the past two years of your posts alone indicate that is the case. Your views have often been “personality-driven”.
Here’s my views: God will bring judgment upon any nation that adopts the low view of life we have in the U.S. He will not say, “but Debbie was against racism so that makes her complicity in helping elect a pro-abortion candidate acceptable.”
I could be wrong, but that’s my view. I believe it is both logical and Biblical.
Frank: Don’t be quite so hard on Debbie. We are all at sea in this tumult over a President taking us down a road we all despise. I can appreciate very much, Dr. McKissic’s recoil from Romney, hainv studied racism in my undergrad. [program, in my Master’s program, in a Ph.D. program which I did not complete, and in a Doctor of Ministry program which I did. Our problem today is that we are up against, perhaps, the most powerful force in this world in the way of evil, and I refer to an international coterie that has reason to think they run the whole world and have for about 250 years.
We have elected several pro life presidents since Roe v Wade. Abortion continues. Romney will make no difference just as W and Reagan and the first Bush made no difference. If you want to end abortion, seek life change not political change. The Presidnt can’t change the law but the Gospel does change people’s hearts.
Ryan,
You said, “””just as W and Reagan and the first Bush made no difference.””””
Could you point me to the study or studies that you use to support this statement?
My understanding is that many more laws restricting abortion were passed during the Reagan years through Bush than have been during Obama.
Also, I believe it was Bush who was in office when partial birth abortion was struck down. I believe it was Obama who supports this procedure.
I know I don’t know everything so perhaps I am wrong and your statement is more than just a party-line attack on Republicans.
I am not saying you in particular believe this. But I do find it interesting that some Christians think it is “all or nothing” with the election of a President in terms of stopping abortion. As if the President is the only one who can stop this forever. Whatever happened to local, state, and congressional elections? Indeed, if 2/3rds of the congressional houses and 2/3rds of the states were run by pro-life politicians, we could pass an Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion. Yet we seem to think the blame lies solely at the feet of the office of the President for abortion not being stopped in one action.
As Frank said, it was under President Bush that PBA’s were stopped. I would rather have SOMETHING rather than nothing. And I can tell you with out a doubt that Romeny will give us “something” while Obama will take away something and give us more of nothing. The mythical chase for a candidate who will give us everything in one move is pure fantasy. And as long as Christians act and vote as such, we will never get anything done.
Smushmany,
“””SOMETHING rather than nothing. “””
This is why I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Romney.
I would wish the racist issue would be just as important as the abortion issue but I can’t force it on you as you cannot force on me your views. The beauty of both freedom in America and in Christ.
If I have to hold my nose to vote for someone, I won’t do that.
Ryan,
When people say that no progress has been made in the area of abortion it really gets under my skin, because it’s simply untrue. President Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban which President Clinton had previously vetoed twice. And while liberals have found a way around it in some cases the fact is that late term abortion has been affected greatly by it. If only one life were to be saved by that action I would think that the person in question would differ with your assessment that “nothing” has been done.
Dwight,
Dwight thank you. I am currently reviewing that issue and looking deep into the whole race issue in regards to Romney. I am also doing so in light that for me to not vote is also helping one to win.
I will post later in the summer on my blog as to the results of what I learn and my response. One thing I have committed to do this year is to learn by going to the source and not just relying on reading or news events.
Thankfully I have some people helping me get to the heart of this.
The one thing bad about not voting for Romney is that means one less vote against Obama and one less vote against those who abort babies, including Black babies, the aim of the old Eugenics programs. Now it is done willingly. Dr. McKissic, while I despise the racist garbage of Mormonism’s so-called Bibles, what about leaving that fellow in as President to abort more African American children?
Dr. Willingham,
When faced with two bad choices, why should one feel constrained to take either? By not taking either one, you leave the decision in the hands of a Sovereign God, who does all things well, and able to make all things work together for good.
Dwight
Dwight,
The bottom line for me is that I have way more problems with the policies of President Obama than I do with Mitt Romney. And as long as man is in a fallen state the choice will always be the lesser of two evils. Lesser still means better than what we have.
Dwight,
I find this a little like the argument against serving in the military. Why should I have to fight if it violates my conscience?
That is not an easy decision, either. However, to not fight is not to leave your freedom up to God alone, but to leave it in the blood spilt by someone fighting in your place.
I do not think that “abstaining” can be considered an “ethical” decision. That certainly is a complicated issue, but I believe both your point of view and mine need to be offered and defended so that there is the best opportunity possible for each of us to make an informed decision.
I will also admit, confess, and ask forgiveness because I have allowed my passion for these issues to turn up the temperature on my rhetoric. It’s a little like playing pick-up basketball–often in the heat of the game, I’ve allowed myself to be a bit more agressive than my Christian faith would allow.
I do think that our discussion has clearly shown just how much is at stake in the politics of our day. When our choices appear to be “racism or abortion,” we really have fallen a far way from grace.
Dr. McKissic, you might well be right as to taking neither course, but the best that the Sovereign we both worship, as I trust, seems to be indicating to me right now is to vote against the one using my tax money to do something I utterly despise and reprobate. I do appreciate your providing the information about Dr. King and another individual who provided the information from Bonhoeffer that both looked on abortion as murder. I have finally tracked down the quote Dr. King got from Toynbee and have the book on request by inter-library loan…and I am taking notes like they are going out of style on the message concerning, The Ethiopian Proof, Please remember me in your prayers about that message. I have a friend who is a Cognitive Psychologist who is going to help me review the science involved…and I might seek to make use of the ex post facto method. God bless,
The right to vote does not inhere a command to vote. I am still wrestling with what I wrote about this matter a few months ago about the time of the Oklahoma primary.
http://www.toddlittleton.net/non-voting-as-a-challenge-to-power-one-non-vote-voters-reflection
In Spain, they have the option to “votar en blanco,” which loosely translated means, “to cast a blank ballot.” Technically, as I understand it, in the US you can go in the voting booth and not vote for anyone. But the problem is, they don’t count all the “blank votes,” so your attempt to register your non-conformance with all of the candidates goes unnoticed. Personally, I wish we had this opportunity in the US. It would be an intentional way of saying, “The reason I didn’t vote is not because I don’t care, or not because I am lazy, but rather because I cannot support any of the options currently available.”
David,
Yes, it would be nice if there were a way to register such sentiment. But, when one determines to make a convictional stand, that he or she is true to the motivating convictions may well be enough, even if un-noticed.
And, I guess, that is what blogs and other conversations are for. 😉
“””If I have to hold my nose to vote for someone, I won’t do that.”””
Perhaps that’s why God calls men to lead the fight. It’s a hard decision to pull the trigger on the enemy–but it is a decision somebody has to make.
But, let me be clear: an possible view that is racist in no way can be compared to the horror of a view that believes babies can be killed for convenience.
I’ll keep saying this as long as there are people like you that keep trying to make a false comparison that defies all logic and reason.
I think Debbie has integrity in saying that she won’t ‘hold her nose’ and vote. She has the option to abstain from voting, it is her right to do so.
What hasn’t been discussed here is all the baggage that comes along with Romney . . .
and I’m not referring to things like his religion, or any racism on his part, but what the platform of the Republican Party will adopt very soon.
When THOSE things are discussed OPENLY on blogs like this, I will feel a little better about the ones ‘holding their noses’ KNOWING what it is they really are wishing for if Romney wins.
If you vote AGIN, you are still also voting FOR.
But be sure you know what you are in for if you get your wish. Right now, from the lack of discussion of some very important issues, I’m not sure that people of faith know what they will truly be supporting with their vote.
My own bet is that WHEN that platform is adopted and is out for public viewing, some people of faith may decide to change their minds one way or the other . . .
the old adage: ‘be careful what you wish for’ is so important now, and I would add a little wisdom from my own years: KNOW what it is that you are voting for . . . try to understand the CONSEQUENCES of your actions . . . then vote ONLY in accordance with your conscience,
and for goodness, do your own thinking . . . you are free to think for yourself in this country, and to vote accordingly:
that IS the American way.
Frank,
That is the complexity of valuing life. You cannot favor one over the other. Killing the innocent is wrong. It obstructs life. Dehumanizing living persons is wrong. It obstructs life. That you do not like the comparison hardly comports to the vacation of logic and reason.
And, since I suspect you would not be of minority ethnic origins, namely Black, you would never see the two on par, sadly.
Todd,
I want to say I am not for racism at all. But I really don’t think that it’s comparable to abortion. Now racism leading to murder, that would be comparable to abortion. Racism devalues human life and abortion actually takes the next step of taking human life. Also, I have personally never seen any evidence whatsoever that Mitt Romney endorces racism.
John,
Does Mitt Romney endorses his “bible(s)” that contain racist teachings?
Dwight
“”””It obstructs life.””””
No, it ends life altogether . . . period.
“”””And, since I suspect you would not be of minority ethnic origins, namely Black, you would never see the two on par, sadly.””””
My values are not related to the “color of my skin but the content of my heart.”
And, I will point out to you that you do not have to be “Black” to be a minority.
Frank L.,
It is my guess that you would be hard pressed–not impossible–but hard pressed to find a Black person who would see abortion as more harmful than racism. What they have in common is the devaluing of human life. How do you quantify one being more harmful than another? Racism, systemically, has harmed more people in the history of this nation than abortion; although I find both equally reprehensible.
Dwight
Dr. J,
I think if you read Debbie’s comments, they are often judgmental and full of ad hominem attacks. That’s pretty much how it has been for the two years or so I’ve been reading the blog.
Please tell me how it is possible that I am overstating the case of the abomination of abortion.
Frank: I am well acquainted with the fact that the gate swings both ways, and I have been threatened by Blacks, too. Not surprising, considering. And as to your take on abortion, it is terrible. But racism has too. Across 4 centuries, I have seen estimates that run as high as 100,000,000 Africans, near about he same as for abortion worldwide. The folks who plan such things have a real aim of reducing the world’s pop. today by 5.5 billion people, from all that I can gather. I do believe abortion is murder as King and Bonhoeffer both argued, and I believed that before I knew what they had written. Simply because the Bible says that a man killing a woman with child is liable not only for her death, but also the death of that child.
I also wrote Debbie a little reply in defense of your hands clean of blood as that is a biblical motif. However, I do wonder, if her replies on another subject, namely, calvinism has not colored your responses. I could, of course, be wrong on that issue, but it set me to wondering. John Brown had some strong opinions about slavery, and my family was on the wrong side of that issue for the most part (one branch was on the side of the North, supposedly). All of that was planned and promoted in Europe, a fact that was foreseen as far back as the Constitutional Convention.
Frank, we probably won’t win our battle over both evils until we pray down the power of Heaven itself on earth (Isa.45:8…Heaven’s heart was God’s response;He gave His Son, and Jesus told us to pray His kingdom to come and His will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven. I Chronicles 16:15 points to a 1000 generations, allowing 20 years per generation points to 20,000 years at the very least (and how many planets? John Own’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ). All so the Lord can point to a number of the redeemed in Heaven that no one can number (Rev.7:9). Ever study the Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions?
“””Ever study the Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions”””
Under Dr. J Edwin Orr and Roy Fish, among others.
I have read Orr and some of Fish. I have also done research in these in the primary sources. Our Baptist Church Records and ministers, etc., et. al., have left some interesting materials.
Dr. James: Good grief. Calvinism has nothing to do with this issue. I can’t quite fathom why you would even think that. Racism and abortion have everything to do with my statements.
Debbie, I was more apprehensive that it might have colored Frank’s take on your opposition to his rather summary approach
My apologies Dr. James and thank you for what you wrote. It’s been a long day. 🙂
Thank you, Debbie. I happen to love my wife, and she makes me feel good about females
Frank: You have got to be kidding. I have not given you one ad hominem attack. It seems you love to twist things around. I simply addressed what I considered pretty ludicrous statements. If ludicrous statement seems ad hominem to you, then quit making them.
And just so there is clarity, by ludicrous statements, I am referring to your attempting to put the blood of the unborn on my and Dr. McKissic’s hands not because we would vote for Obama, but because you are against not voting for either candidate or a third party of which I can find no acceptable candidate there either.
All Chrisitans have an obligation to help get Obama out of office. Anyone who doesn’t do what they’re supposed to do, vote against Obama, or who has the gall to vote for him is responsible for any abortion deaths that happen while he’s in office. There is no issue that trumps or is equal to abortion–ever.
How do you quantify one being more harmful than another?
This is a fair question, Dwight. I think it has a very unequivocal answer.
Over 1.5 million Americans were routinely annialated by abortion last year in America.
I will agree that few (maybe even 100 or more) murders took place because they were racially motivated. Is that “quantified enough?” Over 15 million deaths from abortion in America in the last decade compared to hundreds, maybe thousands from racially motivated hate.
Morally, I believe both are equally reprehensible, but in reality the slaughter of innocents cannot even begin to be equated, quantifiably, to the injustices of racism.
But, please hear me: I will stand and fight with you to eradicate racism anywhere and everywhere it raises its ugly head. I just won’t hide behind the slaughter of innocents to do so.
That is how I outline my dilemma. It goes far deeper than skin color. It goes to the very sanctity of life. A tough call, I will certainly agree.
Could I ask you a question? It is a loaded question to be sure but it addresses your proposition that abortion and racism (in America today) lead to the same result–that is, they are equally egregious.
Would you as a Black person (your designation) rather a black baby be aborted, or be born into a world where he or she would face the kind or racial injustice we see in America today?
That’s my point: abortion ends a life. Racism (except in rare occasions) in America, today, may end opportunities (and Herman Cain argued that is not even the case). I’m trying to understand how those two outcomes are equal.
FRANK,
racism also can end a life: our country has just had a display of how racial profiling led to the stalking and killing of seventeen-year old
. . .
I would ask this of people:
when any kind of sin is let lose in the world, can we control the end result of that sin?
someone bullies a child over a period of time . . . the child goes home one day and hangs himself . . .
people have too much to drink and get behind the wheel of a car and fatalities result
once evil is turned lose in this world when we choose to sin, it is satan who controls the outcome, not us
we sin against God only . . . He is the only One Who knows the depth of that sin
has it not occurred to some, this:
that through each encounter Our Lord had with others in sacred Scripture, when He spoke to them, His Words were said also to you ?
we are told ‘go out into the deep, and let down your nets’
we are told ‘follow Me’
and all through the Gospels, we are on that journey with Him and we are also those He encounters on His Way whom He teaches and heals and raises from the dead,
it is as though we were there with Him . . . right up until the time He says ‘Father, forgive them . . . ‘
and when we say ‘He is Risen’, it is for us also as though we were there at that sacred moment
Why is this? Because of Who He Is, and that His Words have an eternal power to reach into the lives of all who are reborn in Him.
He transcends time and place and brings us into His Life.
the next time you read the Holy Gospels of Our Lord, place yourself in the boat, at the well, at the table, at the foot of the Cross, at the empty tomb, and at the Upper Room,
let His Words fall on your ears, as though He was speaking to you that first time . . . He was, you know
How true, Christiane. In Mt.22:31,32, He says to the Sadducees: “Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God saying…” Then he proceeds to cite the words to Moses from the burning bush. What was said to Moses some 1500 years or so earlier was also spoken to the people of our Lord’s Day and is His speaking to us today. It was L. Gaussen’s take on this in his Theopneustia which moved me to take the view of verbal inspiration, God breathed words, when I was being innudated by the so-called liberalism (really skepticism) of the higher critical approach being set forth by the professors at SEBTS. I had already been introduced to such stuff some 12-13 years earlier at St. Louis Baptist College by a Instructor in Psychology who had attended Southern in the fifties. God led me to Gaussen and a lot others who provided the answers about what God’s word actually teaches.
Suggestion – watch the recent video of the Exchange with Ed Stetzer on Mormonism. Just sayin’.
John,
I intend no disrespect. We do not know one another. But short of experiencing the dehumanizing effects of racism, we Anglo folks are hardly able to see the similarities. Women have and do ensure the same. I believe the argument is to guiding forces. If Pres. Obama suffers the relationship to Jeremiah Wright in evaluating his credentials, then Romney’s yet to be an issue Mormonism should weigh in the balance, which includes racism. And, flip flopping on abortion hardly makes Romney as passionate as Evangelicals hope he will be.
I still find them both terribly proematic on much the same grounds.
To Jim Shaver and Jim Lockhart: Thanks to both of you men for your service in Vietnam. Having dealt with veterans from all of the wars of Ameridca back to, and including, the Spanish American War, I have somewhat of an idea of the agony and the cost involved…though, admittedly, more from the standpoint of the anguish at home. Unfortunately, it seems that these wars are planned years in advance, and serve other purposes than those of the participants. I plead the promises of God, that the nations “…shall beat their swords in to plowshares,…, neither shall they learn war any more.”(Mich.4:3;Isa.2:4), words enscribed on a monument before the UN Building in NY where they serve someone else’s purpose other than the One who uttered them and intends for them to serve His ultimate purpose.