December 14, 2007
When to Endorse? This is the Question.
When does a Christian have the prerogative to abdicate what I call holistic decision-making for pragmatic decision-making?
This is a tough question. We will certainly not all agree on the matter.
I know the axiom that religion is about convictions and politics is about compromise, but Christians are first and foremost religious people.
Religious people of the Christian faith ought to think about everything holistically. The whole person counts. The whole of the matter must be assessed. The whole of their beliefs matter. We know that religion matters. Every single area of our life is (or should be) affected by the faith that has been given to us.
On the other hand, pragmatism is something that we all practice to one degree or another. This is not always sinful. Whenever that pragmatism defies the authority of God’s Holy Word it is sin, but I think there are times that practical pragmatism is not only necessary, but wise. Pragmatism says that “the essence of a thing is that one [that thing] of its properties which is so important for my interests that, in comparison with it, I may neglect the rest” (Williams).
This is necessary in politics.
If I were confronted with a choice between Satan and Hillary, I would without hesitation vote for Hillary although I know many American Evangelicals would have to ponder on that one for awhile. For me, however, it is an easy decision. A vote for Hillary is a vote against Satan. The essence of the election has come down to “beating Satan.” There are very few things about Hillary that enthuse me, but I can in good conscience vote for her nonetheless when my only other option is Satan.
Simplistic, I know. But I think it is naive to think that compromise and pragmatism is always wrong. In my last post I stated that Bob Jones was pragmatic in his endorsement of Romney in October. I do not think an endorsement of Romney in the Summer of 2008 would be wrong (assuming for the sake of discussion that Romney is the GOP candidate and Hillary is on the other ticket) even though pragmatic. But I think Jones chose the pragmatic route too early. And it was pragmatism.
Why? Because he, not I, said that “it’s all about beating Hillary.” I do not fault him for defining a race by the one thing that matters to him so much that he is willing to jettison other serious considerations. I do, however, question the timing of his “all about beating Hillary” pragmatism.
The argument among Christians over the Romney nomination is not so much about whether we can have a Mormon president. If Romney is the GOP nominee we will all vote for him. The question that must be addressed is whether we have the prerogative to put aside our religious convictions so soon in the race when there are still before us viable candidates that, considered holistically, seem to be more compatible with our religious beliefs.
And that, frankly, is a tough question.
That is why I think religious leaders, particularly Christian leaders, should be slow to make endorsements that necessarily preclude better choices from the religious perspective.
Posted by Bob Bixby at December 14, 2007 12:02 PM | eMail this entry! | 532 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Politics and Culture
I didn’t personally read that Bob Jones had endorsed anyone, but I agree with you.
People are like sheep and will follow whatever their personal “heroes” are doing.
I have my own personal opinions about all the candidates and I too would vote for Hillary if Satan was her opponent and I don’t think that Obama is Satan.
Nice job on the pragmatic distinction. No one would have criticized Jones if he had chosen to endorse Romney after the primary votes were in. Assuming Romney is the GOP nominee (which I hope he is not), a bunch of us are going to “endorse” him by giving him our vote. We must stand on principle first…relying on pragmatism only when we have no other option. Good work.
Posted by: Chris at December 14, 2007 02:14 PMI thought we weren’t supposed to worry about culture at all. So, why endorse ever? Why vote? It won’t do any good. Culture will only get worse and worse until the rapture.
Of course, if we are going to try and slow down the worsening (I’m not sure why), it might be good to try and do so at the primary stage — to not wait for the general election. So, I don’t think Jones’ timing is the problem. If anything’s wrong, it’s Jones’ assessment of the candidates, but of course, that’s up for debate. I mean, if the SBC is apostate and sinking in the sand, then why is it any better to vote for an SBCer than a Mormon? Why’s an apostate Huckabee better than a cultic Romney?
So come on Bob, quit worrying about politics. Like you’ve done with movies, just say phoey to the whole thing — including pragmatic voting at the general election stage.
(smiley faces, marshmallows, and all that)
Posted by: Keith at December 14, 2007 05:09 PMIf as a citizen you wish to exercise whatever influence you have to encourage the selection of a particular candidate IN THE PRIMARY SEASON, then now is the time to endorse, not after the primaries.
Come on, people, there is nothing wrong with an endorsement at any time if you happen to think the individual is the best choice out there.
Many Christians seem enamored of Huckabee, but his answers on policy questions are very vague and his record on economic matters is not strictly conservative. I suspect that he would bring more of the same as Bush economically without the steely resolve in foreign affairs. The more I observe this race unfolding, the more I am thinking Dr. Bob is right on this one.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Bob:
Thanks as always for your insightful comments! I agree with your first post that Chuch Norris’s comments were much more like what we should expect from a Christian leader.
The big thing we miss in this type of quandry is the sovereignty of God. We should always vote out conscience and leave the rest to God. It is not “throwing away a vote” to vote for a seemingly irrelevant candidate in a primary. When we think to hard we often skew things because we are trying to divine the results! We should make the best choice informed by scripture and trust that God will raise up whom He will!
Your post is interesting and goes totally against what the candidates themselves are saying.
Heres what you said:
“Religious people of the Christian faith ought to think about everything holistically. The whole person counts. The whole of the matter must be assessed. The whole of their beliefs matter. We know that religion matters. Every single area of our life is (or should be) affected by the faith that has been given to us.”
But if you’d follow the current events, you’d realize that the candidates themselves are saying religion doesn’t matter and hey, let’s just all get along. One candidate says Satan is Jesus’ brother, and the other candidate comes from a religious tradition that says such views are heretical and blasphemous. But, in public, they say it’s not big deal and “we apologize for pointing out these differences.”
Didn’t anyone else catch this?! I was starting to like Huckabee, but now he apologized for pointing out this MAJOR HERESY and is trying to shove the whole religious thing back down. At first I applauded him for pointing out that yes, there are differences, and major ones, between Christianity and Mormonism. Now he is cowering with his tail between his legs saying, “sorry I brought this up.” Although, to be fair and honest, I don’t know if Huckabee originally brought this up, or, if Time Magazine simply pointed out the differences on their own. In any event, Huckabee is backing down and wimping out.
Posted by: mr. Felix at December 17, 2007 09:28 AMHmmm, interesting thoughts, so between Satan and Hitler you pick Hitler? Just trying to follow your logic.
Between death by a fiery furnace and placing your knee on the ground when told too you would place your knee on the ground when told to. Because in your heart you could worship God. Slight sarcasm intended.
I agree that politics is all about pragmatism but if it ALL boils down to the lesser of 2 evils then we will always end up with evil. I think there has to be some baseline convictions or lines that should never be crossed. For example if candidate A is going to raise my taxes but fight to abolish abortion and candidate B will lower my taxes but thinks abortion is OK. Then I choose the one that is pro-life.
As far as Bob Jones picking Romney I suspect he is willing to have a candidate that “might” be pro-life but will not raise taxes over a candidate that unequivocally is pro-life but might raise my taxes (like Huckabee). In my mind the logic is twisted and the priorities are confused with that choice.
Terry Riegel
riegel@clearimageonline.com
