Pensees: To South Carolina Voters

Caveat: Though I am very disappointed with Bob Jones, I still respect him for many other things and happily recommend students from my church to the university. This is not sour grapes of any kind, and I hope that my criticism is not written off by some loyal BJ people as worthless because I am publicly questioning the Jones’ judgment.

I also know that many people will disagree with my controversial perspective and take offense, but my purpose is only to make a strong appeal to every Christian citizen that reads my blog to act responsibly and “christianly” with the unique opportunity to make two different statements in the polling booth, one in the primaries and one in the general election.

Warming up: Two Different Statements

As I see it, you get to make a statement twice if you are a registered Democrat or Republican. You get to say something in the primaries and you get to say something in November. In some states even Independents get to make a statement in the Republican or Democrat parties! The primaries are a chance for all eligible persons to make a statement concerning the nomination of a candidate. The general election is the opportunity for all eligible persons to make a statement of choice. They are two distinct statements and require two separate processes of thought.

Here we go!

I might be safe to say that no other country in the world has a system where political parties bring the general public in on the nomination process. (And, in some states, even members from the opposing parties!). This is a wonderful privilege.

Consider the definitions first:

1. To nominate - “to propose someone for office”

2. To vote - “to formally express a choice”

Now it should be obvious to everyone that the action of making a choice is different than the action of proposing a candidate. It is not wrong to choose something that we would not endorse or generally approve of over something that is demonstrably worse. This is typically called voting (or choosing) for the lesser of two evils. Voting is a choice. It is not an endorsement.

To nominate, on the other hand, is to go beyond the sphere of mere choice and to propose what/who you believe will be the best possible choice for others who do not have the power to nominate. (Every state has primaries, but some states are more influential than others.) If you make a choice (vote) in the primary on the 19th of January you are also making a nomination. In your case you do not have the luxury of making a simple choice of the lesser-of-two evils. Your vote is more important than that. You are also making a statement to the entire nation about who you think ought to be a choice for President of the United States of America as the nomination from your party. You have a number of choices, but you must nominate only one.

As already stated, this is extremely unusual in the world. In most countries political parties make their own nominations and the process is not at all public. In this country the general population of registered voters have, in theory anyway, a voice in the selection of their party’s nomination.

As my mind sees it, my vote on Super Tuesday (I’m still a registered Republican to my shame) will be considerably more complex than my vote in November 2008. My vote in a primary tells my party what I think they should be like as a party. If the party keeps getting its cues from voters who are only going to nominate the most electable person (i.e. the person with the most chance of beating the other party) then that party will inevitably slide into a non-descript collection of views , perspectives, and people that are out of necessity much like the party they oppose. Frankly, I think the Republican party is already there.

There are therefore many factors that go into your consideration of the candidates besides which one is better than the other out of two choices. Bob Jones seems to think that “beating Hillary” is the main issue. I think he is wrong. Besides the fact that the Democrats may succeed at “beating Hillary” without the help of Fundamentalists and Mormons, the ethical and spiritual ramifications of nominating as Christians a man who is in a cult as the only remotely winnable choice are far reaching. To endorse him is worse.

Of the many issues that must be carefully considered in the nominating process, electability is obviously a huge point. While it continues to baffle me that anyone thinks that Romney is the most electable against a black man or a woman, I can accept the notion that one may put so much weight into the electability of the nominee that they are willing to disregard almost every other issue. Romney has failed in two states already, but if one wants to continue to believe that he can resist the tidal wave of popularity that a woman and/or black man will be riding once the general election is underway, have at it.

But there are more issues than electability when one is nominating or endorsing and the man’s personal religion is not least among them. The fact that Romney is a Mormon matters. I would not nominate a Mormon even though I might choose a Mormon over a Murderer if it came down to that. I emphasize “might.” It will be a hard choice for me and I may consider voting a third party if the option is good. That’s down the road.

Important Notice

Now, notice that while I say that a man’s personal religion matters, I am not endorsing Mike Huckabee because he is an “evangelical.” Please note: I do not think that to believe that Romney’s Mormonism disqualifies him requires that one believe that Huckabee’s Christianity qualifies him.

Not All Sins are Equal

It is simplistic and misguided to glibly say that all non-Christians are the same and that to elect the irreligious vs. the false religion is a matter of indifference. Jones seems to think that Romney’s religion is better than Hillary’s non-religion. Obviously, he has other concerns in mind and abortion is one of them, but let’s consider that analysis for sake of illustration.

All other things being equal, is it true that false religion is preferable to no religion? Throughout the century believers have taught that there are degrees of evil. We naturally agree to this. Death may be an appropriate punishment for murder, but a bit excessive for speeding. While it is quite clear that the penalty for sin is always death, it is also obvious that the evil of things may have varying degrees or intensity. This should be obvious.

Is Abortion the Most Evil Thing?

To use our candidates as an example, Hillary and Romney are not Christian. One may be described as irreligious, the other as an adherent to a false religion. It is theologically true that both are the children of the father of lies, but one (on the face of it) has not chosen to follow truth and the other (on the face of it) has proactively embraced a blasphemous lie. Even though our nation is not a Christian nation, it is widely believed to have been founded on Christian principles and a basic Christian principle that was generally respected by Americans for the first two centuries of its existence is that the God of Christians should not be blasphemed.

We have had presidents who cuss and adulterate in the White House, but we have never chosen a man to be our leader who has sold his soul to a religious system that is committed to the blasphemy of the Lord Jesus Christ and the propagation of its lies until it has swept as many people as it possibly can into its vice-like grip. A Mormon president becomes a nation-wide endorsement of Mormonism. No, rather it becomes a world-wide endorsement of Mormonism.

Mitt Romney may be nice, amiable, and a good business man. But when Jones said, “I just believe that this man has the credentials both personally and ideologically in terms of his view about what American government should be to best represent the rank and file of conservative Americans” he was flat-out wrong.

If American government is only about anti-abortion, maybe. But there are many other nominees that are anti-abortion. If American government is about economics, maybe. But government, American or not, is also about representation. People get the government they deserve, and in most cases throughout history and the world people have not been able to nominate their representation. But when Christians choose to nominate their representation a man that has consciously embraced a “doctrine of demons” and loves a religion that aggressively blasphemes Jesus Christ the Lord then Christians should stop pretending that they mourn the loss of Christian principles that once governed our land.

To cry out that we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles and then to nominate for the most powerful office in the world a man who is decidedly anti-Christian purely on the basis that he is the most electable anti-abortion candidate is as illogical as it is man-centered.

It is a basic Christian principle that Jesus is God. Jesus is the King of kings, the ruler of nations, and if He chooses to put over my land a Mormon or a Muslim Dictator I will humbly submit. But when I have the choice to suggest to the nation who I think would be a good governor I simply do not think I have the prerogative to decide that electability over a pro-abortion candidate justifies the exaltation of leader who has wholly embraced a systematic denial of God.

Messed up Evangelicals and Fundamentalists need to hear this: there may be some things worse than abortion.

Hundreds of babies, little boys, were murdered when Jesus came to this earth according to the Apostle Matthew. There are no apologies. God does not apologize that He did not figure out a way to thwart Herod’s murderous nature and save the lives of hundreds of babies when He came into the world as the Son of David. God did not postpone the magnification of the Son of God to stop the murders. As horrible as the murders were, they merely magnified the fact that all the rulers of the earth take counsel together against the Lord’s Anointed (Psalm 2).

When you nominate Romney you are not only nominating a man who will take his place in the long line of rulers that say, “Let us break their bonds in pieces and cast away their cords from us,” but you will also be nominating a man who lovingly embraces a system of thought that articulates that very agenda with aggressive passion.

I’d rather babies die and go to heaven.

When Romney made his “religious speech” he was as slick and oily as any politician we have ever had. Said he,

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths.

That is as slippery as Bill Clinton’s definition of “is” is. Even left-wing nut cases at the leftist Huffington Post have enought theological commons sense to know that is pure baloney. Check out this response to the above Romney quote:

In other words: I’m glad you asked that question. I’m not going to answer it. As a tribute to this great land of ours.

Because here’s the thing that Mitt Romney can’t say: The Mormon Jesus has about as much in common with Jesus of Nazareth as the Los Angeles Kings have with King Tut. They have the same name, kind of, and that’s it.

It doesn’t even have the theological weight to be heresy; it’s a simple case of mistaken identity. [Bob’s note: In other words, it’s so brazenly false that the lie doesn’t deserve the dignity of being called a lie. It is sheer stupidity.]

And I know that sounds like I’m being flip, but that’s only because I don’t care. But if it matters to you, it really, really matters (Chris Kelly)..

The problem, sir, is that people who say they care really don’t care. You’re absolutely right: if it matters to us, it really, really matters. But what you don’t get, Mr. Kelly, is that the anti-abortion right-to-life cause is the fundamental tenet of our evangelical religion and as fundamentalists we are quite used to elevating peripherals over the glory of God. We blush that a Sovereign God (who certainly could have prevented it) incited the wrath of a pro-death leader and caused the death of innocent babies by sending His Son into the world prematurely even though we know Galatians teaches that it was in the fullness of time. We’re confused, sir. We are man-centered enough to question the rationale of sending the Saviour of men into the world while permitting the death of babies. Clearly, for God His glory trumps our right to life. We just don’t agree.

At the very beginning, I said that I don’t think that it would be inconsistent to vote for Romney in the general election, but that would be only if the other candidate were demonstrably worse and I could convince myself that I was choosing Romney in order to resist a greater evil. Choosing is different than nominating. And whatever explanations may be given that to choose electability now is the same as choosing the lesser-of-two evils then does not negate the fact that the primaries are a nominating process. Perhaps we should have the courage to nominate the unelectable now because it is the right thing to do leaving the results to God. (I say that still not decided on who I will vote for on Super Tuesday.) Isn’t there a verse in the Bible that says, “Do right until the stars fall”?

Am I endorsing/nominating an Evangelical just because he professes to be an Evangelical?

Now, one more thing: Does this mean that we are obligated to endorse/nominate/vote for a self-proclaimed evangelical?

Absolutely not. The Scriptures are very clear that many people will be quick to identify themselves as Christians and, therefore, it is foolish to get excited about a man just because he says he is a Christian. While I am quite sure that Romney is not a Christian, I am not so sure that Huckabee, for example, is a Christian. I am not suggesting that he has said or done anything that proves to me he is not a Christian, but there are great pretenders in the world. It is stupidly gullible to get jazzed up about a person just because he is a “Christian.” Again, I think it is obvious that just because a man is a Christian doesn’t mean he is qualified.

Thus, it seems to me, that a thoughtful Christian who is proposing to the nation a choice (nominating) will make a faith-driven decision (electibility considered among others as critical factors, but not exclusively) to choose (vote) on the 19th of January a person who, all things being considered, will be the best nomination possible for President of the United States.

At the general elections we will all choose (vote) the lesser-of-two-evils (or three), but you should do us the favor of doing your best to give us the best nomination possible. Let God take care of the consequences.

As for my personal opinion: Romney should be your last choice. I have no clue who you should nominate on the 19th. I really don’t. They all make me nervous. But if you choose a Mormon, you choose a man whose life is governed by his anti-Christ zeal and you have lost your right to bemoan the fact that America has left her Christian roots.

To put it gently.