The following entry was written some time ago, during the primaries. I think, however, it should be helpful for Tuesday. --Rusty
How are Christians supposed to determine who to vote for in crucial elections? Hopefully, the following ten guidelines will help. They are influenced by Stoyan Zaimov’s article published in the Christian Post Reporter on 12/26/11 (Iowa Pastors' Advice for Christian Voters as Caucuses Approach).
1. Pray. As Christians, we are commanded in 1 Tim. 2:1 to pray for our governmental authorities. Certainly this would apply to praying over the placement of people into these positions of authority. Before you vote, ask God to give you clarity and wisdom. Politicians are notorious for saying what we want to hear, not necessarily what they believe. Not all politicians are like this, but certainly many are. We need discernment to know who the real deal is and who is a fake.
2. Faith. I believe the most important freedom our country has is the freedom to practice our faith without government intrusion. If a candidate does not respect the Bible and the rights of our citizens to worship the God of the Bible, it would be unwise to vote for him or her. Pay attention to how the candidate talks about people of faith.
3. Life. If a candidate has little regard for the life of an infant or of the elderly, I will not vote for him or her. Admittedly, some candidates make a distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. That is to say, they want to eliminate abortion somehow and in some way, but prefer to look to medical science and/or social reform rather than a repeal of Roe vs. Wade as the means of ending abortion. Nevertheless, if a candidate does not see a fetus as a life or supports unfettered euthanasia, I have a hard time voting for that individual. Pro-life is a big one for me.
4. Poverty. If a candidate is overly focused on capitalism or wealth to the neglect of the poor, I am less inclined to vote for him or her. Our leaders should show concern for the poor. However, by poor, I don’t mean irresponsible. The Bible is clear that we are to expect our citizens to be productive contributors to society (2 Thes. 3:10). The government should provide help to those who have been hit by difficulties and are infirmed. But for able-bodied citizens, we should more frequently offer a hand up than a hand out.
5. Character. It stands to reason that a leader, if he or she is to lead well, must have a strong, moral character. The best indicator of future character is past behavior. If elected, this person is given a public trust. If that leader is not trustworthy, there will be problems keeping the trust! So, it’s fair game to look at a track record when it comes to marriage, family, fiscal responsibility, job performance, etc. Is this person a man or woman of integrity? What does the past tell us?
6. Family. The biblical standard of marriage as between a man and a woman is an important issue for me. This is not simply ideological, but practical as well. Society simply functions better when the family unit consists of one father and one mother in a faithful, healthy, sacred, and monogamous relationship. Redefining marriage in homosexual or polygamous terms (FYI, there is also currently a movement to recognize polygamous marriage) logically leads to redefining the ideals we pass on to future generations. Where a candidate stands on this issue will have an impact on my vote.
7. Economy. It is a biblical principle to pay back debt and to reward those who work hard. It is important to me, therefore, for a candidate to be fiscally responsible with state or national debt and to encourage economic development. If our government penalizes financial success with over-taxation and hikes up debt to pay for too many entitlements, our nation will not be prosperous enough to provide for the poor. The greatest institutions for helping the poor, our churches and other non-profits, will not have the income to provide maximum care because donations will be too low in a struggling economy. We do need governmental oversight to protect the public from corporate corruption (such as predatory lending), but we must be careful to allow a healthy free market to thrive. I want to know that my leaders possess fiscal understanding and have the leadership skills necessary to provide strong economic direction.
8. Military/Law Enforcement. Throughout biblical history, the government had the noble responsibility of protecting its citizens from attack. Strong, moral, and disciplined military and law enforcement agencies are necessary for the sake of freedom. Yet, these forces should be used only for just causes. In candidates, I look for men and women who respect the military and law enforcement and expect these agencies to abide by the highest standards of human decency.
9. Education. When it comes to educating our kids, the most important question is “What’s best for the children?” If a candidate begins the discussion with teachers’ rights or a strict separation of secular and private education, I’m less inclined to vote for him or her. However, I applaud those who want to encourage educational systems that reward educators who truly love kids and are gifted in training them.
10. Global. We are to be good neighbors to other countries in the world. I expect my governmental leaders to be ambassadors of good will, champions of freedom, well-informed, diplomatically savvy, and tangibly formidable when it comes to other nations. Israel, in particular, is an ally that must be given special attention due to biblical wisdom (Gen. 12:1-2) and strategic objectives (its alliance is crucial in the struggle against militant Islamic terrorism). If a candidate seems shallow, ignorant, naive, or feeble with regard to foreign policy, I’m less likely to vote for him or her.
These are some of the guidelines that help me filter candidates in an election. Obviously, the list is not exhaustive. It also requires us to research where each of the candidates stand. But, perhaps, it will aid you as you ask for the Spirit’s discernment in the ballot box.
Soulman: Provider of Soul Food.
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Which Candidate: A Mormon or A Liberal?
The following is an excellent blog entry written by Dr. Randy Alcorn, an outstanding theological thinker. I completely concur with his evaluation of the candidates and the subsequent difficulties of this election. Sorry about the format (no paragraph sections), but I had a hard time importing the text to my blog.
Election 2012 Part 3: Which Candidate Has More Christian Beliefs? (And Should I Vote for a Mormon?) By Randy Alcorn My previous blog, on religious liberties, concerned the response of Christian organizations and business owners filing suit against the Obama administration because of its demand that organizations pay for, via their insurance coverage, their employees’ surgical abortions and contraceptives (including abortifacients). I was surprised reading my blog’s comments to hear professing Christians say that they do not believe it is an infringement of religious liberties for a Christian university, ministry or business to be required to do this. If you haven’t read that blog you may wish to. This subject has far-reaching importance. I find it difficult to understand how the administration’s demands can be seen as anything other than a fundamental violation of historic religious liberties. Well, time to move on so that I can offend others. :) (Truthfully, I’m not trying to offend anyone. But that won’t keep it from happening.) Regarding Mitt Romney’s Mormonism…. I grew up in a nonchristian home. My dad was a tavern owner, we never went to church, and even Billy Graham was persona non grata in our house. I was empty and searching, but in high school my life was radically changed. The Jesus I came to know was the one I learned about through reading Scripture. This Jesus is not “however you wish to define him.” Rather, he is the second member of the triune God, not creature but Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16). I believe in the gospel of God’s grace secured on the cross by Jesus Christ, the God-man. It cannot be earned or achieved in by human works, ceremonies or church affiliations (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). This is the only true gospel, the one of which Scripture says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The Mormon faith began with the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith, proclaiming a gospel contrary to Scripture’s. Am I troubled by the idea of voting for a candidate who has served as a bishop in, and continues to be part of, a religious group that misrepresents both Jesus Christ and the gospel? In a word: Yes. Some will argue that it’s hateful and bigoted to say this. I feel no hatred. I know and love a number of Mormons. (I also know atheists and agnostics—and for that matter, Steelers and Raiders fans—and countless others whose beliefs and passions I don’t share, but whose company I still enjoy :). Others will say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about—you know nothing of Mormonism.” On the contrary, I have studied it extensively. Years ago I read all the Mormon holy books, including the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I went to a Mormon library to read portions of Journal of Discourses, the 26-volume collection of sermons by early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published by the stenographer of Brigham Young, it records over 1400 sermons of the most prominent LDS leaders in the first four decades of Mormonism. It includes sermons by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball and fifty-some others. I have met at length with Mormon elders, current Mormons and former Mormons who left the church after coming to faith in Christ. We have together looked at passages in their documents that teach many things that contradict Scripture. I know enough about Mormonism to know it is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. (I know I will hear from sincere Mormons grieved that I have said this. I truly do not want to offend you or any of my Mormon friends, including those I grew up with; what I want you to know is the saving grace of Jesus, the God-man revealed in Scripture, who went to the cross and paid for our sins, offering to us an eternal life we cannot in any sense earn or achieve.) Al Mohler expressed some helpful, clear thoughts about Mormonism. I will quote a paragraph, but his article is well worth reading: Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. To the contrary, the central claim of Mormonism is that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until the restoration of the faith with the advent of the Latter-Day Saints and their scripture, The Book of Mormon. Thus, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty to take Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, at his word when he claimed that true Christianity did not exist from the time of the Apostles until the reestablishment of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods on May 15, 1829. There are various websites where former Mormons present the church’s doctrine as it was taught to them, and is recorded in the writings of LDS leaders God supposedly spoke through. Had I not personally studied Mormon writings and dialogued with Mormon leaders, I doubt I would believe that the following are teachings of the church. Here are just some of them: •God was once a man like us. •God has a tangible body of flesh and bone. •God lives on a planet near the star Kolob… The sun receives its light from the star Kolob. •God the “Heavenly Father” has at least one wife, our “Mother in Heaven,” but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her. •Jesus was married. •There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds. •We can become like God and one day rule over our own universes. •Jesus and Satan (“Lucifer”) are spirit brothers, and they are our brothers—we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father •Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife. •Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a “pre-existence”, during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life. •The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere. •If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood. •A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple. I see Mormon websites denying these are their doctrines, but when I look a number of them up in their texts they are there. I recently read a Mormon scholar in a popular magazine saying that a number of these doctrines have never been taught by the church. He said it was absolutely false that Mormons believe God the Father took on a human body and had sex with Mary in order for her to conceive Jesus. Yet here is Brigham Young, second president of the LDS, whose words were supposedly inspired by God: “The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses, volume 8, p. 115). Look it up for yourself. Or, if you think the star Kolob stuff is made up, just read Pearl of Great Price as posted by the Mormon church online. Please don’t leave me a comment saying this is not what the church teaches. Just go to the link, search for “Kolob” and you can see for yourself what it says (see Abraham 3:2–16, on page 36 of the linked file). Read it in context. It will be an eye-opener. Read the article by former Mormon Sandra Tanner on the location of the Garden of Eden. Here’s a summary of the teaching of the Heavenly Mother. And here’s Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers. Here’s another summary of Mormon teachings. (link to). And a helpful comparison between Mormon and Christian doctrines. Okay, so where does this leave me in regard to Mitt Romney’s Mormonism? Honestly, in the past I would have said, “No way would I vote for a presidential candidate with those beliefs.” I don’t like the idea of the president of the United States being the most prominent face of Mormonism in the world. I don’t like the idea that as a sharp, well-spoken person he could draw people toward a faith that denies the deity of Christ our Savior, and distorts the gospel of grace. But none of that changes the fact that one of only two candidates will become president of the United States. And while the presidential candidates both profess to be Christians, in my opinion they each have beliefs that sharply contradict historic, biblical Christianity. In Governor Romney’s case there is a rejection (though likely never explicit) of the biblical gospel and identity of Christ, as well as a number of bizarre beliefs unique to Mormonism. What President Obama believes in his heart about Christ, I cannot tell you. But I do know that he has been a devastatingly outspoken opponent of the right to life of our smallest and most vulnerable children. He has boldly implemented a healthcare plan that violates historic religious liberties, actually attempting to compel Christian organizations to pay for their employees’ abortions (which they believe to be child-killing). He also has affirmed that gay marriage should be established on a legal level equal to heterosexual marriage, changing the historic view of the family. I believe each of these positions is a dramatic departure from Scripture, and from the historic Christian faith. I don’t just mean from modern evangelical Christianity, I mean Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and every tradition within Protestantism that has ever professed belief in the Bible. (Modern liberal Protestantism is different in that it simply follows secular culture in either explicitly or implicitly denying the Scriptures.) So how do I choose between two candidates who in my opinion fall far short? I must consider not simply the candidates’ professed religious beliefs, but their past positions on moral issues, their promises and statements of intentions of what they will do in office. Respected evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem says of Mitt Romney, “He seems to me to stand for policies that reflect biblical values, including all or nearly all of the policies that I advocated in my book Politics — According to the Bible.” Grudem says, Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible…. …Have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. Grudem has more to say about this, and you may find it helpful. Some believers are saying that given the choices, they’re not going to vote. I understand. I’ve been there. But not this time. Part of me really resists the lesser of two evils approach. I find it hard to explain what’s different this time, except that in the last four years we have lost things (particularly in the arena of religious liberties) which, if not recovered in the next four, I think may never be recovered. I have children and grandchildren. I don’t want them to pay the price for my disenchantment and unwillingness to choose between two candidates. I am voting for their sake because I can’t figure out, this time at least, how I can help them by not voting. I was just finishing this blog when I saw John Piper’s “I am Going to Vote.” He explains, “The likelihood that both presidencies will be identical in the good and evil they do is infinitesimal. One will very probably do more good amid the bad, even if only a little.” If I might make a lot of difference for my children and grandchildren, I will certainly do it. And if I could make even a little difference I will do that too. All Christians should do our best and search the Scriptures, weigh and measure the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, and vote as best we can considering the options before us. So, yes, I am troubled voting for a candidate who is a Mormon. But am I more or less troubled voting for the other candidate? Ravi Zacharias says, “If you are choosing between those for whom the Christ is not supreme in salvation, you have to choose the one who will give you the best moral soil in order to live for Christ and to live out your faith.” I take comfort in the fact that we are not voting for a pastor, but a president. (If we were voting for a pastor, I would definitely do a write-in!) In a Christianity Today article “Is There Anything Wrong With Voting for a Mormon? Three Views”, Molly Ziegler Hemingway quotes Martin Luther as saying, “Christians are not needed for secular authority. Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.” Luther meant not only wisdom, but moral reason. So as you consider who to vote for in an election that lacks an ideal candidate, ask yourself which man’s (and include the vice presidents too) stated values and track record is in the best interests of: a sound moral framework, care for the needy that motivates and empowers them, financial responsibility, the upholding of civil and religious liberties, and a reasonable national defense. Subsequent blogs in the short time before the election will include abortion, gay marriage, and a few other issues. So if there is one more person left I haven’t yet offended, take heart. I’m not done. :) To see this blog entry, along with the links Dr. Alcorn mentions, visit: http://www.epm.org/blog/2012/Oct/18/election-2012-part-3
Election 2012 Part 3: Which Candidate Has More Christian Beliefs? (And Should I Vote for a Mormon?) By Randy Alcorn My previous blog, on religious liberties, concerned the response of Christian organizations and business owners filing suit against the Obama administration because of its demand that organizations pay for, via their insurance coverage, their employees’ surgical abortions and contraceptives (including abortifacients). I was surprised reading my blog’s comments to hear professing Christians say that they do not believe it is an infringement of religious liberties for a Christian university, ministry or business to be required to do this. If you haven’t read that blog you may wish to. This subject has far-reaching importance. I find it difficult to understand how the administration’s demands can be seen as anything other than a fundamental violation of historic religious liberties. Well, time to move on so that I can offend others. :) (Truthfully, I’m not trying to offend anyone. But that won’t keep it from happening.) Regarding Mitt Romney’s Mormonism…. I grew up in a nonchristian home. My dad was a tavern owner, we never went to church, and even Billy Graham was persona non grata in our house. I was empty and searching, but in high school my life was radically changed. The Jesus I came to know was the one I learned about through reading Scripture. This Jesus is not “however you wish to define him.” Rather, he is the second member of the triune God, not creature but Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16). I believe in the gospel of God’s grace secured on the cross by Jesus Christ, the God-man. It cannot be earned or achieved in by human works, ceremonies or church affiliations (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). This is the only true gospel, the one of which Scripture says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The Mormon faith began with the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith, proclaiming a gospel contrary to Scripture’s. Am I troubled by the idea of voting for a candidate who has served as a bishop in, and continues to be part of, a religious group that misrepresents both Jesus Christ and the gospel? In a word: Yes. Some will argue that it’s hateful and bigoted to say this. I feel no hatred. I know and love a number of Mormons. (I also know atheists and agnostics—and for that matter, Steelers and Raiders fans—and countless others whose beliefs and passions I don’t share, but whose company I still enjoy :). Others will say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about—you know nothing of Mormonism.” On the contrary, I have studied it extensively. Years ago I read all the Mormon holy books, including the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I went to a Mormon library to read portions of Journal of Discourses, the 26-volume collection of sermons by early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published by the stenographer of Brigham Young, it records over 1400 sermons of the most prominent LDS leaders in the first four decades of Mormonism. It includes sermons by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball and fifty-some others. I have met at length with Mormon elders, current Mormons and former Mormons who left the church after coming to faith in Christ. We have together looked at passages in their documents that teach many things that contradict Scripture. I know enough about Mormonism to know it is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. (I know I will hear from sincere Mormons grieved that I have said this. I truly do not want to offend you or any of my Mormon friends, including those I grew up with; what I want you to know is the saving grace of Jesus, the God-man revealed in Scripture, who went to the cross and paid for our sins, offering to us an eternal life we cannot in any sense earn or achieve.) Al Mohler expressed some helpful, clear thoughts about Mormonism. I will quote a paragraph, but his article is well worth reading: Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. To the contrary, the central claim of Mormonism is that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until the restoration of the faith with the advent of the Latter-Day Saints and their scripture, The Book of Mormon. Thus, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty to take Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, at his word when he claimed that true Christianity did not exist from the time of the Apostles until the reestablishment of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods on May 15, 1829. There are various websites where former Mormons present the church’s doctrine as it was taught to them, and is recorded in the writings of LDS leaders God supposedly spoke through. Had I not personally studied Mormon writings and dialogued with Mormon leaders, I doubt I would believe that the following are teachings of the church. Here are just some of them: •God was once a man like us. •God has a tangible body of flesh and bone. •God lives on a planet near the star Kolob… The sun receives its light from the star Kolob. •God the “Heavenly Father” has at least one wife, our “Mother in Heaven,” but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her. •Jesus was married. •There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds. •We can become like God and one day rule over our own universes. •Jesus and Satan (“Lucifer”) are spirit brothers, and they are our brothers—we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father •Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife. •Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a “pre-existence”, during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life. •The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere. •If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood. •A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple. I see Mormon websites denying these are their doctrines, but when I look a number of them up in their texts they are there. I recently read a Mormon scholar in a popular magazine saying that a number of these doctrines have never been taught by the church. He said it was absolutely false that Mormons believe God the Father took on a human body and had sex with Mary in order for her to conceive Jesus. Yet here is Brigham Young, second president of the LDS, whose words were supposedly inspired by God: “The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses, volume 8, p. 115). Look it up for yourself. Or, if you think the star Kolob stuff is made up, just read Pearl of Great Price as posted by the Mormon church online. Please don’t leave me a comment saying this is not what the church teaches. Just go to the link, search for “Kolob” and you can see for yourself what it says (see Abraham 3:2–16, on page 36 of the linked file). Read it in context. It will be an eye-opener. Read the article by former Mormon Sandra Tanner on the location of the Garden of Eden. Here’s a summary of the teaching of the Heavenly Mother. And here’s Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers. Here’s another summary of Mormon teachings. (link to). And a helpful comparison between Mormon and Christian doctrines. Okay, so where does this leave me in regard to Mitt Romney’s Mormonism? Honestly, in the past I would have said, “No way would I vote for a presidential candidate with those beliefs.” I don’t like the idea of the president of the United States being the most prominent face of Mormonism in the world. I don’t like the idea that as a sharp, well-spoken person he could draw people toward a faith that denies the deity of Christ our Savior, and distorts the gospel of grace. But none of that changes the fact that one of only two candidates will become president of the United States. And while the presidential candidates both profess to be Christians, in my opinion they each have beliefs that sharply contradict historic, biblical Christianity. In Governor Romney’s case there is a rejection (though likely never explicit) of the biblical gospel and identity of Christ, as well as a number of bizarre beliefs unique to Mormonism. What President Obama believes in his heart about Christ, I cannot tell you. But I do know that he has been a devastatingly outspoken opponent of the right to life of our smallest and most vulnerable children. He has boldly implemented a healthcare plan that violates historic religious liberties, actually attempting to compel Christian organizations to pay for their employees’ abortions (which they believe to be child-killing). He also has affirmed that gay marriage should be established on a legal level equal to heterosexual marriage, changing the historic view of the family. I believe each of these positions is a dramatic departure from Scripture, and from the historic Christian faith. I don’t just mean from modern evangelical Christianity, I mean Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and every tradition within Protestantism that has ever professed belief in the Bible. (Modern liberal Protestantism is different in that it simply follows secular culture in either explicitly or implicitly denying the Scriptures.) So how do I choose between two candidates who in my opinion fall far short? I must consider not simply the candidates’ professed religious beliefs, but their past positions on moral issues, their promises and statements of intentions of what they will do in office. Respected evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem says of Mitt Romney, “He seems to me to stand for policies that reflect biblical values, including all or nearly all of the policies that I advocated in my book Politics — According to the Bible.” Grudem says, Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible…. …Have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. Grudem has more to say about this, and you may find it helpful. Some believers are saying that given the choices, they’re not going to vote. I understand. I’ve been there. But not this time. Part of me really resists the lesser of two evils approach. I find it hard to explain what’s different this time, except that in the last four years we have lost things (particularly in the arena of religious liberties) which, if not recovered in the next four, I think may never be recovered. I have children and grandchildren. I don’t want them to pay the price for my disenchantment and unwillingness to choose between two candidates. I am voting for their sake because I can’t figure out, this time at least, how I can help them by not voting. I was just finishing this blog when I saw John Piper’s “I am Going to Vote.” He explains, “The likelihood that both presidencies will be identical in the good and evil they do is infinitesimal. One will very probably do more good amid the bad, even if only a little.” If I might make a lot of difference for my children and grandchildren, I will certainly do it. And if I could make even a little difference I will do that too. All Christians should do our best and search the Scriptures, weigh and measure the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, and vote as best we can considering the options before us. So, yes, I am troubled voting for a candidate who is a Mormon. But am I more or less troubled voting for the other candidate? Ravi Zacharias says, “If you are choosing between those for whom the Christ is not supreme in salvation, you have to choose the one who will give you the best moral soil in order to live for Christ and to live out your faith.” I take comfort in the fact that we are not voting for a pastor, but a president. (If we were voting for a pastor, I would definitely do a write-in!) In a Christianity Today article “Is There Anything Wrong With Voting for a Mormon? Three Views”, Molly Ziegler Hemingway quotes Martin Luther as saying, “Christians are not needed for secular authority. Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.” Luther meant not only wisdom, but moral reason. So as you consider who to vote for in an election that lacks an ideal candidate, ask yourself which man’s (and include the vice presidents too) stated values and track record is in the best interests of: a sound moral framework, care for the needy that motivates and empowers them, financial responsibility, the upholding of civil and religious liberties, and a reasonable national defense. Subsequent blogs in the short time before the election will include abortion, gay marriage, and a few other issues. So if there is one more person left I haven’t yet offended, take heart. I’m not done. :) To see this blog entry, along with the links Dr. Alcorn mentions, visit: http://www.epm.org/blog/2012/Oct/18/election-2012-part-3
Friday, September 21, 2012
Does Prayer Change Things?
An election is happening in about a month. Maybe you heard of it. Hello! It's for the office of the President of the United States of America! I wonder: if we prayed over this election, would it change anything? It's a good question. Throughout Scripture, God often holds people responsible for their choices. For example, in Zephaniah 3:1, God says of Jerusalem, "What sorrow awaits rebellious, polluted Jerusalem, the city of violence and crime!" Later, He tells us why this judgment is coming: 'I thought . . . surely they will listen to my warnings. Then I won't need to strike again, destroying their homes' But no, they get up early to continue their evil deeds." (Zeph. 3:7). It is clear that the people of Jerusalem at this time have a choice: follow God or follow evil. We see this often in the Bible. So, back to our question. If we pray for God to place the most biblical candidate into office, will He answer the prayer and actually move the wills of voters to a certain candidate? What if we soup up the prayers and add fasting and more godly people praying to the equation? Will that increase the chances that the right candidate will win?
I think it probably will for at least three reasons with one encouragement:
1. When we seek to pray honestly and humbly, WE will tend to do God's will. The old adage that "prayer doesn't change God, it changes us" is definitely true. I've found that when I'm in a spirit of desperate, worshipful prayer, I conform more to His character, for I have been with Him. He rubs off on me. Therefore, if I'm in serious prayer about the election, I am more probable to vote for the candidate that conforms most to His ways.
2. God has actually caused others to change due to prayer. For example, in Acts 2:42 we see the early church devoted to prayer and the result was that "the Lord added to their fellowship those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47). Prayer moved people to repentance in some mysterious way. If we pray fervently, it is entirely possible that God will actually cause people to open up their eyes and vote for the right candidate.
3. God has used prayer to effect tremendous change in America's past. It is a matter of historical record that both the First and Second Great Awakenings, as well as other huge revivals (ex. the 1857 Revival), relied heavily on prayer. These revivals radically changed our country for the better and brought enormous numbers of people to Christ. Entire regions of America became devoted to God. Personally, I believe this changes a country far more than any election. If the average person gives his or her life to God, we will have fewer societal problems because more people will be living responsible, healthy lives. I love the word "awakening." When the Holy Spirit moves, people awaken. We wake up! This is so needed in America today!
4. (Encouragement) Prayer reminds us that God is our King and at its essence, prayer is request. I forget where I heard this, but someone great said that prayer is, at it's essence, request before a King. It was probably C.S. Lewis who said it because, let's face it, he was awesome. But, bottom line, God is not obligated to answer our prayers the way we want Him to. And there is tremendous comfort in that truth. When I pray, if He says "No," I can rest in the fact that He knows what He is doing. He may not place my candidate into office. He may have other plans. Regardless, when I bow before the King, I get Him. I'm reminded that I serve THE King and one day, everyone will know He is King. There is a new reality coming. He will take over. It's only a matter of time. And there will be no vote on that.
So, I encourage you to pray and fast and get others to do so for our election. Our nation needs it and, guess what, so do you.
I think it probably will for at least three reasons with one encouragement:
1. When we seek to pray honestly and humbly, WE will tend to do God's will. The old adage that "prayer doesn't change God, it changes us" is definitely true. I've found that when I'm in a spirit of desperate, worshipful prayer, I conform more to His character, for I have been with Him. He rubs off on me. Therefore, if I'm in serious prayer about the election, I am more probable to vote for the candidate that conforms most to His ways.
2. God has actually caused others to change due to prayer. For example, in Acts 2:42 we see the early church devoted to prayer and the result was that "the Lord added to their fellowship those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47). Prayer moved people to repentance in some mysterious way. If we pray fervently, it is entirely possible that God will actually cause people to open up their eyes and vote for the right candidate.
3. God has used prayer to effect tremendous change in America's past. It is a matter of historical record that both the First and Second Great Awakenings, as well as other huge revivals (ex. the 1857 Revival), relied heavily on prayer. These revivals radically changed our country for the better and brought enormous numbers of people to Christ. Entire regions of America became devoted to God. Personally, I believe this changes a country far more than any election. If the average person gives his or her life to God, we will have fewer societal problems because more people will be living responsible, healthy lives. I love the word "awakening." When the Holy Spirit moves, people awaken. We wake up! This is so needed in America today!
4. (Encouragement) Prayer reminds us that God is our King and at its essence, prayer is request. I forget where I heard this, but someone great said that prayer is, at it's essence, request before a King. It was probably C.S. Lewis who said it because, let's face it, he was awesome. But, bottom line, God is not obligated to answer our prayers the way we want Him to. And there is tremendous comfort in that truth. When I pray, if He says "No," I can rest in the fact that He knows what He is doing. He may not place my candidate into office. He may have other plans. Regardless, when I bow before the King, I get Him. I'm reminded that I serve THE King and one day, everyone will know He is King. There is a new reality coming. He will take over. It's only a matter of time. And there will be no vote on that.
So, I encourage you to pray and fast and get others to do so for our election. Our nation needs it and, guess what, so do you.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Thoughts on the Candidates
The following is simply the personal thoughts of Rusty Hayes and not an official statement on behalf of any church or denomination.
Recently, I was asked by a major conservative campaign consultant which candidate I favored in the election. My answer at the time was that I wasn't comfortable with any of them for the following reasons:
Romney: Mormonism. I'm not crazy about the fact that Romney is a Mormon because Mormon theology teaches that man can become God. I'm not comfortable with any candidate who believes that I could, conceivably, become a god over my own planet. While I have tremendous respect for the lifestyles of many Mormons and don't necessarily believe that having a Mormon as the President would be a disaster, I prefer to have someone in the office who holds to a theology that recognizes God as THE only wise God, unique in His glory and deity.
Gingrich: Unfaithfulness. While I think Speaker Gingrich may be the smartest and most savvy politician in the room, I have to be honest. His infidelity is troublesome to me. It makes it difficult for me to trust him fully. I also have a hard time with the idea of a first lady being the first lady due to an affair she had with her husband that wrecked his previous marriage. Now, to be fair, I've been on the phone with Speaker Gingrich twice on a conference call. The first time was when he was leading a charge to deter Iran from their nuclear program. The second time was more recently when I took part in a call with other pastors in which he described the mistakes he made in his previous marriages. He was genuinely moving and repentant. I respect that and I respect him. I've also heard some wonderful things about his wife. In addition, I also understand that marriages usually fall apart due to many other factors. But in the office of President, I still feel uneasy with what happened the last time he was in office. Not trying to be judgmental, just being real.
Paul: Not much to say here except Ron Paul feels very liberal to me on a number of issues, especially his support of abortion. He seems naive about the threat of Iran as well.
Santorum: Perhaps Santorum is the candidate we've all been looking for. Initially, I didn't think he had a chance. His poll numbers were so low that it seemed he was campaigning for the Vice Presidency or a future talk-show gig instead of the Presidency. But he has risen in the polls dramatically and has a strong appeal to Evangelicals. He's been faithful to his wife, is sensitive to childhood disorders (has a child with one), has 8 kids, is very pro-life, is a fiscal conservative, and is a man of faith in the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ. I'm a little uncomfortable with his style at times since he can come across as adversarial. He is also a Roman Catholic, which could be problematic if the Roman Catholic Church ever takes a political position contrary to Evangelical theology (for example, most Evangelicals are not opposed to certain types of birth control within marriage that the RCC discourages).
Obama: Contrary to many of my Evangelical brothers, I do not believe Obama is the Antichrist. I recently had lunch with a well-respected African American Pastor and he affirmed Obama's Christian faith and noble motives. I happen to think President Obama is a decent man who genuinely cares about the poor. He's also faithful to his wife and a good father. But his position on abortion as well as other moral issues are hurdles I cannot cross. I also worry about his fiscal discipline.
Regardless of who wins, my prayers will be in this process. Ultimately, I don't believe our nation's future is in the hands of politicians. My hope and prayer is that revival will break out in the U.S. and draw us all back to the Lord. In the meantime, an election is coming and whoever wins will need our prayers.
Recently, I was asked by a major conservative campaign consultant which candidate I favored in the election. My answer at the time was that I wasn't comfortable with any of them for the following reasons:
Romney: Mormonism. I'm not crazy about the fact that Romney is a Mormon because Mormon theology teaches that man can become God. I'm not comfortable with any candidate who believes that I could, conceivably, become a god over my own planet. While I have tremendous respect for the lifestyles of many Mormons and don't necessarily believe that having a Mormon as the President would be a disaster, I prefer to have someone in the office who holds to a theology that recognizes God as THE only wise God, unique in His glory and deity.
Gingrich: Unfaithfulness. While I think Speaker Gingrich may be the smartest and most savvy politician in the room, I have to be honest. His infidelity is troublesome to me. It makes it difficult for me to trust him fully. I also have a hard time with the idea of a first lady being the first lady due to an affair she had with her husband that wrecked his previous marriage. Now, to be fair, I've been on the phone with Speaker Gingrich twice on a conference call. The first time was when he was leading a charge to deter Iran from their nuclear program. The second time was more recently when I took part in a call with other pastors in which he described the mistakes he made in his previous marriages. He was genuinely moving and repentant. I respect that and I respect him. I've also heard some wonderful things about his wife. In addition, I also understand that marriages usually fall apart due to many other factors. But in the office of President, I still feel uneasy with what happened the last time he was in office. Not trying to be judgmental, just being real.
Paul: Not much to say here except Ron Paul feels very liberal to me on a number of issues, especially his support of abortion. He seems naive about the threat of Iran as well.
Santorum: Perhaps Santorum is the candidate we've all been looking for. Initially, I didn't think he had a chance. His poll numbers were so low that it seemed he was campaigning for the Vice Presidency or a future talk-show gig instead of the Presidency. But he has risen in the polls dramatically and has a strong appeal to Evangelicals. He's been faithful to his wife, is sensitive to childhood disorders (has a child with one), has 8 kids, is very pro-life, is a fiscal conservative, and is a man of faith in the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ. I'm a little uncomfortable with his style at times since he can come across as adversarial. He is also a Roman Catholic, which could be problematic if the Roman Catholic Church ever takes a political position contrary to Evangelical theology (for example, most Evangelicals are not opposed to certain types of birth control within marriage that the RCC discourages).
Obama: Contrary to many of my Evangelical brothers, I do not believe Obama is the Antichrist. I recently had lunch with a well-respected African American Pastor and he affirmed Obama's Christian faith and noble motives. I happen to think President Obama is a decent man who genuinely cares about the poor. He's also faithful to his wife and a good father. But his position on abortion as well as other moral issues are hurdles I cannot cross. I also worry about his fiscal discipline.
Regardless of who wins, my prayers will be in this process. Ultimately, I don't believe our nation's future is in the hands of politicians. My hope and prayer is that revival will break out in the U.S. and draw us all back to the Lord. In the meantime, an election is coming and whoever wins will need our prayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)