.jpg)
|
Last week I was listening to a podcast from townhall.com, and the guests were Dennis Prager and James Dobson, whom I have a great deal of respect for, and a lady whose name I missed. They were discussing Mitt Romney and a speech he made about religious freedom. In that speech, Mr. Romney said "religious tolerance would be a shallow principle, indeed, if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree." Romney went on to say that some have gone too far in the separation of church and state. "It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong," he said. True! Many who want to avoid any semblance of religious endorsement by the American government are, in fact, merely shifting the endorsement to atheism or agnoticism or secularism or humanism, whatever their particular "-ism" happens to be. The buzz word is tolerance, and yet, Christianity seems to be the one thing that is not tolerated. Now Romney is in a tough spot-- not only is he under scrutiny from those who don't want a person of faith in office, he is under scrutiny from evangelicals who aren't sure thay can endorse someone of his faith-- Mormonism. I am wrestling with this myself-- do I want someone who shares my "values" in office, or someone who shares my faith? Stay tuned-- I really don't know yet. I think he is the closest to my political values, although I could probably also go along with Huckabee or Thompson. I am all for freedom of religion, and I firmly believe Americans should be allowed to practice whatever religion they choose. In my personal life, I will do my best to influence those in my sphere for the cause of Christ. But when I choose leaders, I want leaders who are going to value what I value-- the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, smaller government, winning the war on terror, etc. And their faith is important to me. People might think me narrow-minded or "intolerant," but those same people will want to choose leaders who share their values and their faith --or lack thereof. In an email devotional by John Piper, he addressed the issue of promoting the supremacy of God in a pluralistic world where most people don't recognize God as part of their lives, must less a part of their government. He had this to say: God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order -- not because pluralism is his ultimate ideal, but because in a fallen world, legal coercion will not produce the kingdom of God. Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths), not because commitment to God's supremacy is unimportant, but because it must be voluntary, or it is worthless. We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism. "If my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight" (John 18:36). The fact that God establishes his kingdom through the supernatural miracle of faith, not firearms, means that Christians in this age will not endorse coercive governments -- Christian or secular. So the question becomes how do we allow the freedom of religion that a pluralistic society demands and yet promote the values that our faith instills in us? I have to admit, I would turn America into a theocracy if I could. :) But God has placed us in this country with this structure of government and He is sovereign over it all. Romans 13 makes that clear. And so we must exercise our right to vote and ensure that the leaders we select are the ones who will lead this country according to the values that we hold dear. I thought this was a neat tool-- you can answer some questions about the issues that are important to you, and it will match you to the candidate who most shares your values. Candidate Calculator If you try it, let me know who it puts you with. I ended up with Romney, but Fred and Mike were close behind, as well as a couple of lesser-knowns. |
Comments
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by