John Gil elaborates on Proverbs 25:19:
Trusting in a treacherous man in time of trouble
is like a bad tooth or a foot that slips.
(Proverbs 25:19 ESV)
It is not good to put confidence in any man, not in princes . . . much less in an unfaithful, prevaricating . . . man; and especially in a time of distress and trouble, depending on his help and assistance, which is leaning on a broken reed, and trusting to a broken staff.
<>
After a wearisome election season, perhaps the most tiresome in my short life in the political cosmosphere, I think it is safe to say I have heard every salient argument in favor of Mitt Romney. I have perused with great nervousness the posts of some of my political and theological heroes exhorting me to close my eyes at least one more time. I say nervousness because part of me feared they would make a compelling case. And I confess, some articles have come quite close.
I will mention at the outset that I am not anti-Republican Party. I am against the political polygamy of the Grand Old Party. The Republican Party has achieved its goal of becoming a big tent. And in doing so, she has satiated herself with many lovers.
There are still many principled leaders in the GOP: Jim Demint, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Tom Davis. On a local level, one can find principled Republicans who have not forgotten their commitment to the Constitution, and still consider it to be relevant. These local politicians should receive our votes, support, and yard signs.
At the national level, I am afraid ideological adultery occurs with tremendous frequency. For instance, to even dispute the effectiveness of FEMA is anathema. If a giant agency does something good at any level it necessarily receives the stamp of approval, and it is added to the plethora of agencies. Never mind the tremendous failure of certain agencies on a consistent basis. If you throw a few million dollars at something, even if there are extremely incompetent people managing those monies, you will still find something to cheer. And this is how national programs and agencies work: If there is an ounce of good it overrides the pounds of bad. There is a certain inevitability about government growth that is utterly discouraging. And when candidates favor the termination of certain sacred programs they are mocked and ridiculed as radical anarchists who are in love with the suffering of the poor.
The Democrats are easy targets. They drink deeply of the fountain of guilt manipulation. Their media apologists scream with effeminate indignation at the travesty of cutting the federal budget. “How dare you kill grandma,” they ask. “How dare you…how dare you…you’re so bad!” And then the discourse descends to sophomoric level. Reason is the tactic of bullies, and at the end Democrats end up looking civilized and philanthropic.
On the other hand, Republicans have done a fair job at their mid-term exams. They do what some of us did in our college years: we cram all the nice talking points, and memorize as many lines as possible to make sure we pass the exam. If I tell my opponent he is wrong for America, or if I simply repeat it long enough, then I win the argument and the debate, and national recognition ensues. “Facts:” Those bastard little things. They only get in the way. “Conservatism:” That very flexible term that can be applied to just about anything and anyone.
But is this all we got? Rhetorical brownie points versus guilt manipulators? Again I don’t oppose the entirety of the Republican Party. Like the mainline churches there are some brave souls trying to keep the flames of orthodoxy going. But the tsunami is powerful, weighty, and destructive. And so their bold words fall into the ground and disappear in a sea of political platitudes. These few politicians become “isolationists” in the House. They are looked upon with contempt by those who have made a living hosting lobbyists.
To this point, I have heard every version of “this is a wasted vote argument” possible. If I happen to vote for a candidate that lines up with most of my core beliefs, then I am a perfectionist. If I vote for a third-party candidate, then I am re-electing Barack Obama. Try to rationalize that! If I mention that Mormon thing, then I have not considered deeply Luther’s mythical statement. If I talk about principle, then I am labelled a utopian. Yes, I have heard them all, and more. But I am not persuaded that this election will determine the rise of the antichrist. “This election is the most important election in my lifetime,” said a multitude of people every four years.
No. A thousand times no! A man can only take abuse for so long. The lesser of two evils is really the evil of two lessers. And that’s what we got: Two powerfully well-funded candidates who find TARP, Bernanke, and warfare the trinity of ideologies. As for me, I am ready to see big banks bankrupt. I am ready to see Bernanke go back to his Keynesian prison-house, and I am ready, to quote Shakespeare, to “see the the words of war silenced.”
So as a family we are supporting the unknown, but honest Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party. His strong Christian background coupled with a love for the Constitution make him the type of candidate worthy of our support.
<>
“There are still economic illiterates out there who think that a catastrophe is good for business. After all, it will lead to increased employment in the construction industry. But this analysis ignores the fact that nobody was ready to spend this kind of money voluntarily prior to the hurricane. There are winners, but there are far more losers.” –Gary North
<>
This was the basic premise of a local talk-show host I interacted with today. My response is brief:
__________, I grant your position and principle as the majority in this country. I simply refuse to accept it as the sole principle to consider in election season. My commitment as a principled Biblicist and Trinitarian Christian causes me to consider other matters beyond simply “who has a shot and who doesn’t.” Even if I were to accept your premise it would only make sense in Florida, and a few other states where votes actually make a difference in the general election. I would not consider a Republican vote in California to be foolish and wasteful. Human beings are created with what the Reformation called the “doctrine of the conscience.” Our decisions based on principle and conscience are not in vain, whether they win out in the end or not. They indicate and form the type of person we are and will be. Decisions are formational and maturational at their most basic level.
<>
With a plethora of Romney apologists in the internet, Mormonism couldn’t be happier. The distinctly American religion has found its way to the American audience. Mormonism continues to grow in America. CBN reports “that if present trends continue there could be 265 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) worldwide by 2080.” That is a staggering number!
Evangelicals find Mormonism largely non-threatening. After all, what is threatening about well-dressed young men handing tracts at your door on a Saturday morning? Make no mistake. Mormonism is a threat to the well-being of this country. It may even be a greater threat than Islam. I say that because the majority of Americans are vaccinated against Islamic talking points. Most Americans view Islam for what it is: a religion shaped by Sharia Law whose purposes are dominion-oriented. Further, Americans are– by and large–incapable of distinguishing between between different branches and schools of thought within Islam. In their mind, Islam is Islam. They blow up things, and that is the core of their philosophy. Sometimes ignorance can be good.
On the other hand, Americans are hardly able to differentiate between a cult and Orthodox Christianity. This is seen in religious polling, when pollsters include Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and non-affirming Trinitarians under the “Christian” category.
Very few have considered the claims of Mormonism. Apart from the polygamy aspect–which is no longer practiced in mainstream Mormonism in the 21st century– evangelicals can offer no sound apologetic against it. Hank Hanegraaff summarizes the absurdity and confusion of the Book of Mormon:
How millions can take the Book of Mormon seriously is almost beyond comprehension. While Smith referred to it as “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion,” its flaws run the gamut from the serious to the silly. In the category of serious we find that Ether 3:14 (“Behold, I am Jesus Christ, I am the Father and the Son”) is modalistic and militates against Trinitarian theology, while Alma 11:44 (“Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God”) is basically consistent with the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
In the category of silly is the account in Alma 44 of a man who becomes irate after being scalped and stirs up his soldiers to fight “more powerfully.” And in Ether 15 we read of a man who struggles to catch his breath after having his head cut off. The Book of Mormon has now been altered over 4,000 times to compensate for Smith’s poor command of English, as well as for the numerous errors and inconsistencies it presented.
After having read several classic books on cults over the years, after listening to dozens of debates, after having taken two classes on cults in college, and after interacting extensively with the average American evangelical, I can say that Mormonism will only continue to rise.
What does this mean?
This means that with a Romney victory on November 6th evangelical pastors will need to do a lot more homework. They will need to instruct their flocks with greater precision, and perhaps Trinitarian theology will need to be more foundational than a systematic category. Trinitarianism will need to be the source of life and worship; the very pattern of existence and human relationships.
With Obama at least we knew that liberal christianity is just that: liberal. At least we knew that he was going to always misuse the Sermon on the Mount. At least we knew that he was going to open his wings to religious diversity and ecumenicism. At least we knew that he was a fulfillment of Machen’s dire warnings about liberalism. At least we knew his social and moral agenda. But with Romney, what do we know? Will a moderate appoint other moderates to the Supreme Court? Will he appoint someone like Roberts who stabbed the conservative heart through legislative technicalities? Will he fill the White House with General Authorities of the Mormon Church? In particular, who will be his spiritual advisers?
And when that happens will evangelicals separate religion from policy? Do we truly believe evangelicals have been discipled under Kuyperianism long enough to discern right from wrong? Truth from error? Trinitarianism from Non?
The Mormon thing is actually an important thing to discuss. There is more at stake than the economy in this election. There is the future of the Church, her members, and the responsibility to present a God who is One and Three.<>
The majority of Christians I know are not voting for a candidate they like. But they will vote. Voting is an American sacrament, and not taking the sacrament is an American blasphemy. Don’t get me wrong. I think it is a bad thing that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not vote. I have argued that giving third-parties a fair voice, or even letting the public know they exist, is a good start. I would love to see most Americans vote ( I am sure some contributors of Kuyperian Commentary are not on the same page); I would like a well informed populace, because I do think politics matter. I do care about who are our local officials will be, and I do care about who will represent us nationally (the order listed is the order of importance in my estimation). At the same time, I am deeply concerned about the nature of this year’s political season. Christians who once roared the horrors of their own party after George Bush’s disastrous presidency are now behind the man who I believe will make Bush look like a Libertarian.
When we, Moral Libertarians, Small Government Conservatives, offer a differing opinion on the matter, when we suggest that this election cycle may be a time to re-consider our strategy, turn the tide, and so on, then we are viewed as heretics and unpatriotic. Justin Donathan has argued the nature of true patriotism, so I do not feel the need to opine.
But are we blind here? Have we succumbed to some form of perfectionism, as many argue? Are we expecting too much from our candidates? Or more to point, do we think we are voting for a Pastor-in-Chief instead of a Commander-in Chief? Let me say from the outset that I have no such expectation. Huckabee, our resident Republican pastor, was a candidate in 2007. His policies were to compassionately save the world. His economics were absurdly Keynesian, and he lacked the ability to convey consistent policies. I would even assert that most pastor-types involved in politics have not thought beyond the important social and moral issues of the day. Even as a godly Southern Baptist, I would not have voted for Huckabee, though he is a lot more tolerable than Romney. So a pastor is not the answer.
In fact, I do not want a pastor. A pastor’s role is an ecclesiastical one. I prefer to keep the pastor serving and shepherding his people, granting them absolution from sin, and administering the Word and Sacrament. Then I want that pastor to thunder the authority of Jesus over every earthly rulers as often as it is possible. The pastor’s job is inherently political. Finally, I want that pastor denying any access to the Table of our Lord to any parishioner or politician who lives in sin or who condones the murder of the unborn (yes, that’s you, John Kerry and Joe Biden!).
So what am I expecting? I am expecting a man who loves his God, his country, and his family. A man who though not theologically versed in all the ins and outs of systematic theology is still faithful enough to know that righteousness exalts a nation and sin is a reproach to any people. I am expecting to vote for a humble man who does not seek power unto himself, but who wants to give power to the people; a man who does not want to see government grow, but rather see it diminished to its proper Biblical and Constitutional size.
I do not want to vote for a pastor in chief. In fact, I do not want the president opining over theological disputes in any tradition. I simply want him to desire what God desires.<>
Wow! The consistent Socialist, Lawrence O’Donnell, offers a powerful case for voting for Third Party candidates:
<>
In tonight’s third-party debate the four candidates had the chance to articulate their positions. There were six major questions with some interaction among the candidates. Larry King moderated the debate and brought the celebrity factor into the discussion, which may serve to gain some attraction.
It was a good start. I hope this continues in the years ahead. It is a necessary process. The two-party monopoly is a disturbingly disgraceful system. It destroys the ability of the people to speak. The voice of third party candidates might be an incentive for the 2/3 of Americans who do not vote. If we want the people to be involved, then we need more voices in the discussion. Simply echoing and re-echoing the same talking points and framing and re-framing your positions to fit the political climate of the day cannot be healthy when the issues are of such significance.
Issues largely ignored in the “one party debate” were discussed at some length tonight. It was refreshing and hopeful. Again, it was a good start.<>
The nature of last night’s debate was an example of the political naivete of a nation. Most pundits opine about rhetorical zingers, while the hawks try to appear less hawkish to score a few points. Foreign Policy has now been diminished to a few cute lines, and some random references to Mali. And: we love Israel…we really, really love Israel!<>
Readers of the Kuyperian Commentary would do well to mark Michael Sheuer’s website: Non-Intervention.com. Sheuer’s recent article, Pity Poor America: Obama, Romney, and Foreing Policy concludes with a strong warning:
–Perhaps most of all, we can begin to accept the fact that we Americans have an enormous amount of work to do to here at home to curtail the federal government’s power — especially that of the president in the area of war-making; to stop building debt; to inculcate civic responsibility in our children instead of an absurdly bloated sense of “rights”; to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure; and to accept that the road to America’s survival, prosperity, and peace is lit by the Founders’ belief that our republicanism is a model for others to imitate if they so choose, not a tool with which U.S. politicians are to militarily remake the world in their — not really America’s — arrogant and condescending image.
<>
Kuyperian Commentary Podcast
