A Letter to the Senator...

     I have never cared about something enough to write to my legislators... or it could be that I've been deeply pessimistic about liberal legislators listening to a Christian conservative.  But the recent budget battle got me thinking about a political issue that transcends parties and that will quickly reduce us to financial ruin and slavery.  Please consider contacting your elected officials to beg them to take immediate steps to wean us off our national addiction.

 

 October 18, 2013                                                                                        

 

I'm begging you two for some sanity...

Dear Senator Murray,

 

     I am writing to convey my deep concern over our nation's economic path.  I, like most of the country, was unable to avoid the media frenzy surrounding the recent congressional battle to raise the debt ceiling, and I can't help but feel that we are one step closer to the complete ruin of our country;  but my angst is not rooted in the strife between the 2 sides, or the amount of procedure, committees and red tape utilized by our government.  The impending sense of doom I feel is rooted in what was not said, what was not mentioned or even hinted at on one channel, or printed in one article I read in the last 2 weeks.  The Tyrannosaurus Rex in the closet is the obvious reason why we need to raise the debt ceiling:  we spend more than we earn. 

     I am not a CPA, and I don't have a degree in finance, but this is one thing that every teenager getting his first paycheck learns pretty quickly:  you can borrow only so much before your friends get mad at you, the bank repossesses your car and the bankruptcy court forces you to sell your assets/toys.  For decades, we as a nation have elected representatives from both parties that enable us to enjoy a lifestyle significantly more expensive than the one we can afford, a privileged existence buoyed by subsidies, entitlements, legislative pork like the AEP dam project, etc. 

      So like any junkie being confronted by their caring, pleading family, we are faced with a simple choice:  cut back on the flow of destructive, addictive spending and start paying off the mountain of debt we already have, or we will overdose and kill ourselves and our nation.  This is the subtext of the last 2 weeks that has gone unspoken and thus unheard... this is the huge clot in our national artery, unseen and deadly.  No one wants to discuss it, but you of all people can't be ignorant of it.  As Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, you are uniquely positioned and qualified to join the conversation on how we can save our country... I beg you to join me in correctly diagnosing and treating our national disease.

 

Sincerely,

 

Brett Schlee

 

Photo courtesy of orcmid

I blew it!!!

Look good?  What's it for?

     Yes, that's right... I'm eating humble pie with a cherry on top.  My last post on 2 Cor 8 was not wrong... I just missed the whole point behind the passage, nay, the whole point behind the whole Bible!  Thankfully, my pastor didn't read that post (to my knowledge), and I am very grateful that his sermon last Sunday set me straight.  So starting from scratch and laying the proper foundation, and picking the most controversial way to put it, like an old teacher of mine...

GOD REALLY IS A SOCIALIST!!!

     I said this to a godly coworker today, and he started laughing.  I sketched out what I discovered about the collectivist principles of the covenant communities of Israel and the N.T. Church, and was headed toward the epiphany my pastor blessed me with, but then he took over the conversation (I know you know someone like that!).  The text for my thesis is just before the last passage in 2 Cor;  I'm still kicking myself for such blindness:

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might be rich." (8:9)

A great view of what we look like...

     So I hope the sting of shock is already departing;  when talking about the proper place for the  redistribution of wealth, we must start with the One who embodies the voluntary release of what is rightfully His, who does so to benefit those "less fortunate" than Himself (there is no such thing as fortune... this phrase really is just a sanitized term that neglects God as the Source of all good).
     In my pastor's sermon, he admitted that to call Christ rich is the classic understatement:  He owns everything (Ps 50:10-12), because He made everything (Col 1:16-17, Jn 1:2-3).  All glory, credit, and honor are His (Rev 4:11, 5:11-14), and the only rightful place of any creature before Him is on their face in fear and awe of His splendor.  And in relinquishing His wealth (which is the exercise of His power and prestige, not the existence of it), Jesus becomes the model that Marx and Lenin never knew they were looking for... the Man who gives up everything for the sake of the crippled and lowly.  But just like earlier in the book (5:21), Christ doesn't just lose His stuff, He takes on lack, want and dependency.  Becoming poor here must entail all the frailties Screwtape heard about;  our weakness as bags of fluid, held together by the most pitiful union of skin and bone.  For the eye accustomed to blinding heavenly glory, one must doggedly hunt the "imago Dei" (image of God) that gives us any value at all.
     But Christ's humiliation, both in life and death, collected our own poverty like a magnet, sucking it into Himself and swallowing it up in His priceless worth.  In Him, every single Child of God makes Bill Gates look like a bum, and everything that was Christ's is now shared with His undeserving Bride.  This is why we shall judge angels, and why everything, every event and object, now serves us to work out God's perfect will (1 Cor 3:22-23).  So it's in view of this jackpot inheritance that we're told to assist our siblings in Christ... I'm reminded of the parable of the ungrateful servant (Mt 18:23-35).  The only explanation for a person consistently not sharing this world's riches with the least of Christ's brethren is that they've never experienced Christ's riches, and are still beggars at the gates of the Kingdom of God.

Photos courtesy of 401(K) 2013, DaveBleasdale

Socialism in the NT... or More continuity!

Socialism in the Church = biblically required generosity for the needy

     Faithful readers of the blog (all 2 of you!) will remember that in our jaunt through the last third of Leviticus, we ran into an interesting principle that was the driving force to several commands:  the idea that while money and other financial assets were private property, they were gifts of God to be used for the betterment and support of the needy, not to be spent on the latest chariot with rims and 12" subwoofers (or however big they are).  The uncomfortable truth is that this economic model might be closer to socialism than capitalism;  I know when I stopped to consider the possibility that God might not be a capitalist through and through, I had to take a deep breath and remind myself that I'm a Christian first and an American second.  Whatever benefits our traditional capitalist structure has (and there are many), they do not trump God's revealed will for His people.
     But I know what you're thinking... "But that's the Old Testament!  And even more disqualifying, it's the Law for the nation of Israel!  We're not under Law, but grace!"  So buckle up for what Paul says and expects for New Covenant believers in Gentile churches:

"For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness, your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness.  As it is written, "Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack." (2 Cor 8:13-15)

     So let's take it by the numbers and just go through the passage slowly, trying to get off the formula of those weaned conservative capitalist theory and just think like Christians...
     Sometimes the best way to describe something is to start with the disclaimers, to say right off what you're not saying;  after describing the exemplary Macedonians and acknowledging the intent of the Corinthians in the past, Paul reestablishes why we have any possessions at all (the grace of Jesus Christ) and then shoots down one huge misunderstanding of Christian charity/obligation:  that the "redistribution of wealth" (to use a conservative pariah!) is meant to pave the way for Jewish indulgence, while the rest of the Church finances this gravy train of greed.  No, no... the Jewish believers were starving to death under the boot-heel of persecution, and desperately needed help.  The Corinthians lived in a relatively prosperous region, and had more than enough.  This is why Paul deals with Macedonia first:  it's assumed that they didn't have enough, that they were just scraping by, but they were so moved and driven by Christian love they begged and pleaded Paul to take their gift to Judea (8:4). 

"IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!"

     So just like the O.T. covenant community of Israel, God often blesses us with more than we need, not to spend it upon our lusts, but to enable us to be channels of grace to other believers first, and then society at large.  "Fairness" (vs. 14 in the ESV) can be a dangerous word:  usually when kids use it, it means "I get what I want, and you get what I don't want"!  But Paul's meaning is clear:  abundance given to the Body of Christ is to meet the needs of the Body of Christ, wherever that local Body may be.  According to the symbolism in his Mosaic quote, God created the molecular structure of manna to train Israel to generosity:  if they tried to store it, it went bad and was useless (Ex 16:18-20).  So there was every reason to share the excess they gathered, and no reason to keep it.  The narratives in the O.T. usually have didactic ("educational") value for us, as lessons for life (1 Cor 10:6), and Paul says manna is no exception. 
     But whatever God has established, man can corrupt.  There are two not-so-subtle dangers with socialism on a national level that arise from an secularization of what we see in the first century church:  the first is a confusion of church and state.  Just because God has established socialist principles in His church does not mean that He demands them of the state, or even that socialism is the divine ideal for society;  we mustn't forget that the Church is largely filled with people who have been radically transformed by God's Spirit to obey Him and strive toward holiness (the exception being the goats who think themselves, or want to be thought of as sheep), while human society, i.e. the state, is largely filled with depraved, selfish sinners to need no encouragement to exploit, oppress and abuse their fellow man (the exception being the Christians sprinkled as salt throughout society).  Our forefathers were wise enough to structure our government not on wide-eyed utopian idealism, but revealed truth from God about human nature;  and so we have all the freedom sanctification through the Spirit could wish for ("against such there is no law" Gal 5:23) and all the restraint that depraved criminals need.

Socialism in society  = recipe for disaster

     The second is much more insidious, and has already greatly shaped the American consciousness:  a replacement of the church by the state.  Around the turn of the 20th century, socialism was becoming much more acceptable politically, and like most cultural trends, bad theology was developed to blend/mimic the ideals that Marx and others propagated into Christianity.  You might not have heard of "the universal fatherhood of God" or "the universal brotherhood of man", but I know you've heard somebody promoting gay marriage, women's rights or decrying discrimination of any kind say "We're all God's children!"  This fatal misunderstanding of the dividing line between the world and church (namely, that there isn't any!) creates a false church (all of humanity) with a false gospel ("We just need to love each other...") and a false Messiah (whatever political leader has the power to enforce this "utopia" on the rest of us).  So when self-centered people, radically corrupted by sin, don't love each other, the only solution is to make them:  you take their property, money and freedom, and entrust them to the state to dole out.  Oh darn, I forgot... the state is run by self-centered people, and they just use all that stuff for their own benefit and/or cementing themselves in power. 
     The church is Christ's, and He will build it (Eph 5:23, Matt 16:18).  The world is (temporarily) the devil's, and he will do everything God permits him to use it as a weapon against the church  (1 Jn 5:19, Eph 6:12).  If we properly understand the difference between them, and the value/extent/danger of collectivist principles for the people of God, we will "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." (2 Cor 10:5).


Photos courtesy of mira66, simonella_virus, xoclate

The silver lining...

God's sovereign choice for us

     I know many of you are reeling today;  while I wasn't particularly shocked, I am deeply grieved at our nation's stubborn insistence in choosing leaders who relish (probably unconsciously, to be gracious) thumbing their nose at God and His Law.  But is Rom 8:28 still true?  Sure it is;  I was meeting with a dear brother yesterday, and he was lamenting his employment status (none!).  He commented that his unemployment compensation was running out, and joked that the selfish thing for him to do would be to open his ballot (he waited until Election Day to turn it in!  Tsk tsk!) and change his vote to Obama;  it is likely that the President will push Congress to extend unemployment benefits out to a 99 week limit.  I have every confidence that my friend didn't change his vote;  but now through the apostasy of our nation, his financial future is a tad brighter and he can rest a little easier.  Also, I have a government job (through the county);  my unionized workplace is drowning in liberal rhetoric, but as much as I grit my teeth at it, it pays the bills.  Transportation funding and the expansion of government spending is a priority in Obama's platform, so it's likely I will not be downgraded to a part-time position (again!) in the near future.  So while the overall picture is depressingly grim, even now God is using our sin to bless His people in tangible ways, just like He's always done...

But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end.  Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin.  How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly by terrors!  Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms.  When my soul was embittered, when I was pricked in heart, I was brutish and ignorant; I was like a beast toward you.  Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand.  You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory.  Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.  My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.  (Ps 73:16-26)

Top-down or bottom-up?

      Due to the flood of energy and passion (which is good and wholesome!) over the upcoming election in my circle of believing siblings, I hope you can stomach one more post on politics.  I don't want to repeat myself , but I did want to address one point that seems to have a great deal of sway and potency:  Is it a duty of the Church collectively, and/or Christians individually, to reform society through politics (specifically through our vote), to be "salt and light"?  If so, how?

Ever feel like this guy?

     It can be very disheartening to view our country and surroundings through biblical eyes... what can we hope to accomplish?  So I hope my first point is a relief:  Societal change is not the primary duty of the Church or Christians.  Our first priority, always, forever, until Jesus returns, is the preaching of the gospel.  That vital point made, I think I could classify the reform of society as a secondary calling of believers.  So yes to our first question... here's the sticky part, open to wide disagreement:  How do we "engage the culture"?

     I fear the unspoken assumption, largely held unconsciously, in many Christians is that if we (meaning the "moral majority", generally, conservative Christians, specifically) have control, in the White House, the House and the Senate, the Supreme Court, and in our various local arenas, we can "make a difference" in our society.  So a vote cast toward that objective, taking and holding control, is progress, and that which impedes it is, at best, a waste, and at worst, just darn evil.  We could call this a "top-down" approach to political involvement.
     There has been plenty of times when this goal (political dominance for Christian ideals) was achieved;  the problem is the darkest stains on the name of Christ grew out of that mindset and those "golden ages":  the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.  So I think it's safe to say that the top-down approach has been tried, with the most disastrous of results.
     In contrast, I believe Christ would have us start at the bottom;  look what He did:  instead of going for the Pharisees, religious elite, and the politically powerful, His target audience, the focus of most of His ministry, was comprised of fishermen, Roman conspirators (tax collectors), and criminals (so, the dregs of society!).  Instead of attempting to influence the movers and shakers and win them over, He declaimed against their evil ways, their false hopes of self-righteousness, and stayed true to what was central in His message, even if it cost Him popularity and followers (Jn 6:66).  Obviously, Jesus had bigger fish on His plate than social change (like bearing the wrath of God in our place!), but after Pentecost, we see the disciples following the same pattern:  aiming at the individual heart first, which can be changed only by the work of God, and then allowing the fruit of those conversions to change the visible Church first (Acts 2:44-47), and then the society to the degree God wills/allows.  This is why Paul says:

"For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth."  (1 Cor 1:26)

     So the logic of affecting our society from the bottom up means seeing the vote we cast as part of a bigger picture;  we vote primarily as a witness to our friends, families, and neighbors, to display the radical change that God makes in the hearts and minds of all who follow His Son.  The impact on those in our immediate vicinity of not just our vote, but our whole Christian outlook, is the first goal;  the actual election of the leaders God blesses (or curses) our country with comes second.
 

"With all these Christians, how will we meet our quota?"

    True Christianity has had incredible effects in some times and places:  during the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings, the flood of true conversions had drastic effects on the society, and in Ireland after a revival in 1859, the police had no crimes to solve!  During the rest of history, however, the Church has less visible effect;  why?  I believe many factors can come into play:  God's sovereign plan for each nation, His merciful common grace, and last, but not least, the number of true believers at that time and place.  America has been greatly blessed in the first 2 categories, even in recent years, but not so in the third.  So let's not forget:  often those deemed praiseworthy by Christ are not the strong and numerous, but the few and faithful (Rev 2:8, 3:7).

Israel, the first Communist country?

    No word in 20th century America is so laden with distaste and ire as "communism" (the word that's likely replaced it in 21st century America is "intolerance").  When we hear it, we think of soldiers goosestepping next to ICBMs in countries that squash individual rights, independent thought and that esteem the Bible very little.  But let's do a word study before getting to our text in Leviticus, in an attempt to regain some objectivity.

This is a pumpkin carving, believe it or not!

     The big idea behind communism is collective priority:  the concept that individuals exist to serve the group to which they belong.  As a wise man once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one." (Spock, Star Trek II).  Of course, this concept is in direct opposition to the bedrock principle of our founding fathers:  individualism, or the group (i.e. the government) exists to safeguard the rights of the individual.  While there are elements of both of these concepts in America today (just ask someone on 'Social' Security), at the moment, the influence of individualism still outguns the sway of collectivism, and "communism" is still a dirty word.
     So how would you react if you found communist elements in the Bible, specifically the Mosaic Law?  This is the first verse I'm thinking of:

"The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is Mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with Me." (Lev. 25:23)

     So God declares that in Israel, no individual owned land in actuality, but kept and used in stewardship for its true Owner, the Almighty.  Wait a sec... doesn't God know about private property?  What about the Fourth Amendment?  Do we have to drag God in front of the Supreme Court, and declare His Law unconstitutional?  I wax sarcastic to illustrate how the "rights" we claim in America may or may not be such in God's sight.  Let's look at the context:  Lev. 25 describes the extent and effects of the Jubilee, the 50th year, or the 7th Sabbath year.  In regards to land, any transaction would only be in effect until the Jubilee;  this would limit the value;  the seller would be selling the use of the land for growing crops.  At the Jubilee, the land would return to the family to whom God granted it after the Conquest.  The only way to circumvent this law was to resort to murder (I Ki 21:1ff).
     Try to suspend your horror at the restriction on the "right" to buy and sell property, and think about the effects of this ancient legislation:  in any society, there is an inexorable tendency of the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer.  We live in a country with a sizable middle class, but you must realize our situation is the anomaly:  during the Middle Ages in Europe, the gap was extreme, with something like 97% of folks constantly starving, and the 3% leeching obscene wealth and comfort from their labor.  So what effect would returning land every 50 years have?  It would 'redistribute' (again, a dirty word in some circles) wealth from those who made wise investments, were frugal, or won the lottery to those who fell into economic disaster, intentionally or otherwise.  In a society without food stamps, Social Security or Obamacare, this periodic law hit the reset button for those with no other financial options.  The ancient world was not a "land of opportunity", where you could file for unemployment, declare bankruptcy or refinance your home... it was a grim, brutal place where often a good year didn't mean extravagant Christmas presents, but merely ensured that you wouldn't starve to death.
     So in ancient Israel, the land return at Jubilee was a divinely perfect solution to curb our insatiable greed and our use of others as our personal doormats in our quest for riches.  The sense of covenant community in Israel (and the Church today, not America!) was to be such that those blessed with wealth knew they have what they have only to bless the have-nots.  This is exactly what we see in the first Christians (Acts 2:44).  Whether that's labelled communism or something else, feel free to make your own judgment.  Next, we'll look at another life-saving institution in ancient Israel, a relationship extensively used metaphorically in Scripture, and essential to understanding our standing with God... slavery.

Christians a minority in America? Hallelujah!

     No, I'm not being facetious, or trying to stir up trouble... I honestly believe that this AP story by Rachel Zoll really is good news.  Here's why...
     As sinful creatures from the moment the doctor slaps our backside, our primary problem is not a lack of religion, or religious feeling.  Our monumental hangup is our continual creation of and affiliation with false religion.  God has seen fit to leave the indelible stamp of His reality on us by our fundamental makeup as religious beings:  all over the world, in the entire history of the world, 99.999% (not an actual scientific figure!) of folks have claimed some organized religion, and those who have disdained a church cling to a profession of being "spiritual", if not religious.  Even atheism in its truest sense is the deification of man;  hence, "the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols." (John Calvin).
     Let's start with what is still the most accurate source of religious polling and statistics:  the Lord Jesus Christ: 

"We're not the 'moral majority'?"

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Mt 7-13-14)     "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Mt 22:14)

Terms like "many" and "few" are not as catchy and quantifiable as percentages, but we can be sure if Jesus thought we needed an exact figure, He would have given us one.  (Martin Luther famously estimated the percentage of converted folks to unconverted was 1 in 1,000, or .01%.)  The points I believe we can glean might be depressing at first, but then a relief: 

1.  We're not supposed to convert everybody.  If you look at the most godly, dedicated, passionate proclaimers of the truth in Scripture, often by statistical standards, they are the biggest failures.  Men like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were not the Billy Grahams of their time (more on Billy Graham later!);  instead they were faithful in the face of almost complete rejection and did not fail to proclaim the whole counsel of God.

2.  If God providentially sees fit to lessen the number of "goats in sheep's clothing" in our country, we must praise Him for His grace.  Let's be honest:  since there has never been a "Christian majority" in America (remember what Jesus said!), unconverted phonies with a transparent profession merely heap up scorn and disgrace on the name of Jesus Christ.  I can't count the number of polls I have seen that present the claims of 71% of Americans to true religion alongside the 68% of Americans who cheat on their taxes, or the 78% who don't believe in hell, or the 84% who attend church twice a year, if at all (again, not the actual figures, but they can't be far off!).   Jesus had a word for such people:  hypocrites (Mt 23:13, 15, 23).  Isn't that what church discipline is all about, removing those who have disqualified themselves from claiming Jesus?  Can we be shocked if we won't love people through Mt 18, then Jesus will pick up the slack (and remove people Himself)?  So God be praised, we are now officially a minority hypocrite nation!

3.  This relates to #2, but might help with another facet of this:  the last 2 sentences of our article quotes John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, "Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined... In some parts of the country, there is a stigma.  But overall, it's not the way it used to be."  In other words, the people who in times past would be careful to go through the motions and keep up the external appearance of religion simply don't care anymore;  the general consensus of our society is that one can be good without God.  What this dismal reality creates is the opportunity for genuine believers and followers of Christ to "shine like the brightness of the sky above... like the stars forever and ever" (Dan 12:3).  The contrast between God-given faith and unbelief has never been more stark... will you be a Jeremiah?

The post my wife wants to see... pt 2

     If you're like this gal and appalled that I'm questioning the unspoken golden rule of Christian politics (vote REPUBLICAN!!!), here's some more reasons that might convince you to put away the pitchforks and torches (for now, at least!):

Ohh, the humanity!!!

     1.  A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama? Even though Christians live in this world, our view and choices are to be motivated and informed with the next world in mind.  This is in direct contrast to a fundamental pillar of the modern philosophy of our culture.  To put a name on it, pragmatism:  a thing is good, successful, right, etc. if it works.  And the degree a thing is good is the degree to which it works.  It's truly disheartening to consider the overwhelming role this philosophy plays in our unconscious decisions, and even in American evangelicalism (big rabbit trail there, but I'll save it for another day).  I can't deny that, from our human perspective, a vote for a third party candidate is unlikely to work (to get that candidate elected).  But we know from Scripture God often does things that seem foolish to men:  using the uneducated to be His spokesmen (Amos 1:1, Acts 4:13), picking the small and the weak to be His most prominent leaders (Ex 4:1,10, I Sam 16:7, Jer 1:5), etc.  Our first and highest goal is to be living examples of how radically different it is to pursue God and His pleasure; not achieve conservative hegemony and dominance in America.  Our vote can be a powerful testimony in that vein.  Ask yourself please:  does Mitt Romney, his background and his policies glorify God?
     2.  I am skittish about my last point, but we must deal with it... can we vote for a Mormon?  First off, I don't want to be misunderstood:  Romney clearly has the right to run for any office in our land.  Article 6 paragraph 3 of our founding document states:  "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  Our nation is a secular one (along with modern-day Israel... again, another day!), and the accurate intent of "separation of church and state" is to ensure our country does not become a theocracy.
     That said, our question is better framed as "what part should a candidate's religion play in our decision?"  Tragically, in our society, religion is largely seen as a minor factor in a person's private life, separate and inconsequential to public life (hence the common cowardly response to abortion:  "Privately, I'm against it, but publicly, a woman has a right to choose"!).  But Mitt Romney is an exception to this:  I previously assumed he was a rank-and-file Mormon, and as such, not intimately acquainted with what his church teaches.  I was dismayed to learn Romney held the post of "Ward Bishop" (equivalent to pastor) and so not only endorses Mormon beliefs, but teaches them. So clearly, a person's religious beliefs are a fundamental part of their worldview and we should weigh them as a factor (not THE factor) in giving them our support.  Conceivably, if there were only 2 candidates in a race, and if the Mormon one had a strong record of support for issues in line with biblical morality, I believe a Christian could cast their vote for said Mormon with a clear conscience.  But neither of these "ifs" apply to the 2012 election;  as demonstrated previously, Romney is compromised in his record on the issues, and Virgil Goode (the Constitution Party candidate) identifies himself as Baptist and attends Pleasant Hill Methodist Church.

     I believe this puts the nail in the coffin... with a Christian (according to his professed beliefs) candidate with a much more biblical stance on virtually every issue, the only reason to vote Romney is that he's more popular.  Christians are equated to sheep in Scripture, but not because we follow the crowd... we are to follow our Shepherd, Jesus.

The post my wife wants to see...

     T (my wife) and I were talking the other day while doing something I loved and she hated:  watching the Republican National Convention.  I am riveted by politics because (as I told her) the politics of today is the history of tomorrow... this is what our grandchildren will learn in school (if the Lord tarries).  She is, at best, inconvenienced by politics because political coverage on TV causes her to miss her favorite shows.  But we got to talking about the Bible and how a Christian should vote, and she felt very strongly that I should be more public with my views... i.e. go hold a sign on a street corner, run for office, or something like that.  So in the season when many Christians (they are the 99% ? Haha!) are explaining why they are voting for Romney, let me share why you shouldn't feel obligated to and why I'm not:
     1.  There's never only 2 people running for President:  we as Christians are obligated to honor God by voting for the man who most honors Him.  I have been convinced for years the party that most supports a biblical worldview morally, socially, and economically is the Constitution Party;  if you favor saving the lives of the unborn, keeping government small, and sticking to the intent and scope of our nation's founding document, your choice is clear.  I would challenge anyone for a coherent argument that the Republican Party is the most biblical one.
     2.  Romney has a spotty (at best) record on abortion and can only be described as a recent convert to a pro-life position.  In his last gubernatorial campaign, he responded to Shannon O'Brien in a debate:  "I am not going to change our pro choice laws in Massachusetts in any way ... I will preserve them, I will protect them, I will enforce them. Therefore I am not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself."
     3.  Romney's view on socialized medicine (a.k.a. "Romneycare") is simply "Obamacare Lite";  their similarities are well known, and even Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg used Romney's work in MA to justify the constitutionality of Obamacare.
     To be continued...