The following is NOT intended as a statement of political preference. It is intended as a pastoral observation:
The fact that so many 'evangelical' Christians would not vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon is fair neither to Governor Romney nor toward Mormonism. It is our duty as citizens to elect leaders who represent the ideals of this democracy. Governor Romney has made clear, as did John Kennedy in 1960, that he is committed, if elected, to serving people of all faiths as well as those who do not call themselves believers. His convictions as a Mormon are clear and they are also clearly compatible with the principles of this democratic republic.
It is unfair for Christians to reject candidates because they are Mormons. It is as unfair as it was to refuse to vote for a Catholic because of his Catholicism. I wish I could say that the Christian community is well beyond this sort of thing~
PB
2 comments:
The United States is not a democracy nor is it a democratic replublic; the U.S. is a constitutional republic, a form of government much different than a democracy.
Is it really a question of fairness? Is it fair for anyone to consider a candidates other moral choices or lifestyle? Would it be wrong for Christians to not vote for someone because he/she is an aetheist? I would be reluctant to vote for an aetheist because they don't hold themselves accountable to God and they follow their own contrived moral compass. Should a person's faith matter when he holds the power of life and death in his hands? I believe it matters.
Good topic!
Dave
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Evangelicals stating a desire to vote for candidates for public office who most closely identify with our own beliefs and worldview. Given the importance of the issues at stake and the central role of worldview in the framing of political positions and policies, this intuition is both understandable and right. Likewise, we would naturally expect that adherents of other worldviews would also gravitate in political support to candidates who most fully share their own worldviews.
At the same time, competence for public office is also an important Christian concern, as is made clear in Romans 13. Christians, along with the general public, are not well served by political leaders who, though identifying as Christians, are incompetent. The Reformer Martin Luther is often quoted as saying that he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk (Muslim) than an incompetent Christian. We cannot prove that Luther actually made the statement, but it well summarizes an important Christian wisdom.
Furthermore, Christians in other lands and in other political contexts have had to think through these questions, sometimes under urgent and difficult circumstances. Christian citizens of Turkey, for example, must choose among Muslim candidates and parties when voting. Voters in many western states in the United States often have to choose among Mormon candidates. They vote for a Mormon or they do not vote at all.
Furthermore, we must be honest and acknowledge that there are non-Christians or non-evangelicals who share far more of our worldview and policy concerns than some others who identify as Christians. The stewardship of our vote demands that we support those candidates who most clearly and consistently share our worldview and combine these commitments with the competence to serve both faithfully and well.
In a fallen world, political questions are always contextual questions. With fear and trembling, matched with faithful biblical commitments, Christians must support and vote for candidates who will most faithfully and effectively meet these expectations. We must choose between real flesh-and-blood candidates, and not theoretical constructs.
Given all this, we would expect that, under normal circumstances, Mormon voters will support candidates who most fully represent their worldview and concerns. Given the distribution of Mormons in the United States, this means that many Mormons (who would probably prefer to vote for a Mormon candidate), often vote for an evangelical or a Roman Catholic candidate. The reverse is also true. Evangelicals in many parts of the United States vote eagerly for Roman Catholic candidates with whom we share so many policy concerns, and this is true also in reverse. In an increasingly diverse America, we will be faced with very different choices than we have faced in the past.
None of this settles the question of whom Evangelicals should support in the 2012 presidential race. Beyond this, those who support any one candidate for the Republican nomination must, if truly committed to electing a president who most shares their worldview and policy concerns, end up supporting the candidate in the general election who fits that description.
We are facing what are, for America’s Evangelicals, new questions. These questions will call for our most careful, biblical, and faithful thinking. We need to start thinking urgently — long before we enter the voting booth.
From Albert Mohler at AlbertMohler.com
Post a Comment