Skip to main content

The Lesser of Two Evils?

    I was going to post a status on Facebook, but I realized that it would be way too long, so I decided to blog about it.  Here goes my rant.  Today I had a conversation at work with one of my bosses about why I should vote for Mr. Romney.  He didn't like that I said I plan on voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write his name in.  Now, it is not my attempt to discuss the merits of individual candidates.  I have made my choice.  You can make yours.  It is my desire to discuss briefly the peer pressure conservative folks apply to those who wish to vote their consciences and not along party lines.

    My criteria for casting my vote behind a political candidate is based upon a Biblical understanding of the duties and qualifications of a leader.  I do not believe it venerable to cast away principles in lieu of pragmatism. When did it become morally superior to choose a candidate who can win instead of somebody who deserves my vote?  Now, I do not condemn anyone who believes that it is best to vote for a more electable candidate.  I understand your choice despite my aversion to it.  What stymies me is when people actually tell me I'm doing something wrong by choosing not to vote for someone I do not believe will be a good leader?  If you want to choose between the lesser of two evils, go at it, but don't expect me to put my name and reputation behind a candidate that I 1)don't think is good for America, and 2) don't believe fits the Biblical description of leadership.

    My decision not to vote for Romney is based, I believe, on a strong theological belief in the sovereignty of God.  Whatever God has planned for America is coming to her.  This may mean Obama and judgment.  This may mean revival, Ron Paul, and robust growth.  I don't believe that Romney will save America.  America can only be returned to her former glory if she returns to the God who made her glorious.  She was the envy of the world, and the reason is no mystery--she was a largely Christian nation and she was blessed overwhelmingly.  No President is going to save our economics if we continue to spurn the Creator of the Universe.  I do not have to worry about what happens.  I do not have to blame myself if Obama wins.  I will vote for a man I believe is good for America and who has the character necessary to govern effectively.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more