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

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, let me clarify what I mean when

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, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary