Riverwood Presbyterian Church

Setting aside  the arrogant assumption that all Christians will heed their advice for the primary and will surely all vote Republican in the general election for this post, the other thing that jumped out at me was a dilemma and a paradox.  The dilemma is one they readily admit and was a major reason for the meeting.  

Could they willingly/actively support:

a) Romney, who might be electable against Obama and who would call himself Christian, but is a member in the Mormon church? (Apparently, this was the largest impetus for meeting- “Who, other than Romney, can we put up that has to win in the Fall?”)

b) Gingrich, who professes Christianity but whose marital difficulties and Catholicism raise eyebrows

c) Paul, who professes Christianity, but is unelectable

d) Santorum, who professes Christianity and has been actively pro-life, but whose record is sketchy and is likely unelectable as well.

All 4 of these men profess Christianity, as does the incumbent President, for that matter.  Assuming they are all being honest, this presents a problem for the evangelicals.

Then it hit me.  While this dilemma is caused in large part by the misguided thinking that evangelicals are a voting block and a power center, another, and perhaps more powerful issue is at play here.  The names I have seen mentioned at this summit as evangelical leaders would generally be considered individualists, religiously speaking.  They belong to branches of Christianity that believe in the supremacy of the individual believer.  Individual choice toward salvation, individual interpretation of Scripture and 'no creed but Christ' are key points in their theological lineage.  I realize this may not be accurate to a man, but looking at the historical perspectives of the denominations & groups announced as being represented, it is logical.  (Caveat: There may have been some confessional or Reformed believers involved, but to this point I haven't seen any listed.)

This means that while they may see creedal statements on basic tenets of the faith as tangential or irrelevant (or perhaps even offensive) while purporting their faith to be the underpinning of their lives (individually and collectively), they are ultra concerned that we select the 'right' person to sit in the White House for 4 years.  It is also ironic that the people who would likely crow loudest about Christian individualism (oxymoron) are perhaps in the group trying to get Christians to coalesce politically based on their impimatur…. But I digress…

It is no wonder that they have difficulty parsing out whom to support- they have no visible foundation on which to build other than moral ethics and 'family values', whatever that means, to the culture. 

I will vote as long as we are allowed to have some sort of voice in government.  There is likely much corruption on both sides of the aisle, but there will be more if people are not involved in accountability.  I encourage everyone to investigate, ask questions and then go vote.  

The church, as institution, however, is neither purposed nor equipped to be involved in politics.  The end results are always the trivialization of God/Christianity in culture and power struggles from inside and outside the church as the Gospel is diluted or disappears.

Having said all that, I am glad that God is not waiting with wringing hands to find out how the American people vote.  His chosen candidate has already won- whoever that turns out to be and for whatever purposes God has designed.

1. On or around Jan 21, 2012 at 9:23 a.m. Clay Staggs said...

Jeff

It has been my experience in watching some of the guys on that list that logical inconsistencies never bothered them much.

Great post.

Comments no longer accepted for this entry.

To prevent spam, comments are no longer allowed after 60 days.