The Need Persists

Over the summer, I've been considering how my blog might evolve into a more general conservative Christian site. I've even tried to come up with a new name, thinking that "We Want a Christian President" was overly provocative and a turn-off.

But, during this past week, I've discovered through editorials written in The Washington Times, which accused evangelicals of religious bigotry against Mitt Romney (who is a Mormon), and the reaction of Huckabee supporters on Huck's Army, that there is still a great need for this site, explaining why a political candidate's faith is important, and why it is not hateful, irrational, or bigoted to hold to that position.

Some at Huck's Army believe that I am harming the effort simply by making such statements. In my opinion, some of them just haven't really chewed over what I'm saying (or simply disagree). Others are allowing the fear of being mischaracterized dictate what they will say. And some may even be placing political expediency and a misguided notion of ecumenism above the truth.

Of course, I think there is a certain level of discretion one should maintain; we shouldn't give our enemies fodder easy to twist and turn against us; and we should always speak the truth in love. But we should speak the truth.

So, WWCP will continue as WWCP for the foreseeable future. If I need a more general site to post my material on, I may create a new blog or return to Kingdom Advancing.

For now, I will post some of my recent comments from Huck's Army (an extra note can be found at the bottom of this post):

Other's comment: Religion has no place in politics and we must separate it and stick to the issues and character of the candidates. Romney's religion, whether it is Christian, Mormon, one and the same, should never come into play here. It should only be about the reasons Romney is not "ready to be commander in chief...or 2nd in command...."

My response: Does character not have some connection to a person's relationship with God? Obviously, we can't know that any public figure has a close relationship with God, but we can know that those who openly profess a false theology do not. This is not to say that a non-Christian can't have the outward expressions of good character. But I'd prefer for his/her character to flow from God.

Do one's positions on the issues not have some connection to their relationship with God? A true Christian should be guided by the Word and Spirit, and strengthened by them.

Do one's beliefs not have some connection with their readiness to lead? The case could be made that some religious beliefs are so illogical that one who holds to them cannot possess the judgment to lead.


Other's comment: Please don't disect the Mormon religion or any other religion on this website. The Rombots are just waiting to catch somebody who is doing that so they can put it all over the web. The Washington Times has hurt us enough for even implying that evangelicals are against Romney because he is a Mormon. What do you think John McCain and his campaign are thinking about all of this? Don't you think they might consider Mike a risk because of people who claim we are bigots? Commenting on somebody's religious beliefs is just a bad idea.It's not that you are doing anything wrong, just do it in your own mind..don't post it. Don't give anybody ammunition that might hurt Mike. Just about all of the people on this website don't like Romney because of his character and he cannot be trusted. Those are big reasons!

My response: I'm not dying to get into a critique of Mormonism. But when people on a conservative, greatly Christian site like this say that "religion should be kept out of politics," I have to speak up. When writers begin a tirade on evangelicals by saying that "Mormons are Christians, anyway," [as the opiner in The Washington Times did] I can't let that slide... The Bible tells us to "be of good repute," so that our revilers will be "put to shame." It never says, "For the sake of political expediency, avoid speaking the truth." Of course, there is a level of discretion. But I don't think we should hide what we believe.

Other's Comment: I agree with what many of you have already stated -- having a theological discussion is not helpful at this time. It would only feed into their belief that we are predjudice against Romney for his religion -- which we are not. It would be different if they were open to hearing different doctrine, and if it were one on one privately, but they are not open and it is public. In all respect, please reconsider no longer responding to this website:

II Timothy 2:23-26 NKJV "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And the servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."

Please dont flank me ... just sharing the concern of my heart.

My response: I understand what you're saying, but I still don't get the logic behind "don't stand up for truth, because our enemies might twist the truth and use it against us." That's just not a good enough reason to be silent on an issue.

What I'm concerned about is the possibility that some well-meaning Christians will dust topics like these under the rug because they're inconvenient, because they don't want to be branded bigots, because they don't want to hurt the movement, because they don't want to think critically about this issue. I'm concerned that there may be Christians who would prefer to know nothing about Mormonism except that "Mormons are good people," so that they can have some kind of plausible deniability with which they can say, "I could care less about a politician's religion."

That's unacceptable for the church to so cavalierly dismiss a person's relationship with God--a person who they are using their God-given freedom and ability to put into a position of great power.

--------------

Allow me to add a few final thoughts: I am not advocating, and have never advocated, giving a candidate a leg up simply because he claims to be a Christian. Read the intro to my blog: "Not just in word, but in deed...Not just in deed, but in practice." My position has always been that a Christian candidate's faith should be reflected in his political positions, behavior, and speech. One also must look at a candidate's talents and experience. God does not gift all Christians with the wherewithal to run civil governments, and we should carefully consider whether a Christian candidate is qualified.

I've also held that there may come a time when a non-Christian candidate would be a better alternative than the professing Christian. But it would be very difficult for me to vote for either in that scenario, and, with John McCain's less-than-stellar appearance on issues of faith (See my post: Sitting in the Aisle?), I really hope he picks a strong VP.

Article VI of the Constitution

...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, Shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States...
--from Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America



During this election cycle, I've heard and seen some people invoke Article VI of the Constitution, as if by doing so they are striking down people like myself with a fatal condemnation. But I would propose that Article VI is just one more reason why we need to elect a Christian President.

What do I mean by that? Well, it's quite simple, really. If we do not elect a Christian President, the Constitution is not going to fix our error. The law will not save us from our mistake. If we choose a non-Christian, we will get our just desserts. The Constitution is designed so that no candidate will be prevented, by a precept of law (literally a "Test"), from attaining political office, presumably after he or she has already been elected by the people. The only test to be given is by the people, when they cast their ballots.

The reality is, the Constitution doesn't begin to decree to the citizenry on what bases we are permitted to embrace or shun a candidate. In fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment for it to do so. If my faith tells me to cast my vote a certain way, I am allowed to act accordingly.

Consider what the naysayers, claiming constitutional superiority, really are implying when they proclaim that we can't "discriminate" against Romney because of his Mormonism. They are, in effect, saying, "You can vote against Romney because you dislike his ideology, record, wealth, speaking style, hair, fashion, campaign theme song, or the weird feeling you get when you see him, but you can't vote against him because of his religion." That's nonsense! Religion is the foundation upon which all else is built! If nothing else, one's religion installs oneself as god, or the State as god.

In all legality, I could vote against Barack Obama (which I will) merely because of the color of his skin (which, fortunately, happens to not be one of my reasons). That rationale would be despicable, deplorable, disgusting, diabolical, and just about any other negative adjective starting with "d," but that does not make it unlawful. Anyone can freely attempt to take that same tact about the rationality of considering faith in selecting a candidate to support, but no one can honestly make the argument that it is a case of constitutionality.

Guidance of the Spirit

This is the third excerpt from a yet-to-be-posted article revealing the thought-processes behind this effort.

This is probably the most abstract and intangible point of all, but a substantial one nonetheless.

Jesus said that He would send a "Helper" (John 14:16)--the "Spirit of truth" (John 14:17)--who would "teach [us] all things" (John 14:26) and "guide [us] into all the truth." (John 16:13) What an amazing promise that is! Note that Jesus does not say that the Holy Spirit would guide us into some of the truth, or that He'd teach us some things. He won't just teach us "religous" things or guide us into "spiritual" truths. No! He'll teach us all things and guide us into all the truth.

Does this mean that every Christian should eventually know everything? Does it mean that all Christians should eventually know everything collectively? I don't think so--at least not on this side of eternity. But we should be climbing the mountain of truth and knowledge. It's not about reaching the pinnacle today, tomorrow, or in our lifetimes: it's about gaining altitude day-by-day. The Holy Spirit is our guide, and the Bible is our handbook. With our Bible in one hand, the Holy Spirit leads us by the other. The Spirit is the builder on the foundation of the Bible. He is the navigator with the map of God's Word.

I don't want to trespass upon my upcoming "Godly Wisdom" post, but I should allude to one of its key verses here. Paul states that in Christ "...are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3) The Holy Spirit is the Key to Christ's treasure chest. He is the Treasure Hunter who can lead us to where "x marks the spot."

On a different note, I'm also reminded of times in the New Testament when Paul was "blocked" by the Holy Spirit from going to a certain area. Admittedly, we don't know exactly how the Holy Spirit accomplished that, but what I deduce from those instances is that the Holy Spirit can simply tell someone--who is in touch with Him--to do something or to not do something. He can even tell us what we ought to say (Luke 12:11-12).

Even so, I'm not going to deny that we don't want our President regularly relying on divine barriers and nudges. They don't always come, and they are sometimes confused with other things (indigestion) and even the other side (demonic influence/oppression). Having the Spirit "on your side" is definitely not an excuse to slack off in the areas of counsel, research, and analysis.

Nevertheless, when it comes down to discernment, intuition, a gut-feeling, a judgment call, a knee-jerk reaction, a split-second decision, a virtual coinflip, or a seemingly lose-lose situation, I'll take the President who's in fellowship with the Spirit over the one who's not every day of the week.

However, we must realize that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide only in this indefinable sense. He also guides through the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-24), which could be referred to as the "tools" of the Spirit. These virtues--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control--are present in those "walking by the Spirit." (Galatians 5:25) They don't serve to function so much like the type of guidance which commands, "Go in this direction," but more like the type which instructs, "Take this approach."

Now, I must admit that I rarely live up to all of the unadulterated ideals of Paul's grocery list of spiritual produce. But we would not err to assume that the Christian should generally live up more fully to more of the fruits than a non-Christian. After all, the flesh has its own laundry list: "...immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these..." (Galatians 5:19-21) Not only that, the Christian should be progressively ascending to godliness, albeit with some stumbles here and there. "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Philippians 1:6) "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2) "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4)

The fruits of the Spirit have very real applications in the life of the President. The following dissertation is as much a prayer for our President, whoever that may be, as it is a discourse on the effects of the Spirit. There is some overlap between the traits.

Goodness:
*That he'd strive to overcome evil with good, and not to return evil for evil (Romans 12:17, 21)
**That he'd fight the good fight (2 Timothy 4:7) with the proper motivation, doing all things heartily for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:23)
***That, for this reason, he'd be immune to corruption.

Faithfulness:
*Following the same train of thought, that he'd follow through with his commitments and stay true to his beliefs (Ephesians 4:14; Colossians 2:8) with the faithfulness of God
**That his word would be reliably sufficient (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12).

Kindness:
*That he'd extend his hand to our opponents at home and enemies abroad so as to convey that our steadfast convictions are founded upon common sense, morality, justice, and security--not spite, hatred, prejudice, vengeance, or selfishness....or partisanship
**That he'd truly fulfill the duties of his office by regarding others as more important than himself and accepting that he is a public servant (Philippians 2:3-4; 1 Corinthians 10:24)

Joy:
*That, though without naivety, he'd see the positive, working towards it rather than conceding the negative
**That he'd recognize God's sovereignty and omnipotence, remembering that Jesus has overcome the world (John 16:33) and that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28)
***That the joy of the Lord would be his strength (

Patience, Peace, and Self-Control:
*That he'd not make rash decisions from flights of panic or anger (Matthew 10:28; James 1:20), and that he'd not concern himself with saving his own skin (Philippians 2:3-4; 1 Corinthians 10:24),but that, with the peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:7), he would make cool-headed decisions with the proper perspective, setting his mind "on the things above" (Colossians 3:2) and dwelling on "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute..." (Philippians 4:8)
**That he'd control his tongue, understanding the great power, for good or ill, which it possesses (James 3), especially when placed within the context of the President's bully pulpit

Gentleness and Love:
*That he'd speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), using gracious words seasoned with salt (Colossians 4:6) and exhibiting a gentle spirit (Philippians 4:5)
**Knowing that a gentle answer turns away wrath (Proverbs 15:1), that he'd stand firm but not be standoffish;
***That his decisions would be based upon his love for God, his neighbors, and his enemies: not that he'd be soft or wimpy, but that he'd neither be bloodthirsty nor heartless
****That he'd be driven by a genuine love--a love that is both compassionate and tough, understanding that both are necessary
*****That he'd put himself in their shoes so as to better understand how to defeat their ideologies.

Although it's practically impossible to decipher just how tender a public figure like a political candidate is to the leading of the Spirit, and equally difficult to calculate the precise results of such leading, we cannot underestimate its importance. Therefore, we must attempt to eliminate all the obvious tares, so that we are more likely to choose a grain of wheat.

Christian Consistency

This post is another portion of my upcoming article explaining more fully the impetus for this effort.

Christians can change their minds (in political lingo, “flip-flop”) just as easily, quickly, and drastically as your ordinary unbelieving Joe. In the circumstances of a Christian turning from error, this is an occurrence which calls for rejoicing. But this should not be the norm, especially when pertaining to fundamental precepts and basic moral principles. Paul exhorts Christians that we “are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming…” (Ephesians 4:14) In Romans 12:2, he says to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2) We, “with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory…” (2 Corinthians 3:18) We are not to “be conformed to this world,” (Romans 12:2) with all its varying political and philosophical views. Paul warns us, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
As Christians, we are like the wise man who built his house on the rock (Matthew 7:24-28). When the storms come, we will stand firm. We built our beliefs, our faith, and our selves on the Rock of the Word (Jesus and the Bible). All others build on sand, so that even if they build the same structure, their edifice will not endure.
Such is the case with Mitt Romney. He has just recently become conservative on some issues, most notably abortion. Is his transformation permanent? Or will he “flip-flop” back again? Will his “house” survive when the storms of activists, arguments, and pressures of public life, political correctness, and principalities persistently lay siege?
To paraphrase little-known presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, I love Road-to-Damascus conversions. But Road-to-the-White-House conversions? Not so much. You simply can't depend upon them to be credible or permanent. It’d be one thing if Romney had converted to Christ (or should I say, a real relationship with Christ). He did not. He’s openly Mormon. His "house" is built on sand. And though he could be conservative the rest of his life, he just as easily could deteriorate into liberalism. Not that Rudy Giulani is standing on any more solid of ground. He can’t digress to pro-choice and pro-gay positions and poor familial relationships—he’s already there.

In the interest of full and honest disclosure, I must confess that I do not know with absolute certainty that any of the Christian presidential candidates are on much firmer of footing. I do not know their hearts. However, by analyzing their actions and statements, I believe that there is a much higher probability that they are.

Godly Strength

This post is an excerpt from my upcoming article which will explain in detail the catalyst for this blog.

Everyone wants their leader to be strong, and it is undeniable that many strong leaders were and are not Christians. But there is a significant difference between ordinary strength—deriving from one’s combination of physical, genetic, mental, educational, parental, and environmental prowess (God's common grace)—and strength which derives from the dependence upon the Creator and Lord of the universe.
Godly strength is the strength that compels one to say, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13; emphasis mine) It’s the strength that permits one to say, “When I am weak, then I am strong, for His strength is perfected in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9-10; my paraphrase) It’s the strength that gives one the confidence to say, “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me…” (Psalm 23:4) Godly strength is the strength that gives the perspective to say, “I do not fear man, who can kill the body; rather, I fear God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28; my paraphrase) It’s the strength that emboldens one to say, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defense of my life; Whom shall I dread?” (Psalm 27:1) “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31, King James Version) It’s the strength that comes from the “peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension,” (Philippians 4:7) knowing that “God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love God…” (Romans 8:28)

This is not to say that there are not some very weak Christians in the world. All Christians have their weak moments now and again, and some Christians have a hard time ever latching onto God's promises for strength. Neither is this to claim that all Christians make great, powerful leaders. Furthermore, I realize that there are some very strong non-Christian (or at least not overtly Christian) candidates for President. But the strong, Christian leader has a basic advantage over the unbeliever or nominal believer: the Christian’s strength is attained directly from God. Others may trust in any number of sources or experiences for their strength, but the Christian knows that, with all those other things contributing to his character, the Lord is his strength and his shield (Psalm 28:7). “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” (Psalm 20:7, English Standard Version) Moreover, the Bible tells us that God’s "weakness" is stronger than man (1 Corinthians 1:25). Oh, how much I’d rather have God’s "weakness" than man’s strength, and a President who depends on God for his sustenance rather than himself!

The Grand Stands

Issues That Should Define Your Vote:

Stand for Justice!
Stand for Freedoms!
Stand for the Constitution!
Stand for LAW AND LIBERTY!!!

Stand for Life!
Stand for Marriage!
Stand for Children!
Stand for FAMILY!!!

Stand for Sovereignty!
Stand for Security!
Stand for Strength!
Stand for AMERICA!!!

Stand for the Faith!
Stand for Free Exercise!
Stand for Founding Principles!
Stand for GOD!!!

Note: Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see this list appearing uncannily similar to the Liberty Bell. I did not try to accomplish this! It just happened!

Master Article Coming Soon

By reading the introduction to this site, you can see a drastically-summarized version of my logic and reasoning in creating this site.

The master article will be posted soon (hopefully within a week), explaining more fully why I feel so strongly the way I do, and why I think you should feel the same way.

What Am I Thinking?

One could certainly argue that, by not giving a full-fledged endorsement to a single candidate, this site is actually serving to assist Rudy Giulani and Mitt Romney by splitting support among the remaining candidates. That is a valid point. But I have my reasons for not endorsing a single candidate. They are:

1.) If a single Christian candidate crashes and burns (or simply pulls out of the race), I don't want this site to go up in smoke with him. Personally, my favorite candidate is Mike Huckabee. But he is not the only person who I think could make a good Christian President of the United States, so I will not act as if I do think that.

2.) In a similar vein, if a candidate not named Huckabee wins the Republican nomination, I do not want it to look as though I did not like that candidate, simply because I endorsed Huckabee alone.

3.) Some of the second-tier candidates may end up being on a presidential ticket as a candidate for Vice President. I want to express my support for them now.

Hopefully, these two things will happen so that my strategy does not backfire: (1) As people naturally gravitate towards the best Christian candidate, some of the others will drop out of the race and throw their support behind that superior candidate; and (2) Christians, realizing the importance of beating Giulani and Romney, will vote for the Christian candidate with the best chance of winning.
If those two things happen, we'll be in good shape.

What It Means to "Want a Christian President"

Some of you may be concerned that, by becoming a part of this effort, you would thereby concede the election to Hillary Clinton if Rudy Giulani or Mitt Romney were to receive the Republican nomination. That is not the case at all! You do not have to make any pledges for a specific candidate or against specific candidates. To join this effort is to pledge support to the effort and a desire for a Christian President. Joining is like you saying, "I do not want to vote for Rudy Giulani. I do not want to vote for Mitt Romney. And I want to act so that I am not eventually compelled to under the philosophy of picking the lesser of two evils."

In fact, you do not even have to disavow both (or either) Giulani and (or) Romney. You can join whatever blogrolls you want to! There are three: "Americans for a Christian President," "Christian Coalition AGAINST Rudy Giulani," and "Evangelicals NOT for Mitt Romney." Obviously, it is preferable that you go all out and dedicate yourself to this effort, but those who partially agree with this site's philosophy are welcomed to join alongside those who fully agree with it. Perhaps, at some point, you will realize the fullness of our perspective.

One last note: Although the focus of this blog seems to be the Republican front-runners, that is an illusion. We Want a Christian President... is also presently against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and all of the other Democratic presidential candidates who behave or believe in non-Christian ways.