iVoteValues

Featured Article

Articles from this category get featured on the homepage.

Cowardly Clergyman?

Posted by: Oklahoma Baptist Messenger staff on April 29, 2008 Featured Article •

Since when does a church or its pastor have to remain silent when addressing moral and social issues from a biblical worldview? There is no shortage on those who would like to squelch the voice of the church, especially during a political season.

Now is not the time for the church and its pastor to turn passive with regard to addressing critical social and moral issues from the pulpit. The pastor must speak with conviction based on the authority of the Scripture, not with results from the latest opinion poll. The pastor must challenge his congregation with the truth of God’s Word without regard to the views and opinions of political parties or candidates.

The pastor must do all he can to provide insight to moral and social issues based on God’s Word. Shying away from or avoiding certain issues for fear of offending a particular political candidate or political party member is acting as a cowardly clergyman.

Pastors have every right to preach on moral and social issues and to encourage their congregations to become active in civic affairs. Pastors should never endorse a candidate on behalf of the church. Nor should they use church funds or services to contribute directly to candidates or political committees. The pastor should never distribute materials on church premises that favor any one candidate or political party. However, the pastor does have the right to address moral and social issues being addressed by candidates and political parties.

The church has every right to encourage members to voice their opinions in favor or against legislative issues. A church should never endorse or oppose a political candidate or make contributions to a political action committee. Nor should churches conduct fundraising for political candidates. However, the church is an excellent place for the community to learn more about the political process and legislative issues.

Unfortunately, too many churches and pastors are standing on the sidelines allowing those with a secular worldview to dominate public affairs and critical legislation. Our silence has been perceived as agreement. We must clear our throats and be heard without concession.

We are not skating on thin ice when it comes to taking a stand regarding moral and social issues. We must not be intimidated by those who desire to silence the church. We are called to proclaim the truth. May Joshua 1:9 serve as our guide as we seek to address the moral and social issues of our day. “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” May the Lord find us strong and courageous as together we seek to make a difference within our culture.

It is time to speak up, pastor. Take a stand with God’s Word as your guide! Churches, stand with your pastor as he proclaims the truth of God’s Word with regard to sensitive social and moral issues of the day.

Church members, beware of allowing your political persuasions to compromise your biblical convictions. Know where candidates stand on the issues and support those who share your values as a believer and follower of Jesus Christ.

[This editorial is adapted and reprinted with permission from the April 10, 2008 Oklahoma Baptist Messenger.]

(0) Comments | Permalink | Tell a Friend |

Tags:

An Infallible Guide on the Road to the White House

Posted by: K.D. Hastings on March 25, 2008 Featured Article •

Before my family left town on a short trip during spring break, I purchased a GPS unit to help guide us on our way.

While the particular unit I bought is regarded as a low-end unit, it was well rated by consumers and included the feature I wanted most—text-to-speech. The female voice, while poorly enunciating many words, gave us confidence as we navigated unfamiliar streets.

Now at home where I know the roads, the unit is simply a curiosity. With no remorse or fear, I disobey the unit’s calls to turn left in ½ mile and willfully ignore its chastising tone as it tells me to “make a legal U-turn.”

Yet if you are in an unfamiliar area, a GPS unit can be quite handy. And as long as your inputs are accurate, the GPS unit provides an accurate route.

On our jaunt to the beach, we discovered the unit was not infallible. Searching its database of “points of interest,” we asked it to direct us to the closest Wal-Mart. We dutifully followed its commands, impressed by its knowledge and the certainty of its tone. It was only when we made a turn and noted signs welcoming us to a state park that we began to seriously doubt the unit. Then when only a few feet into the park the GPS unit announced, “You have arrived,” we knew the machine was not to be fully trusted.

The little machine was thoroughly convinced our car was in the parking lot of a Super Wal-Mart; we knew we were entering Gulf Shores State Park.

As it turned out, the discount store was about a half mile behind us. The unit told us to turn left when we should have turned right.

We make decisions about what route to take everyday and most of them have nothing to do with turning right or left and going straight on the highway. During 2008, all of us who are of voting age will have the opportunity to make a decision on who should represent us in Congress and who should take up residence in the White House.

Just as I do with my GPS, beware where you place your confidence. During the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan said of the Soviets, “Trust, but verify.” It is sage advice for us as we consider our options on Election Day.

Until that day, we will continue to be bombarded by messages—from the candidates and their surrogates—on the issues. Shifting through the chaff and making a decision on who has earned your vote in any contested political race is difficult. A sure foundation for this task is biblical precepts. Looking to your faith-informed convictions is a ready and reliable aid in determining who gets your support.

That’s values-based voting. Fulfilling your civic duty in this way means you ignore party labels and turn aside personal desires to vote for a candidate simply because they will benefit you economically. It involves weighing each candidate’s stance on the issues with the Bible’s perspective on the issue, as much as possible. Your values can give you needed direction.

I’ve learned I can’t completely trust my nifty but fallible GPS device. I can, however, completely trust God’s revealed Word as a guidepost in making my Election Day decisions.

(0) Comments | Permalink | Tell a Friend |

Tags:

Political Candidates and Their Faith

Posted by: Richard Land on January 21, 2008 Featured Article •

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says, “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” (emphasis added).

Our Founding Fathers prohibited that a person be a person of any particular faith or of no faith to hold public office or public trust in the United States. Instead, we are to select public officials based upon their character, their public policy record, their policy positions and their vision for our country.

In the famous speech delivered almost 50 years ago regarding his religious faith and his run for the White House, John F. Kennedy noted that while it was a Catholic who was the victim of suspicion in 1960, in other years it may be a Jew or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist who is targeted because of their faith.

Indeed, as Kennedy reminded the nation, it was the persecution of Baptists in 18th-century Virginia that inspired Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to pass the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. In other words, discrimination against a person of any faith opens the door to discrimination against people of all faiths.

While Gov. Mitt Romney has been criticized for his Mormon faith for some time, Gov. Mike Huckabee is the latest target. Huckabee has been criticized by feminist groups because while serving as governor of Arkansas, he and his wife endorsed statements, which appeared in USA Today and World magazine, affirming the Southern Baptist Convention’s confessional stance on the family.

In 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention added an article to its Baptist Faith and Message, the denomination’s confession of faith, addressing the family and marriage. At the time, the priests and priestesses of political correctness, those gurus who take it upon themselves to police what may and may not be said in American society, had a collective fit because the Southern Baptist Convention dared to say that a husband “is to love his wife as Christ loved the church” and a wife “is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

You may recall that most newspaper and news magazine editorialists were in a dither as well, printing cartoons portraying Southern Baptists as modern-day Neanderthals, with their knuckles dragging the ground, outfitted in animal skins, and with clubs clutched in their hirsute hands.

I have a somewhat unique perspective on this because I was a member of the committee asked to draft the article on the family for the convention’s consideration and approval in 1998. It is a very clear statement concerning what the Bible teaches about the family. The convention’s elected messengers, from their local churches all across the nation, meeting that year, interestingly enough, in Salt Lake City, overwhelmingly adopted the article on “The Family” as Article XVIII of its confessional statement.

In support, numerous prominent evangelical leaders from across the country endorsed a joint statement that asserted: “Southern Baptists, you are right. At a time when divorce is destroying the fabric of our society, you have taken a bold stand for the biblical principles for marriage and family life.” Now, several years later, these feminists are attacking Mike Huckabee, labeling him as anti-feminist and anti-woman because he signed this statement in support of the Baptist Faith and Message article on the family.

In his Dec. 6, 2007, speech (which Time magazine suggested may be “Romney’s Kennedy moment"), Governor Romney told the assembled crowd at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, “A person who is running for political office should not be the chief spokesperson for his faith or his denomination in public life.”

If I had been advising Governor Romney, I would have told him to say, “Look, if you want to know what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes, call Salt Lake City. If you want to know what my values are, what my beliefs are, and how they influence my life, my character, my public service, my policies and my vision for America, call my office or go to my campaign’s Web site.”

If I were Mike Huckabee, I would say, “Listen, we don’t have a religious test for office. I am a Southern Baptist and I subscribe to the Southern Baptist Convention’s confession of faith. If you want to know what Southern Baptists believe, call a local Southern Baptist pastor or read the Baptist Faith and Message. If you want to know what my policy positions are, call my office or go to my website.”

Then I would challenge my feminist critics by saying, “You have no right to accuse me of being anti-woman, for exercising my constitutionally protected right to free expression of my faith in stating what I believe about God’s plan for the family. Unless you can find evidence of anti-woman bias in my public policy statements or my record as governor of Arkansas (and you will not find such evidence), then you are engaging in anti-religious bigotry by attacking me for expressing my beliefs about how husbands and wives ought to fulfill their roles in the voluntary relationship called marriage by some and holy matrimony by me.”

Just as then-Sen. Kennedy spent virtually no time defending Catholicism, but rather the right of a Catholic to run for the presidency, Gov. Huckabee and Gov. Romney should not spend time defending the religious beliefs of their respective faiths. Instead, as Kennedy did before them, they should affirm their right to run and to be judged on their records and their vision for the country’s future.

To ask Gov. Huckabee or Gov. Romney to explain and to defend the details of their personal faith IS a de facto religious test for office, and that is unconstitutional—and un-American. Mike Huckabee has said that he is a person of faith, that his faith defines him. That means his faith impacts his life, shapes his character, and guides him as he faces the crises and issues of life.

How his faith has molded his character, life and vision is fair game in political debate. The precise theological affirmations of his personal faith, however, are not proper subjects for debate, analysis or scrutiny as a candidate in a presidential campaign.

We have no religious test for office in this country. We don’t judge candidates on their faith or their lack of faith; we judge them on how their faith or their lack of faith impacts their lives, character, conscience, public policy positions and their vision for the country’s future.

While discussing this subject, a reporter asked me a provocative question: “Would you apply similar tests to the candidacy of a radical Islamist?”

“Yes, I would,” I responded. “I would not reject someone who was a follower of radical Islam because they were a follower of radical Islam; I would reject that person as a candidate for office because his radical Islamic faith impacts his character by telling him it is all right to kill people who disagree with him under certain circumstances. I would reject him because his faith gives him a vision for America as an Islamic republic that would stifle dissent, deny religious freedom, and make everyone who is not a Muslim a second-class citizen. So I wouldn’t be rejecting a Muslim based upon his radical Islamic faith, I would be rejecting him because of how his faith impacts his character, conscience, life and public policy positions.”

That is the way our Founding Fathers envisioned it to be, and that is the way it should be.