Now that the field has narrowed for the GOP, my interest has increased (a little bit). I watched some of the latest GOP debate, the so-called “Southern Republican Presidential Debate.” This post will contain some reactions to a single aspect of that debate.
Afore my color commentary, allow me to set down a few guiding principles. The first two are general, and the third applies to my observation of the debate. 1) Jesus Christ IS King of the United States of America, for he is the Ruler of the Kings of Earth (Rev. 1:5). This means that the only cosmic government is an absolute monarchy. Christians should simply admit this and quit trying to be sons of the Enlightenment, acting as if Jesus were merely a private King or the King only of his church. He’s certainly both of those things, but he’s more than that, too. He is the head of *all things* and is given to the church, which is the fullness of him who fills all in all (Eph 1:23). Okay… so far so good? No? Sorry. Moving on, then: 2) The law of God is not just for private use, family use, or church use, but is for the whole world, for all men and governments. There are plenty of qualifications to be made, but I want to stress that God’s law REALLY DOES apply to the President of the United States of America. For example, when God says, “You shall not murder,” that applies to individuals, families, the church, and the state. That’s right, the civil magistrate may not take human life, except as God has commanded him to do so. Another example: when God says, ” You shall not steal,” this applies to the government. This shouldn’t be contorted to mean that all taxation is illegitimate theft, but it should at very least, factor into our thinking about taxes and wealth redistribution. Finally, 3) past sins do not necessarily disqualify a candidate for office. We all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). By God’s grace in Christ, we repent, trusting in the Savior alone, and we’re forgiven. What’s more, we move on, having learned from our sin.
Character... what a funny concept!
Alright, now to the debate: it started with a question to Speaker Gingrich about his deplorable treatment of one of his ex-wives. I’ve heard people talk about Newt’s response and how good it was. Having listened to his response, I can appreciate one aspect of it. There were falsehoods in the story, as it was told, and Newt addressed himself to those to set them straight. So far, so good… we have (at least) to get our facts straight. From there, however, his response was lame. Newt’s response was dismissive and antagonistic. He didn’t speak a word about repentance. There was not even a note of remorse. What’s more, he let on that this sort of stuff was simply a sideshow, distracting from the *real* issues. Romney piped up, basically saying: “Umm… can we move on to something important?” What amazes me is that Newt (a Roman catholic) and Mitt (a Mormon elder) want to act as if their personal lives, past sins, and repentance DON’T MATTER! Do you think that’s true? Personally, I think it’s crazy. Somehow, it appears that both Gingrich and Romney think that personal integrity and character just are not an important aspect to the presidency.
Seriously. Not. Impressive. …or maybe it’s very impressive, but in a negative way. What do you think?
I don’t believe that they believe their past sins are not important. They believe, as do I, that the media needs to quit focusing on these past issues every time they meet. Just like you recently said about Ron Paul and his past, the media is cherry picking negative things from his past and letting those things cloud the debate. The only difference is, is that NG has repented of his past and admitted to his mistakes and has done a few times now… while RP denies his past and has people so confused about what really happened that they defend him with quotes like, it is JUNK. RP made racist comments on something he read that he edited before reading. First he said it was taken out of content… now he says, he didn’t know the stuff was in the stuff that he edited… LOL… Newt has my vote. He is an intelligent Christian that knows how to debate Obama and win. Ron Paul will get spit out by Obama. NG past character is not his present character as far as I can see (repentance perfects character as only God can do) and RP character has not changed as far as I can tell.
hello
I think American’s put too much emphasis on the President. We get to elect one branch (of three) in November, not a mini-monarch. The Head Dude in Charge leads the army and veto’s bills or not.
I’ve made my peace with voting for a Mormon. Abortion and the debt are big enough issues to settle that. And he’s been faithfully married all this time. Romney may be poor in a debate, but that’s not what disqualifies someone for President.
Mark, sorry but RP did not “make racist comments,” or at least there’s no way AT ALL to prove that he did. IF he did, he should repent. If he’s lied to cover it up, he should repent, and he should do all that publicly. But since there’s no way you know he did, and since he’s give a very plausible explanation, I think you’re beating a dead horse, as he’s already disavowed the foolish comments.
As to my post, the media can (and will) pick a part a candidate, and that can be highly irritating and can distract from more substantive issues. I get all that, and I quite agree. My point is not that NG hadn’t repented… maybe he has. (He’s a convert to Rome, so I’m not impressed by that.) I’ll take him at his word and put it down that he has. Good. He, therefore, should use EVERY opportunity to teach about that, both spiritually and politically. He can exalt Christ when the media takes shots at him by *again* owning his past sin, saying that Christ died for him, that he’s repented and learned from his unfaithfulness, and that he’s, therefore, MORE qualified for office because of it. Mark, he said *none* of this. He treated the whole thing with contempt, as did the Mormon. That is my point, and it’s indisputable.