Posted on 06/03/2007 4:39:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
The first Christians were charged with blasphemy because they refused to confess “Caesar is Lord.” For this crime against the state, they were crucified, lit on fire, and served as human torches to light the evening parties in Caesar’s gardens.
Jesus was the first to teach the separation of church and state. His followers were instructed to “Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and to God, that which is God’s.” This was a direct challenge to the unified powers of Caesar as both priest and king. It was required of Roman citizens to proclaim “Caesar is Lord.” But for Christians, only Jesus is Lord. For this reason, a person could not be both a Christian and a good citizen of Rome.
Plato addressed this theological-political problem in his Laws and it is elucidated in the nexus of the good man, the good citizen and the immoral law. In ancient Greece, each city-state had its own gods that demanded worship--and thereby laws to be obeyed, in order to be a good citizen in good standing. Plato raised the question, if a good citizen is one who obeys the laws of his own city, then what happens when he travels to another city? Is he no longer a good citizen in the foreign city? Can there be such a thing as a good man who is a good citizen in every city? If gods make the laws, and some laws are wrong, then are some gods wrong? That is, can there be a universal law that is higher than each particular, local law? Is there an Almighty God who is always right and the Author of the true moral law who rules over lesser local deities who are often wrong? If so, then can there be such a thing as an immoral law? Is there a universal morality that trumps the merely legal?
Our founders would refer to this highest moral law as “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” or, more simply, as Natural Law.
For Christians, the lessons are clear.
When there is a conflict between the moral and the legal, the moral must trump. For the legal is the attempt to codify the moral. When there is a conflict between the church and the state, the church must trump (when the state attempts to prevent the church from being the church). For Christians, ultimate allegiance must be reserved for Jesus and His Word. Anything short of this is compromise and idolatry.
On the question of “Who is Lord?” The Christian can only respond, “Jesus is Lord.”
In light of this, some thoughts regarding the candidacy of Mitt Romney and my good friend, nationally-syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt, author of A Mormon in the White House?
Hugh argues that the statement “I won’t vote for a X for President” is bigoted if the X is “female,” “black,” “Jew,” or “Mormon.” But what if the X is: “Democrat,” “liberal,” “socialist,” “abortionist,” “drug dealer,” “pornographer,” or “anti-war activist”? Is this bigotry or is it just voting as a conservative Republican? What if the X were: “polygamist,” “racist,” or “heretic?” What about the statement, “I won’t vote for a slanderer of Christianity for President?” Is this bigotry or is it voting as a Bible-believing Christian?
I’m a Christian-American-Conservative-Republican–in that order. I support Christianity first and foremost, everything else flows from that. I’m a Christian who happens to be a Republican, not a Republican who happens to be a Christian. I care more about people coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ than I do any political candidate. At the end of my life, the question I will be asked is not, “Whom did you help elect?” But, “Whom did you serve?”
Hugh says bigotry is exposed by simply inserting the word “Jew” for “Mormon” in suspect statements. This seems to imply that both stand in the same relationship to Christianity. This is not so. Jews and Christians worship the same God, Mormons worship different gods. And Jews don’t insist they are the restoration of Christianity after eighteen centuries of apostasy.
Since Joseph Smith so clearly misrepresents the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon is antithetical to the Bible, why would it be bigotry if someone chooses not to support such heresy?
Hugh’s political point here is that any American is bigoted for rejecting a candidate simply because of his or her religion. My primary concern is that Christians will become excessively “tolerant,” that they will bend their knees to the Caesar of political correctness, that they will lose their confidence to confront a fallen culture, that they will be unwilling to say, “X is a false religion that teaches a different Jesus”—whether that X is Scientology, Islam, or Mormonism.
Hugh supports the idea that theology should have no place in political discourse. This, at a time when the world’s greatest threat is from political Islam? I argue that we actually need more public discussion of theology and religion, not less.
Perhaps Hugh’s point is, “Let’s not talk about this candidate’s religious beliefs, they’re not appropriate topics of political discourse.” I disagree. The issue is not Romney the man, but Mormonism the religion. Surely, every Christian has the responsibility to defend their faith, and what is Mormonism if not a public attack upon Christianity, the Jesus of the New Testament, and the Bible? What better opportunity to have this debate than when a Mormon is running for the presidency?
I wish Christians were as zealous and protective of the Gospel as some people are of political candidates.
As a political conservative, I like Romney more than I like Giuliani or McCain. If he wins the nomination, I’ll vote for him.
But my primary concern is as a Christian. This means that I’m concerned that should Romney win, public criticism of Mormonism will be chilled, the Gospel will be compromised, and Christians will have elevated the political expediency of the state above the eternal purposes of the church.
This must never happen. For to me, Jesus is Lord, not Caesar.
Every Christian should want Mormonism exposed for what it is to all the world. Even if it becomes the religion of the President of the United States.
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
The term 'anti-Christ' means 'false Christ'. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was created by Satan to draw away the true beleiver.
Morman belief is that they shall become gods. This is a repeat of the original temptation that occurred in the Garden of Eden. Clearly not a Christian belief.
If Mitt was running for religious leader of the USA, he could never get my vote, but since he is running for POTUS, and is the most qualified in the race as of right now, I would vote for him.
It wouldn't be bigotry if you chose not to support heresy.
However, your vote for President does not support or condemn heresy. The President is not the chief pastor of the nation's Christians.
Using your standard, you could not have voted for Jefferson or Lincoln.
I don’t think Evangelical Christians consider RCs to be Christians either!
LOL.......
Errr, no. It comes directly from Mormon writtings
"I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18).
"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles" (Mormon 9:9-10).
"Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power." - King Follett Discourse
The first two quotes are compatible with the Christian God - immutable and unchanging. The third shows something else. How can you believe that God is at the same time immutable and changing, that from all eternity he was as he now is, but he somehow evolved from a mere mortal. The Mormon god is not the God of the Christian. The "son" of that god is not Christ.
Huge is apparently an idiot.
What a great summary of the issues in this article.
Mormons are categorized in the same group as abortionists? Crossed the line. Hugh Hewitt is talking about RELIGIOUS bigotry. Hello, it’s unconstitutional to place a RELIGIOUS test on a candidate.
The point here is that bigotry when it’s leveled at Mormons is OK?
I am a Mormon. I am pro life and have walked the walk. Jesus Christ is MY personal Savior and Lord.
Says who?
As much as I hate to feed the beast.....
my uncle is a bishop and he has said.....
Mormons believe that God was once a man, who through good works and became God.
Samaritans were as reviled during the days of Jesus Christ day as the Mormons are today. They were denounced for having corrupt and pagan beliefs. Yet Jesus Christ used the example of a Samaritan to teach this great lesson.
Ok, ok wait ... laughing to hard from your comparison.....
But what if the x is “Democrat,” “liberal,” “socialist,” “abortionist,” “drug dealer,” “pornographer,” or “anti-war activist”?
Mormons are now plunked into the same group as pornographers and abortionists.
This article is very enlightening.
I am proud to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am not ashamed of my Savior, Jesus Christ, and I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I love my Church.
The vicious persecution causes me to become stronger in my faith, knowing others true to the faith suffered similarly.
“The issue is not Romney the man, but Mormonism the religion. Surely, every Christian has the responsibility to defend their faith, and what is Mormonism if not a public attack upon Christianity, the Jesus of the New Testament, and the Bible? What better opportunity to have this debate than when a Mormon is running for the presidency?
I wish Christians were as zealous and protective of the Gospel as some people are of political candidates.”
Amen.
You can put a religious test on any candidate you wish - and apparently you do - but in order to run for office, the candidate does not have to pass a religious test, that’s unconstitutional, thank Goodness, or else JFK wouldn’t have had a snow ball’s chance in hell.
So you say. Please show me where in the constitution it says that.
"but in order to run for office, the candidate does not have to pass a religious test"
A candidate must pass the voter test and we voters are free to consider any aspect we wish. But noooooo... Sandra wants to take away my freedoms in order to get her guy in.
Oops... “Saundra” not “Sandra”, sorry.
Frank was a decent pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds back in his day. But reading his commentaries, he leaves himself wide open at times. Here for instance, he picks this big fight with the Mormons and then says he’ll vote for Romney if he’d nominated.
I like the way you described a Christian approach to politics. Very sound. Very wise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.