English
Korean
Spanish
| Do we really want leaders who have no values? Perhaps it is only particular values that cause panic when expressed in a public forum. It seems that way from here.When Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested that consensual homosexual behavior was like other proscribed sexual conduct (incest, bigamy, etc.) — of public interest, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it “blatant discrimination” and “hurtful.” When President Bush suggested a conservative Christian for U.S. Attorney General, opponents asked fearfully if he would enforce laws he found personally objectionable — abortion specifically, everything is about abortion. Actually, much worse things were said about John Ashcroft but you get the picture. When Education Secretary Rod Paige said that he personally preferred universities which appreciate Christian values, Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York claimed that “his (Paige’s) error was letting what he really believes slip out,” and called for his resignation. Mr. Ackerman was not saying that Mr. Paige should not make his opinions known but that these opinions are so objectionable that when they do slip out, panic should rightly ensue. President Bush himself causes fear among some of our neighbors when he claims to read and actually believe the Bible. What is there to fear in these statements?
Maybe the presence of Christian leaders should be a fearful thing to some. Mrs. Pelosi accuses Mr. Santorum of discrimination. This is true. Discrimination separates things, behavior, or people into two or more groups. He was saying that some behavior is rightly banned and other behavior is not. The senator was suggesting the existence of right and wrong. Rod Paige and John Ashcroft will likely do their jobs in a way that men of their convictions do their jobs. This threatens those who scorn biblical faith as well as those who do not respect the rule of law. The fear and anger is overblown, though. Conservative Christians, particularly Baptists and their free church brethren, have been advocates of the toleration and freedom we all claim to love. I challenge those who would stifle biblical convictions to tell us of all those Baptist or Methodist or Assembly of God nations that ban or persecute other religions. They can’t. It is ironic that American politicians express fear that biblical Christians will despise the law in favor of their own convictions or that they would truncate the rights of other Americans. That is not our track record and it is not consistent with the teachings we have committed ourselves to. Believers in objective revelation simply don’t feel the freedom to make their faith mean anything they like. First amendment freedom of religion is actually based on the convictions of Baptists, not atheists, Moslems, or materialists. Our forebears and brethren were and are imprisoned for their beliefs. Hate our beliefs if you must but don’t be so dishonest as to suggest that we are going to take over the world and persecute outsiders. Those who take biblical revelation seriously have been on the forefront of social relief, civil justice, and religious liberty initiatives as a part of our passion for evangelistic work. Without biblical Christianity, the abolition of slavery and integration of American society would have occurred much later, if at all. Apart from God’s revelation of himself there is little reason for a majority to grant rights to a minority. This perspective is counter to our instincts and is distinct from the behavior of nations based on man-made religion. It is futile to expect the rebellious world to respect a Christian worldview. They think we are wrong. Jesus taught us to expect no such respect, quite the contrary. On the other hand, we are citizens of a representative democracy with a free market economy and freedom of speech. As voters we may express our convictions on issues and leaders presented for our approval. We may also elect Christians to public office. As consumers in a market that offers amazing variety, we may express our convictions by buying from those who most closely agree with us. The privilege of free speech allows us to say so when others tout opinions we find unreasonable. It’s our right and obligation to hold our adversaries to accepted standards of logic, truth, fairness, and courtesy. Pundits who say, ad nauseam, that applied religious convictions are a threat to world peace are right, though not in the way they expect. It is often implied that convictions make us mean. Therefore those who are unsure of the truth or timid to speak it, and for whom truth and morality are relative are not mean. There is a word we might use for government without objective standards. For law that is arbitrary and subjective. For leaders that do what they think best, regardless of what they know to be their duty. The word is “tyranny.” Truth is divisive. That is a good thing. Morality separates people according to their conduct. As Romans 13 says, this is a fright to evildoers and a comfort to the righteous. Should things really be different? |
