Why do we think having a compromising Republican president in office will make things better than having a die-hard Democrat? Both candidates want to drive over the cliff (state-mandated schooling, abortion funding, civil unions, welfare, etc.); one just wants to go over at 55 mph, while the other wants to go at 85. What’s the real difference? We shouldn’t want to go over the cliff at all! And Christians need to communicate that message loud and clear to those running for office by voting only for men who meet God’s requirements for civil rulers…
My two cents
Before reading this quote a few years back, I hadn’t thought of candidate selection in that way, but I’ve agreed with it ever since. I love the idea of not having to compromise when it comes to the ballot box. After being given no direction, and then later being discouraged on political involvement, I managed to shed that and I’m glad I did. I think that’s one thing that appeals to me about Reformed theology in particular; it recognises the applicability of God’s word in all areas of life (rather than just salvation and a limited number of other, usually personal or emotional matters).
The archives at LAF are a gold mine for understanding the total applicability of the Word.
Chancey, J. (2004). “Is LAF too political?”. Available: http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/Comments_and_Letters_23/Is_LAF_too_political_14531001453.shtml. Last accessed 31st Dec 2011.