jeffreymark

THEOLOGIAN IN CHIEF

For centuries politicians made reference to biblical passages when seeking to bolster their own positions. Sadly, the act wreaks of blasphemy or taking God's name in vain. I suspect Obama used Jesus to add supremacy to his class warfare rhetoric. "To whom much is given shall much be required," the Savior exclaimed. I seriously think we ought to put this proverbial shoe on Obama's other foot. Those who have been given much in the way of tremendous leadership power, shall be required to use it with integrity and maturity-something Obama knows nothing about. 

Read news article about his quote here.

THE GOOD AND BAD ABOUT A MORMON POLITICIAN

Although Christopher Hitchens is a self proclaimed, committed atheist, I respect his intellectual and political acumen. He nails the essence of Mormonism in the paragraph below. Yes, they possess a bizarre history; yes, mainline Christians view the religion as a cult; indeed Mormons propagate an exclusivist salvific message; true, they sport weird underwear. But, they stand with conservative evangelicals in the social arena. I can vote for Mitt Romney as a Mormon because his Mormon social values parallel mine. I do not, however, like his waffling from a big government governor to a now eternally repentant conservative Presidential candidate.

To give some examples. The founder of the church, one Joseph Smith, was a fraud and conjurer well known to the authorities of upstate New York. He claimed to have been shown some gold plates on which a new revelation was inscribed in no known language. He then qualified as the sole translator of this language. (The entire story is related in Fawn Brodie’s biography, No Man Knows My History.* It seems that we can add, to sausages and laws, churches as a phenomenon that is not pleasant to watch at the manufacturing stage. Edmund Wilson wrote that it was powerfully shocking to see Brodie as she exposed a religion that was a whole-cloth fabrication.) On his later forays into the chartless wilderness, there to play the role of Moses to his followers (who were permitted and even encouraged in plural marriage, so as to go forth and mass-produce little Mormons), Smith also announced that he wanted to be known as the Prophet Muhammad of North America, with the fearsome slogan: “Either al-Koran or the Sword.” He levied war against his fellow citizens, and against the federal government. 

IS THIS THE END V

DISPENSATIONALISM AS A WORLD VIEW

A couple of weeks ago we mentioned the role our “world view” plays in understanding the Bible. A world view is that which tells us why things are the way they are. Within that world view we form premises. A premise consists of a pre conceived idea we hold about a particular subject before we really study the subject or issue. We formulate a premise by what goes before. A teacher, preacher, parent, book, etc... aids in the development of a premise. Often we configure a system from our premises. A system is “an assemblage of things (objects, ideas, rules, axioms, etc...) arranged in a coherent order (of subordination, or of inference, or of generality etc... ) according to some rational or intelligible principle (or plan, or scheme, or method). (Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter Angeles; p.287) Theology places Bible themes into a system such as sin, atonement, soteriology, and more.

One particular system espoused by a legion of Christian leaders today we call Dispensationalism. Pop culture Christianity unwittingly embraces this system . The Left Behind series emerges from Dispensationalism. Billy Graham, Hal Lindsay, and a legion of the contemporary churches out there embrace this system. Dispensationalism arose not from a careful exegesis of the scriptures, but from a genuine pastoral concern about unfulfilled prophecy. It has been wed with the American gospel of success and many Messianic Jews embrace its teachings. The teaching originated in 1830 when a young girl from Glasgow, Scotland named Margaret MacDonald, attended a healing service. She supposedly received a vision about a two fold return of Christ. She envisioned a pre- tribulation and a post-tribulation. Later a British preacher named John Nelson Darby heard MacDonald’s story and spread the news. Darby coined the term rapture, found nowhere in the Bible, and centered his teachings around the term. The idea actually came from I Thess. 4:17 where Paul uses the term arpadzo, which translates “caught up.” Darby made several evangelistic trips to the U.S. from 1859 to 1877. He won many converts during these war torn years from those seeking an escapist theology. A rapture promised a distressed American that they could avoid the great tribulation. Darby believed that God divided all of history into seven distinct dispensations or ages. God held a different set of rules in each of these dispensations, for dealing with people and the situation at hand.

The greatest single tool for spreading Darby’s theology was a reference Bible published by Cyrus I. Scofield in 1909. Scofield placed all kinds of charts and diagrams in his Bible that aided in understanding the rapture and time periods leading up to the event. His theology made him a rich man. People continue to read his Bible even today. Few people know the truth about Scofield. He was an embezzler, and a forger, who left his wife and children, even doing jail time after his conversion to Christianity. No scholar touched Dispensationalism. The theology took its shape among pastors and lay people. In 1924 a Presbyterian named Lewis Chafer founded Dallas Theological Seminary. The newly formed seminary came into being as a way to institutionalize and protect their belief.

Essentially, Dispensationalism proposes two different programs and two different destinies for God’s people-theocratic and earthly for Israel, spiritual and heavenly for the church. Historically the Bible proclaims God did indeed deal with people contextually according to their times and circumstances. Yet, Dispensationalism presupposes God’s original dispensation with the Jews failed. Therefore, he declared a new dispensation for the Gentiles. At the same time he continues to try and salvage the old one made with the Jews.

Dispensationalism raises some problematic issues. First of all the system inverts sound Biblical interpretation. A woman receives a vision about the second coming. Followed by a few pastors and laymen who tried to proof text the vision with scriptures. Dispensationalists formed their system around the vision instead of letting the scriptures become the vehicle that launched the vision. Cults arise because of this type of faulty interpretation. Any Joe /Jill can get an impression and form a doctrine around it. We form our doctrine not from whimsical, feeling oriented impressions, but from a careful, inductive study of the Bible. Inductive Bible study gathers the evidence and draws a conclusion from that evidence. Deductive Bible study, which is the way most of us study, forms a conclusion or a premise, then finds the evidence to support that premise. This method may work well in a court of law. When it comes to Bible study, however, a deductive method leaves the student vulnerable to error.

Another problem exists for Dispensationalists. They mistake prophetic poetry for prose and they turn the figurative into the literal. We discussed types of literature in another place.
When Jesus was talking about this generation in Matthew, he meant his generation, not 21st century America.

A third problem arises within the context of the prophecy itself. Dispensationalists disregard the prophet’s audience. The prophet wrote and spoke to his people. It’s the only world he knew.

The most emphatic error in this writer’s opinion is the two dispensation theory- one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. This idea fails to recognize the covenant motif that merges the Old Testament and the New into one salvation story. God made a covenant with Abraham. He promised Abraham that if he followed God in faithful living, God would bless him and his offspring. The Old Testament reveals a God who protects that covenant at all costs. The covenant finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ and his Church, the body of Christ. Paul declares that the real Jew (God pleaser) is authenticated by heart circumcision and not literal circumcision. No distinction now exists between Jews and Greeks. They all get into heaven aboard the same faith train. Christ’s atonement fulfills the Abrahamic covenant by blessing all those who live faithfully. Abraham’s offspring is figurative. All who enter God’s covenant by faith through Christ are descendants of Abraham.

(Resources for this article are:
The Problem With Evangelical Theology by Ben Witherington; pp.93-102
The Last Things by George Eldon Ladd p.9

(to be continued)

INDEPENDENCE DAY THOUGHTS

In 1946 a young Congressional candidate by the name of John F. Kennedy delivered a compelling address in Boston defining the essential elements of the American character. In particular, Kennedy suggested this concerning religion:

Our deep religious sense is the first element of the American character which I would discuss this morning. The informing spirit of the American character has always been a deep religious sense. Throughout the years, down to the present, a devotion to fundamental religious principles has characterized American thought and action. Our government was founded on the essential religious idea of integrity of the individual. It was this religious sense which inspired the authors of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Our earliest legislation was inspired by this deep religious sense: "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." Our first leader, Washington, was inspired by this deep religious sense: "Of all of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." Lincoln was inspired by this deep religious sense: "That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Our late, lamented President was inspired by this deep religious sense: "We shall win this war, and in victory we shall seek not vengeance, but the establishment of an international order in which the spirit of Christ shall rule the hearts of men and nations." Thus we see that this nation has ever been inspired by essential religious ideas. The doctrine of slavery which challenged these ideas within our own country was destroyed. Recently, the philosophy of racism, which threatened to overwhelm them by attacks from abroad, was also met and destroyed. Today these basic religious ideas are challenged by atheism and materialism: at home in the cynical philosophy of many of our intellectuals, abroad in the doctrine of collectivism, which sets up the twin pillars of atheism and materialism as the official philosophical establishment of the State. Inspired by a deeply religious sense, this country, which has ever been devoted to the dignity of man, which has ever fostered the growth of the human spirit, has always met and hurled back the challenge of those deathly philosophies of hate and despair. We have defeated them in the past; we will always defeat them. How well, then, has DeTocqueville said: "You may talk of the people and their majesty, but where there is no respect for God can there be much for man? You may talk of the supremacy of the ballot, respect for order, denounce riot, secession--unless religion is the first link, all is vain."

That speech embraces an indispensable truth-a nation's strength rests on the bedrock of faith. When faith recedes the foundation quakes, sending shockwaves through every sector of life imaginable. Jesus authorized the Church to take responsibility for building the culture upon this eternal, stable rock when he exhorted, "You are the salt of the earth" and the "light of the world." Interestingly, Jesus expounds on that "light" bit explaining, "A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under a bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all the house." (Matt.5:13-16 NRSV) Our faith in Christ lights the way for the culture. Kennedy infers such when he quotes DeTocqueville suggesting that if religion fails to take precedent all subsequent benevolent endeavors are futile.

This Independence Week ought to remind us of Christ's eternal trust passed on to this generation through the saints of old. Pray that God will soften our collective heart, call us to repentance, and save us from ourselves.

(riginally posted July 3, 2007)

IS THIS THE END? THE BIBLE AND THE MIDDLE EAST(OR ANOTHER EMBARRASSING CHICKEN LITTLE) III

What We Bring To The Table Of Interpretation

In previous articles we noted that Bible interpretation requires more than mere “spiritual” impressions. Often our impressions become simply an extension of our wishful thinking. I want the end to come now, therefore, I believe God “laid on my heart the fact that the wars in the Middle East signal the end.” “God even led me to some scriptures to substantiate this fact.” Our impressions make us feel good. It gives us chill bumps to know that Jesus may come tomorrow. When Jesus speaks to me, however, I don’t get chill bumps. I grow obstinate and bow up because he usually ask me to come out of my box, into the unknown, and do the sacrificial thing. Human nature balks at sacrifice. This feel good mentality reflects our post modern society which in essence, places feelings above reason. Self centeredness directs us toward our feelings and steers us away from a patient kind of rationality that whispers, “Wait on the Lord.” So, we need to understand how our disposition enters into our Bible interpretation.

Each of us comes to the table with a “world view.” Our world view tells us why things are the way they are. A uniformity exists among each Christian’s individual world view. Christians believe in a sinful fallen world. That’s how they interpret evil events. They also believe that Jesus came to redeem and save the fallen. Those who respond positively in faith to his sacrificial love and unmerited grace, find salvation. The Bible authors saw life through their own Middle Eastern world view. The New Testament writers lived in a world dominated by Rome, taxes, and a Greek pantheon. They suffered intense opposition to their new found faith. Many faced gruesome deaths. God speaks through our world view. That’s the beauty of his love. He enters our lives playing by his rules on our turf. When we sit down at the interpreter’s table it’s difficult to play with foreign rules on our field. Yet, we must recognize the situation and ask God to adjust our thinking.

Furthermore, within our world view we each possess premises. Christians part company at this point. The word “premise” literally means “to send before.” A premise or presupposition is what you believe about the Bible, the end times, and so forth before you ever study the matter on your own. Life’s experiences, our families, and our teachers shape our premises. For instance, a person can hear a great sermon on the end and let that message predetermine his understanding of the Bible. I read Hal Lindsay’s book The Late Great Planet Earth in 1975. I then saw the movie narrated by Orson Wells. No one had a more convincing voice than Orson Wells. He drove people to suicide with his 1938 radio broadcast of The War Of The Worlds. Lindsay keyed his dates concerning the end on Jesus’ words from Matthew 24 when he declared, “This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” (NRSV) Lindsay, a dispensationalist, (more on this later) also keyed in on Israel’s becoming a nation in 1948. He reasoned that a generation by Hebrew standards was 40 years. Any second grade math student can put the numbers together and find Lindsay’s proposed date for the end-1988. Well, 1988 came and went. In the mean time, Hal Lindsay said he miscalculated. So, he did some more math and came up with approximate dates (Book sales were down at this point) ranging from 1990 to whenever. In his book he determined that one tests the validity of a prophet by the out come of his prophecy. If a prophet prophesies and his words come true he is legitimate. On the other hand, if his words do not come to pass he is a false prophet. Lindsay failed his own litmus test. In 1975 I formed my premise about Bible prophecy from Hal Lindsay’s work. The logician of time disproved my premise. Peter held the ancient Hebrew premise that all Gentiles were unclean. Meanwhile, Cornelius, a captain in the Roman army, inquired into the Jewish faith. Jews called him a God fearer. He needed help with his inquiry. God tagged Peter for the job. Before Peter took the assignment, God gave him a vision that shot his premise down. (Story found in Acts Chapter 10)

Sound Bible interpretation requires that we ask God to help us lay all premises aside. We must look at the text as if we never heard anything about it before. Our task is simply to represent the Bible text, not our own feelings, convictions, and judgments.

Some may conclude, “What you propose can only happen through trained scholarship. Why, uneducated people have read and interpreted the Bible for centuries.” To be sure, I recognize this objection. The authority of the Protestant faith begins not with scholars, or bishops, as in Roman Catholicism, but with the Bible itself. The New Testament authors, however, addressed friends, and those acquainted with their world. They didn’t need a rocket scientist to interpret for them. As generations speed by, words lose their meaning. Pastors today recognize this problem and should help their parishioners learn to interpret for themselves. That’s why I write this series and that’s why I will continue in the next few weeks to offer principles and guidelines for interpreting the Bible.

IS THIS THE END? THE BIBLE AND THE MIDDLE EAST (OR ANOTHER EMBARRASSING CHICKEN LITTLE) II

BIBLE INTERPRETATION 101

Interpreting the Bible presents a challenging task. Over the years people used the scriptures to validate edgy philosophies from slavery to murder. I read about a man in Kentucky several years ago who believed in a literal interpretation of Proverbs 13:24. The passage declares, “Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them.”(NRSV) This scripture inspired the Kentuckian to take a steel rod with a one inch circumference and hit his son on the back of the legs daily. Thank God he finally got arrested for child abuse. When asked his reasons for his abusive behavior he replied, “God told him to.” Throughout history the Bible has been used by good and evil people alike. Interpretation often hinges on the well intentioned, but knowledge deficient interpreter and not the character of God.

Bible interpretation involves a discipline called “hermeneutics.” The word literally means “interpret.” We apply hermeneutics to many different disciplines. The orchestra conductor, for instance, engages in the art of hermeneutics when teaching Beethoven's 5th to his musicians. Constitutional lawyers and judges often dig to discover the original intent of the document’s writers. They do so by using the discipline of hermeneutics. The goal of Bible interpretation is to get at the truth and apply it to our lives. This requires more than a mere spiritual impression. People who live by spiritual impressions fair no better than the gypsy who gazes into the crystal ball. Many end times pundits partake in crystal ball practices and star gazing hysteria.

At the heart of Bible interpretation lies several fundamental principles. The credibility of these principles has been substantiated by reason, tradition, and experience. In other words, these principles appeal to our common sense, stand the test of time, and are upheld by scrutinizing saintly scholars. The linchpin of all principles is context. Context is everything. Most of our denominational disagreements center around proof texting. This involves taking one portion of scripture, claiming it as the authority for our beliefs, without knowing its context. Proof texting contains a lot of cutting and pasting. We take a verse here, and a verse there, paste it onto our preconceived thoughts about the end and whala- we have a whole theology on the end times. David Koresch and the Waco bunch used this form of interpretation. Discovering context, as opposed to proof texting, involves several tasks. The first of which requires us to look at the author’s circumstances and background. We must ask, “Who is the author of the passage of scripture we are reading?” Where is he located at the time of his writing? Who are his intended recipients?” For instance, tradition states that the Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation. At the time of his writing he has been exiled to the island of Patmos. He is lonely and suffering from emotional set backs. He writes to the seven churches of Asia. We must then find out something about them. Space does not permit that here. Suffice it to say the Asians were undergoing intense persecution. These issues lie at the heart of John’s book. Central to context is this audience. Bible authors did not write with 21st century Americans in mind. I know that disturbs a few people. These authors,however, were human beings too. They lived in a real world, with contemporary problems, and the need to get at the truth for dealing with their world.

Next time we will discuss more principles including our own premises and how they effect our interpretation of the Bible.

IS THIS THE END? THE BIBLE AND THE MIDDLE EAST (OR ANOTHER EMBARRASSING CHICKEN LITTLE)

Many know by now that according to family radio mogul Harold Camping the rapture will take place today at 6:00 p.m. Sadly a legion of Campings passed through the ages of American history, only to bring embarrassment upon themselves and the Church of Jesus Christ. By tomorrow Camping will end up on the ash heap created for the devil and all his kooks. These prophets of doom allow emotional impressions to impel their position. They know nothing about how to rightly handle the word of truth (bible). Why the very word "rapture" appears nowhere in the New Testament's original language.

These kooks make fools of us all on life's stage-a stage in which many secularists believe Christians often commit intellectual suicide. God knows it's not easy to convince a skeptical world of the need for Christ. But, these Chicken Littles make the job more arduous.

Therefore, I decided to republish my posts offering some helpful hints when reading apocalyptic literature. I originally published these essays five years ago. Back then I was new to the world of blogging and knew so little about the art of writing.

_______________________________________________________________
Every time the sparks fly in the Middle East the contemporary Bible prophets emerge from the temple to pronounce doom. In fact, Bible prophecy remains the favorite subject among Christians. Often when I poll a group of people concerning a Bible study topic they wish to ponder, they overwhelmingly suggest the book of Revelation. And, why not. Revelation is action packed with mysterious language waiting for someone to unfurl its hidden treasures.

Gazing into the prophetic crystal ball is not a new practice. Since the Apostle Paul's day people have declared the end is near. Paul himself, never overtly set a date. He presented the resurrection, however, as a an imminent phenomenon. He explained to the Church at Thessolonica that he expected to witness the resurrection event while alive. He declares, "According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." (IThessalonians 4:15-17; NIV)

Historically, the Church believed in the imminent return of the Lord. The reformers of the 16th century, for example, faced intense opposition. Because of this, and the belief of the absolute corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, many Protestants declared their generation the last generation. John Wesley, my denomination's mentor, fingered the Pope in the 1700's as the anti-christ. My Aunt, born in 1917, once told me that since she was a little girl preachers have declared her generation the last generation on earth. Much of this had to do with Israel becoming a nation in 1948. Some believe 1948 is the inaugural event for the "true" end times. In Fred Sanford's words, "This really is the big one Elizabeth." The fact remains, every generation believes theirs is the last.

Furthermore, catastrophes provoke apocalyptic thinking. Troubles play on our emotions. Even more reasonable people often allow their emotions to hold rationality hostage during difficult times. They can't see the forest for the trees. Many religious cults emerged following the American Civil War. Most of them centered their doctrine around the second advent of Christ. One can see why when understanding the aftermath of the war. The nation looked helpless and hopeless. The South had been totally and thoroughly decimated. Intense emotional pain cries out for relief. Cults and doomsday prophecies tend to provide temporary comfort. It helps to know we are all doomed to the same plight.

Yet, if we believe we live in the last generation, a host of problematic issues come to the forefront.
First of all, a legion of generations and Bible scholars have preceded us. What makes us think we are the enlightened ones? Secondly, if Israel's nationhood provides a pivotal point in the issue, why was this not a determining issue with the apocalyptic prophets in the past? That raises another issue. According to the Bible does Zionism really play a roll in all of this? Several Jewish streams exist today. Zionism is a political movement for the establishment of Jewish statehood. Categorically, a division exists between Zionist and many orthodox Jews who are Jews regardless of nationality. The Apostle Paul declared that the circumcision of the heart was the litmus test. He said that Jew meant "God pleaser," and that a "God pleaser allowed God to circumcise his heart. (Romans2:25-29) Zionism and its relationship to Biblical prophecy is a contemporary teaching raised through a pop culture theology called "Dispensationalism." This line of thought gained its credibility through Dallas Theological Seminary. More on that later. A fourth issue comes to mind. The meaning of Matthew chapter 24, a place in the Bible that many use as a proof text for contemporary thinking on the matter, is ambiguous at best. In that chapter Jesus relates his second advent to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. That event took place in 70 A.D. So what did Jesus really mean here? That's a problem that dispensationalist and covenantal Christians have disagreed on for years. Finally, Jesus said in Matthew 24:36, "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.(NEW RSV) Ponder that one if you can. If Jesus is God in the flesh, as orthodox Christians have believed for 2000 years, why doesn't he know when the end will come?

We will continue to deal with this issue of the end in future articles.

A FEW THOUGHTS ON OSAMA AND MORALITY

Just as the lessons from Hitler and Stalin remain remotely etched in our national conscience, so too must we remember the lessons of bin Laden. The man lived and died as a coward. He who inspired young, idealistic Muslim men to offer their lives as a sacrifice, himself refused to lead the way. Seems like I remember Jesus, the embodiment of all goodness, told his followers they must take up the cross. He then, with jutted jaw, set his face toward Jerusalem and voluntarily died there on that gruesome instrument. Like two contrasting shades of color, one light and the other darkness, Jesus lives for eternity. Osama, on the other hand, died tragically epitomizing the black, bottomless pit into which evil casts its dastardly, deceived fools.

In addition, we learned that bin Laden faced his fate hiding behind a woman's skirt. How fitting. The humorous scenario strongly reminds us of bin Laden's true character. He was a teenager in a man's clothing. Indeed immorality makes adolescent cowards of us all. Loose living (to use ancient preacher rhetoric) temporarily provides euphoria. Selfless, Christ-like sacrifice brings on the pain. We don't like pain. Therefore, we try to avoid it all cost. Adults eventually realize life is painful. It goes with the territory. Immoral people use nefarious pleasures as a drug to numb their existential existence. When faced with a roadblock to their pleasure, they run away from the interference instead of surmounting it.

In fact, immorality opens a confidence void. Jesus, instinctively knew God's will and acquiesced to it. In the end, he boldly held his head up, lifted his shoulders, and marched off to face his fate. Immoral people, however, live in fear of integrity's light. Paranoia, second guessing, and shoulder gazing all accompany immorality. Bin Laden's adolescence eventually lead to a legion of pain. He spurned electronic devices and found himself imprisoned in a compound surrounded by fifteen foot walls of his own making-an illustration of his soul's rat infested prison. 

So, today we heartily celebrate. All that is good, pure, and just, won a resounding battle last night. And, we need to celebrate. Budget deficits, personal fiscal woes, and weak national leadership made us spiritually hungry for a victory. Like a team on a losing streak we finally won a pivotal game that may potentially place us, once again, on the winning track. We are Americans. We do not lose. We do not play for a losing team. We have been winners, and we will continue to win as long as we exalt eternal moral truths.

CONSIDER RICK SANTORUM

Evangelical Christians passionately ponder a politician's personal morals when casting their votes. Although our founders inherently considered public virtue of the essence, they understood that private conscience eventually shouts from the roof tops. Evangelicals know this and their vote reflects the same. That's why conservative evangelicals often seem perplexed when making difficult national leadership decisions. Mitt Romney's Mormonism, Newt Gingrich's and Donald Trump's womanizing cast a tumultuous shadow on astute voters. 

Enter evangelical and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. Mr. Santorum apparently wants to make a go of it as a presidential candidate in 2012. I personally like his style. He boldly stands up for common sensical wisdom impelled values. He is also a master communicator. 

Recently Santorum sat down for an interview with the premier evangelical publication, Christianity Today. When asked about how much a voter should consider a candidate's faith when casting a vote, Santorum offered this primary rule:

Voters should consider the candidate's moral framework and what they believe about right and wrong. Obviously your faith has a role in that, in constructing your moral view and your worldview, your ethical code. As far as theological tenets goes, those don't necessarily affect the public discourse. It's important to understand and know the tenets and teaching of the faith with respect to how people live their lives. That's why, for example, if someone were a Muslim [who] believes that women should live by Shari'ah law, that's helpful in knowing how they would approach their job and what they would like to see the laws of this land look like.

I like that. It offers wise counsel for those who know we are not electing a Sunday School teacher. We are electing a Caesar. Remember Jesus' words: Render unto Caesar what is his and unto God what belongs to God.

On the controversial subject of radical Islam Santorum speaks to our privately apprehensive attitude. 

Voters should consider the candidate's moral framework and what they believe about right and wrong. Obviously your faith has a role in that, in constructing your moral view and your worldview, your ethical code. As far as theological tenets goes, those don't necessarily affect the public discourse. It's important to understand and know the tenets and teaching of the faith with respect to how people live their lives. That's why, for example, if someone were a Muslim [who] believes that women should live by Shari'ah law, that's helpful in knowing how they would approach their job and what they would like to see the laws of this land look like.

Indeed Santorum vicariously vocalizes that which the PC crowd has bullied us away from.

On a candidate's personal marriage failures Santorum opines:

Voters will examine the facts and circumstances around those circumstances, the life that the person has lived and make an evaluation as to whether this is an issue that's going to impact their vote. I suspect on some level it will. 

Yes, evangelicals may have found a wise politician, complete with sound character and a bold temperament in Rick Santorum. For more on this compelling candidate go here.

SPEAKER PELOSI TIGHT WTH JESUS

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the world Jesus guides her political decisions. Now to some detractors this might seem a bit far fetched; insanely far fetched. But, before one goes off on a skeptical tirade perhaps they should consider the fact that many a Bible believing, Jesus loving soul, embraces liberal politics, particularly in relation to social issues. After all, what sort of knave really wants people to starve? Remember, as liberals so readily do, Jesus said if you have done it unto the least of these you have done it unto me. 

I take issue with the implications of Ms. Pelosi's traditional final authority base. She is, after all, a Roman Catholic. Catholics receive their authority from the Bible via bishops and priests. Protestants, on the other hand, operate from a more autonomous base. They receive authority directly from the scriptures and reject human wisdom as the vehicle for authority. Ms. Pelosi's Catholic faith raises a couple of questions. One, if she bases decisions on values of Jesus, then surely in Roman Catholic tradition her stance on abortion fails to line up with Jesus via the Church's official stance. Secondly, one must observe her philanthropy. A person's pocket book speaks volumes about their allegiance.  Read Pelosi's comments on her faith/politics behavior here.