Can People of Faith be Comfortable with Newt Gingrich
People of faith can be comfortable with Newt Gingrich for President. Evangelicals are people of principle, rightly so, as people whose world view is based on the scripture we are seeking a candidate for President who will help to rebuild the country's Judaeo-Chritian heritage. There is a movement to marginalize the influence of the church. In a post modern world many Christians have become the pariah' of the media and the left. Due to a misunderstanding of our heritage and our Constitution our courts have interpreted a principle of separation of church and stateto mean anything government touches must be secular. The government is to have nothing to do with us, and we are to have nothing to do with it. We are to keep our opinions about alternative lifestyle or abortion we to ourselves. Many of us have no desire to be politicians or to control government, but we witness daily the destruction secularism has brought to families, we think he have a healthy redemptive message that should be part of the debate. We seek only a government that is tolerant of our point of view, and welcoming to our redemptive solutions. We seek not to control society, but to engage it. Some believe our country is on a precipice of disaster, and believe the root of the problem is moral. We understand that all political decision are routed in moral values and all moral values have political implication. No political rebuilding can take place in American with out a moral recrudescence.
No presidential candidate can be or should be a revivalist, but they need to be someone who has had a redemptive journey themselves, and yet who understands the appropriate constitutional balance between church and state.
I am a pastor, a person who has had a faith journey and a keen student of history. From my observation I believe there is one person on the modern political scene who has an accurate historical understanding of our nation's religious history, and a plan to end the government apathy and hostility toward conservative Christianity. One person who understand no government can prohibit the free exercise of religion nor establish a religious government by keeping the two separate. As much as I am aware of his failings and sins their is no one who has been more open about his experience of personal redemption nor has done more to end the secularization of our country than former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. His foibles do not disqualify him any more than those of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush disqualified them from our support. The last President we had in the office who met the biblical criterion for church Eldership was Jimmy Carter, who hardly proved to be a proponent of a Judaeo-Christian world view. President Gerald Ford was believer and a had a son who attended a prominent evangelical seminary. More seems to be needed than a life of spiritual discipline. It is going to take a redemptive experience along with strong leadership ability. I believe the person who will help us advance our world view and who will give us a seat at the table in the modern race will be Newt Gingrich.
Now I do understand that Newt has skeletons in his closet. What candidate doesn't? Romney you say. Romney is a morally upright Mormon. Will he take his oath on the Bible or the book of Mormon? Let me be clear: I do not think his Mormonism disqualifies him from the office. We have had Unitarian President's and Deist and men like Truman who professed no faith at all. If it comes down to Obama or Romney, I will pull the Romney lever without reservation. All I am asking is who can best represent the Judaeo-Christian point of view.
What does it mean to be a Christian leader? Does it mean a person has to have had an unblemished life. None of the Old Testament Patriarch's had unblemished lives and God used them. The Paragon of biblical leadership David had multiple affairs. Past Presidents who have professed an evangelical's faith have had flaws. Lincoln professed faith yet had an acrimonious relationship with the church. Lyndon Johnson's grandfather was a circuit riding evangelist. Despite his many foibles Johnson often sought counsel from Billy Graham. Ronald Reagan had been divorced. His father-in-law was an atheist leader. His wife Nancy professes no faith, often consulting astrologist for guidance, and giving her husband advice base on their counsel. George W. Bush had a drinking problem. Yet each of these men had one thing in common. They had experience redemption. President Reagan's son Michael is fond of telling of time he visited with his father on Air Force One,seeking his advice on a time of personal crisis in his life. Reagan presented the gospel to his son and lead him to faith.
For me Newt Gingrich's baggage no more disqualifies him then did Lincoln, Johnson's Reagan's or Bush's. Redemptive leadership is effect. The criterion to me is in the word of John the Bapatist, "bringt forth fruit in keeping with your repentance." Newt Gingrich while Speaker had a moral fall. All of us know people in public life, whose sins have come to light. However, those of us in church life are also aware that the scrutiny that comes with public life. Sometimes the publicity either distorts the reality of the offense, or makes matters worse. Newt did what any one of us would have done or recommended a colleague do after his failure. He stepped out of public life and got his personal house in order. It is also important to realize that his daughter, Jackie Cushman of Human Events magazine has been quite clear, that while her father is far from perfect many of accusations made against him are strictly false.
To me what counts is what is true? Has the person taken responsibility for sins? What has happened since? Newt Gingrich has admitted his adultery has confessed it and has maintained a faithful life over the past 30-year. And has been one of the strongest voices for pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-religious expression on the modern scene.One of the causes he has championed isa view that faith has to be expressed in the marketplace for liberty to last.
His recent book and movie series "Rediscovering God in America," has explained how religion, and usually a conservative Christian religion, has played a prominent role in American political discourse throughout our history, and that such was the intention of our founders. He explains the constitutional relationship between church and government. He has formed organizations like renewing leadership head by evangelical Jim Garlow, to raise Christian leaders back into prominence in social discourse. Newt has argued against and fought for the reversal of court decisions that have sought to remove any religious viewpoint from the public square. There is no stronger supporter for Israel.
But is Newt the right person for people of faith to support? I do not presume to know the heart or spiritual condition of any of the candidates. There are others this cycle who have both professed and consistently practiced their faith--Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum. Neither though have a record any better than Newt's of defending a Judaeo-Christian world view than Newt. Mrs Bachman has pointed out that Newt has at times aligned himself people at odds with our views to gain a political advantage.
Politics does at times make for some strange bedfellows. Compromise on causes in order to govern is sometimes inevitable.And when you are party leader, your job sometimes entails gaining support and giving support to people with whom you have significant differences. You cannot win every battle. At times you have to advance your causes as far as you can and hope to gain more ground the next time. 1 Kings 18: 1- 19 makes it very clear that the prophet Obadiah was one of the most trusted advisers to King Ahab and Queen Jezebel who were outright enemies of Israel. God used his relationship between them and the prophet to preserve the life of prophets the monarch sought to execute. Obadiah was even reticent to help Elijah out of sense of the importance of protecting his position in the government. Do you suppose that his relationship involved compromise? Do you suppose that he on occasion had to affirm leaders he did not completely agree with, and perhaps support some causes that caused him to choke to maintain what little bit of lite their was in Ahab's court. Ronald Regan wrote a book while in office declaring his faith and his opposition to abortion. Yet he did have to compromise in order to govern. Even the Apostle Paul struggled with how to be in the world but not of it.
There is only one person among the candidate who has had a redemptive experience, proven leadership and a record of support for a conservative religious viewpoint in public affairs -- Newt Gingrich. That is why people of faith should support him for President.
No presidential candidate can be or should be a revivalist, but they need to be someone who has had a redemptive journey themselves, and yet who understands the appropriate constitutional balance between church and state.
I am a pastor, a person who has had a faith journey and a keen student of history. From my observation I believe there is one person on the modern political scene who has an accurate historical understanding of our nation's religious history, and a plan to end the government apathy and hostility toward conservative Christianity. One person who understand no government can prohibit the free exercise of religion nor establish a religious government by keeping the two separate. As much as I am aware of his failings and sins their is no one who has been more open about his experience of personal redemption nor has done more to end the secularization of our country than former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. His foibles do not disqualify him any more than those of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush disqualified them from our support. The last President we had in the office who met the biblical criterion for church Eldership was Jimmy Carter, who hardly proved to be a proponent of a Judaeo-Christian world view. President Gerald Ford was believer and a had a son who attended a prominent evangelical seminary. More seems to be needed than a life of spiritual discipline. It is going to take a redemptive experience along with strong leadership ability. I believe the person who will help us advance our world view and who will give us a seat at the table in the modern race will be Newt Gingrich.
Now I do understand that Newt has skeletons in his closet. What candidate doesn't? Romney you say. Romney is a morally upright Mormon. Will he take his oath on the Bible or the book of Mormon? Let me be clear: I do not think his Mormonism disqualifies him from the office. We have had Unitarian President's and Deist and men like Truman who professed no faith at all. If it comes down to Obama or Romney, I will pull the Romney lever without reservation. All I am asking is who can best represent the Judaeo-Christian point of view.
What does it mean to be a Christian leader? Does it mean a person has to have had an unblemished life. None of the Old Testament Patriarch's had unblemished lives and God used them. The Paragon of biblical leadership David had multiple affairs. Past Presidents who have professed an evangelical's faith have had flaws. Lincoln professed faith yet had an acrimonious relationship with the church. Lyndon Johnson's grandfather was a circuit riding evangelist. Despite his many foibles Johnson often sought counsel from Billy Graham. Ronald Reagan had been divorced. His father-in-law was an atheist leader. His wife Nancy professes no faith, often consulting astrologist for guidance, and giving her husband advice base on their counsel. George W. Bush had a drinking problem. Yet each of these men had one thing in common. They had experience redemption. President Reagan's son Michael is fond of telling of time he visited with his father on Air Force One,seeking his advice on a time of personal crisis in his life. Reagan presented the gospel to his son and lead him to faith.
For me Newt Gingrich's baggage no more disqualifies him then did Lincoln, Johnson's Reagan's or Bush's. Redemptive leadership is effect. The criterion to me is in the word of John the Bapatist, "bringt forth fruit in keeping with your repentance." Newt Gingrich while Speaker had a moral fall. All of us know people in public life, whose sins have come to light. However, those of us in church life are also aware that the scrutiny that comes with public life. Sometimes the publicity either distorts the reality of the offense, or makes matters worse. Newt did what any one of us would have done or recommended a colleague do after his failure. He stepped out of public life and got his personal house in order. It is also important to realize that his daughter, Jackie Cushman of Human Events magazine has been quite clear, that while her father is far from perfect many of accusations made against him are strictly false.
To me what counts is what is true? Has the person taken responsibility for sins? What has happened since? Newt Gingrich has admitted his adultery has confessed it and has maintained a faithful life over the past 30-year. And has been one of the strongest voices for pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-religious expression on the modern scene.One of the causes he has championed isa view that faith has to be expressed in the marketplace for liberty to last.
His recent book and movie series "Rediscovering God in America," has explained how religion, and usually a conservative Christian religion, has played a prominent role in American political discourse throughout our history, and that such was the intention of our founders. He explains the constitutional relationship between church and government. He has formed organizations like renewing leadership head by evangelical Jim Garlow, to raise Christian leaders back into prominence in social discourse. Newt has argued against and fought for the reversal of court decisions that have sought to remove any religious viewpoint from the public square. There is no stronger supporter for Israel.
But is Newt the right person for people of faith to support? I do not presume to know the heart or spiritual condition of any of the candidates. There are others this cycle who have both professed and consistently practiced their faith--Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum. Neither though have a record any better than Newt's of defending a Judaeo-Christian world view than Newt. Mrs Bachman has pointed out that Newt has at times aligned himself people at odds with our views to gain a political advantage.
Politics does at times make for some strange bedfellows. Compromise on causes in order to govern is sometimes inevitable.And when you are party leader, your job sometimes entails gaining support and giving support to people with whom you have significant differences. You cannot win every battle. At times you have to advance your causes as far as you can and hope to gain more ground the next time. 1 Kings 18: 1- 19 makes it very clear that the prophet Obadiah was one of the most trusted advisers to King Ahab and Queen Jezebel who were outright enemies of Israel. God used his relationship between them and the prophet to preserve the life of prophets the monarch sought to execute. Obadiah was even reticent to help Elijah out of sense of the importance of protecting his position in the government. Do you suppose that his relationship involved compromise? Do you suppose that he on occasion had to affirm leaders he did not completely agree with, and perhaps support some causes that caused him to choke to maintain what little bit of lite their was in Ahab's court. Ronald Regan wrote a book while in office declaring his faith and his opposition to abortion. Yet he did have to compromise in order to govern. Even the Apostle Paul struggled with how to be in the world but not of it.
There is only one person among the candidate who has had a redemptive experience, proven leadership and a record of support for a conservative religious viewpoint in public affairs -- Newt Gingrich. That is why people of faith should support him for President.
Comments
Post a Comment