http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gracefamilybaptist.net%2Fvoddie-baucham-ministries%2Fblog%2Fwhy-ron-paul-2012-01%2F&h=NAQFFjh90AQHHm4z89TyfWO1W7w8ARuH6Bd865lwCRjzaWQ
And who is Dr. Voddie Baucham? Watch this to see: http://youtu.be/EPNraxxxRO8 (or read the transcript: http://playpdf.sa-media.com/media/530914253/530914253.pdf
A real case can be made as to why Christian leaders should or shouldn’t endorse individuals running for political office. And while I respect the view which says they should not because it can detract from the message of the gospel, I think otherwise in certain cases. If the ministry is large and the leader is highly visible great caution should be taken on political endorsements. Why? Because it diffuses the message of the gospel? It need not. Rather I think those in highly visible ministries ought to refrain if the endorsement is not clearly explained and if it’s not in line with the ministry. Actually, we should never put our endorsement on any man, in the sense of trusting in this one’s ability and leadership. Our hope is not in men. Our hope is in the Lord.
Yet we do live in this world, and men are called into positions of power and authority. So we ought to be free to examine them publically and call them out or praise them accordingly. We just need to make the praise in accord with the Father. Let me illustrate. Let’s say for examples sake we have a state governor who has righted some egregious wrong that the state has had to deal with for many years. Look at Governor Walker of Wisconsin. I happen to believe that his drive to get rid of collective bargaining for benefits for government workers was exemplary. How should I say so without touching the man himself? As a Christian I do not want the appearance of worshipping or praising any man because my praise should always be to the Father and secondarily because men will always let me down. (I have a confession to make here. I have not always been so careful in this area, but I am learning. Facebook is a place where we can make a case for support for someone but because of its nature, it is not always the best place to do so.)
I can direct my enthusiasm for Governor Walkers work like this, “I praise God for using Governor Walker as he led the state of Wisconsin to a more equitable accounting of the state funds.” By saying it this way, I am directing the praise to God while displaying the instrument in a more neutral light. I also show my respect for a Scriptural view of equity by doing so. Governor Walker may be a good governor, or even a great governor. However, to say that he himself is worthy of praise crosses the line. Only One is worthy. Worthy is the Lamb to be praised. So what about Ron Paul? Dr. Baucham has issued a statement of support for the man. Was he directing worship to him? No. Read it. Dr. Baucham is as precise as one can get. He lays out his case point by point logically. And Dr. Baucham is VERY compelling in his argumentation. Here is the outline of his case:
I. Ron Paul is a Christian ConservativeII. Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative
a) Constitutional Money
b) Constitutional War
c) Constitutional States' Rights
d) Constitutional Foreign Policy
-Dealings with Israel
III. Ron Paul is a Consistent Conservative
I happen to agree with Dr. Baucham on Dr. Paul. Let me now present some additional thoughts. On the issue of states’ rights, consider this. We teach our kids all about the ways the government is SUPPOSED to work, yet all the while, it really doesn't work that way. So we teach hypocrisy in the name of expediency. Because there are so many other UNPRINCIPLED men in office, many have caved in to the idea that the system must be circumvented in order to get any justice.
Dr. Paul is so principled his oath ACTUALLY MEANS something to him. This will at times put a man at odds with his own values. One of the reasons that Scripture cautions against oath taking is for this reason. (James 5:12 - Matthew 5:34-37) We are to keep the oaths we take because, as Christians, we represent the Holy Lord. Yet because of sin we have no integrity. Nevertheless, we face a dilemma in that we do take oaths. Oaths taken by godless men have no value. Those taken by Christians ought to have ultimate value.
Government can be national or statewide, depending upon the way a nation is formed and established. There can be merit to a national set of standards. But this is not the point. The issue is that we already live in a nation which DOES NOT FOLLOW it's clearly established constitution, turning every rule on its head. The founders intended the states to establish these rules. They EXPECTED each state to have differences in many of these issues. The states each individually ratified the constitution, so the people agreed. If you want a national change, it ought to be that the people and the states all agree and we go through an amendment procedure.
Instead we have a nation that for over 100 years has not followed the rule of law repeatedly. Look up whether the 16th amendment was legally ratified (http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm). Benjamin Franklin, at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Dr. Franklin responded, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” (From the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.) I fear that without the changes Ron Paul is advocating, we have lost it.A nation which touts a rule of law yet does not follow it is no better than any other godless Socialist nation. Are we a better nation? Yes. We are still the best and most just nation on the planet, but we aren't lily white either. We have grave failings which have gone unchecked for too long. We need a leader who is as principled as the founders intended. We need Ron Paul.
(Another article to consider is here: http://online.worldmag.com/2012/01/18/christians-and-ron-paul-a-counterpoint/) 
No comments:
Post a Comment