Why Fred? Why Here? Why Now?

By Jeremy Weaver

You may have noticed that I put up a feed to Fred Thompson’s blog, The Fred File, along with a small banner ad. That’s because I support Fred Thompson as the Republican nominee for the Office of President.

Now, over the last little while I’ve had time to think about politics and religion.  More specifically, I’ve been thinking about how a Christian should view politics.  On the one hand, some think that politics+America=Christianity.  I don’t.  On the other hand, some think that Christians should avoid politics.  I don’t.

This quote by John Piper was recently posted at the Desiring God Blog:

At Desiring God we exist to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. That “all things” includes politics. Our sense of God’s calling at Desiring God is that we will serve the supremacy of God in politics better by maintaining a certain distance from candidates so that we may speak with more freedom into issues from a biblical angle.

Let me say that I agree totally with the sentiment behind this statement.   God’s glory is of first importance in the Christian’s life.  And I understand the perils of ministries endorsing particular candidates.  But I don’t agree with the rationale of Piper’s statement for the individual Christian.  When I say that I support Fred Thompson I do not mean that Fred Thompson is my ideological twin.  In fact, I don’t think anyone would say that about any candidate that they support.  No one agrees 100% on every single issue with anyone else 100% of the time.  When I say that I support Fred Thompson, what I am saying is that I think that he is the best choice among the candidates because he most accurately reflects my opinion of what a Biblical representation of what a nation should be.  In short, I think that he would be the most God-glorifying candidate…even if he doesn’t intend to be God-glorifying.

As a Christian, I believe I have a responsibility to endorse the candidate who I think would bring the most glory to God through his leadership…even if he doesn’t intend to bring God glory.  That does not mean that I endorse everything about them, or that I will keep my mouth shut when I see sin in them.  Right is right, and wrong is wrong.  No matter who does it. Nathan supported King David’s reign, but his support of King David did not keep him from speaking out against David’s sin.

So I don’t think ‘maintaining…distance’ is in the best interest of the ‘supremacy of God in politics’.  In fact, I think that position undercuts the ‘supremacy of God in politics’.  To step back and essentially say, “I don’t endorse anyone for President,” is to turn the realm of politics over to the kingdom of Satan.  Christians should show that God is supreme in politics by their endorsement of the candidate that best reflects their Biblical, Christian worldview.  And I believe that to do otherwise shows that we do not think that our God is supreme over all things.

That’s why I’m endorsing Fred Thompson for President.  He believes that life begins at conception, marriage is between a man and a woman, freedom is a God-given right, the Government is God’s ordained ‘sword-bearer’ on behalf of it’s citizens, taxation must be reasonable and fair (not robbing the rich to give to the poor), and that a healthy society is predicated upon the belief in God.

And if at any time I think that another candidate has surpassed Fred Thompson in a Christian worldview, then I always have the right to change my mind about my endorsement.

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under politics

15 responses to “Why Fred? Why Here? Why Now?

  1. “Spot on” Jeremy! I agree 100% on your take about the Christian relationship to politics. While I also agree that we shouldn’t be so emeshed in politics that we have to create a “religious” political arm like the Christian Coalition (which doesn’t always represent Christ very well), I do believe we have to particpiate. Your estimation of Mr.Thompson may be a bit optimistic, but that’s probably the case any time a candidate endorsed by a Christian.

    I liked your example of holding leaders accountable. Quite fitting. We, as believers in Christ. must try to affect everyone for good where and when we can, including who we choose to lead this country and our communities. Failure to do so is simply surrendering the battle to the god of this earth.

  2. You’re a smart fellow. Maybe if Thompson doesn’t get the nomination, I’ll write you in.

    Any chance you’ll be at T4G in April?

  3. I plan on being there. Are you?

  4. Sorry Jeremy I’m afraid Steve Hays has convinced me of casting my vote for Huckabee. But you have put up some compelling reasons for Fred.

  5. I’m planning on it. If I can keep on schedule, I’ll be there in time for the Band of Bloggers shindig. I’ll be the handsome guy in the Fred Thompson cap.

  6. Hugh Akston

    What exactly do you mean when you say the Thompson will be ” the most God glorifying candidate”?

    When I look at the candidates, only Ron Paul comes close to being ideal.

    http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/statement.htm

  7. For one thing, Fred thompson takes it seriously that the Government’s first responsibility is to keep it’s citizens safe. I don’t think Ron Paul does.

  8. Hugh Akston

    I respectfully disagree with your view of Ron Paul’s position on keeping US citizens safe. In fact, Ron Paul – as a Constitutionalist – believes that the most important role of government is to protect and defend the borders from foreign invasion. But he, like our founders, does not support foreign entanglements. And by all measures, he was correct in voting against the Iraq War. He did, however, vote for the Afghanistan War.

    I actually like Fred Thompson. Unfortunately, he voted for McCain-Fiengold which restricts freedom of speech. More specifically, it restricts political speech, you know, the kind of speech the 1st amendment is absolute about. Anyone that would support McCain-Fiengold is not worthy of the office of POTUS.

  9. Admit it Jeremy, you’re just a BIG Law & Order fan!! 🙂

  10. I’ve actually never seen the show. I may have to start watching some re-runs, though!

  11. John R.

    Methinks I vote “Huckabee” in the primary.

    If Fred wins the nomination, I vote Fred.

    Mealsothinks Huckabee could end up a VP candidate to placate evangelicals who don’t trust Guiliani (medoublethinks Guiliani be bad choice.)

    Whatthinksyou?

    JR

  12. Hugh Akston

    Jeremy, I thought your readers might find this article from today’s World Net Daily comparing Huckabee and Ron Paul interesting.

    Huck’s for Huck – Paul’s for America

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58592

    Summary: Huckabee is a Pro-life Liberal.

  13. I’m stuck on Fred.

    I like Ron Paul, but I can’t go along with his ideas on Iraq. I think he has consistently missed the point that our enemy has been clearly defined time and time again. Radical Islam is the enemy, and we are fighting against them wherever they are so we don’t have to fight them here.
    The goal of Islamo-fascism is the destruction of the U.S.A., the eradication of Christians and Jews, and Muslim rule across the planet. They declared war on us, we ignored them, then they destroyed two buildings in New York. I’m not for ignoring them anymore. Find them wherever they are, in whichever countries they live in and kill them. It’s the only way to protect our country and Christians and Jews worldwide.

  14. Hugh Akston

    Couldn’t we have fought them in Afghanistan? You know, the people that actually attacked us.

  15. Afghanistan didn’t attack us. Islamo-fascists operating out of Afghanistan attacked us. Osama bin Laden is now probably in Pakistan. He’s the man who allegedly oredered the attack. Should we attack Pakistan? No, because Pakistan is not, as far as we know, providing sanctuary for Osama.

    The point I, and the rest of the so-called ‘pro-war’ (doesn’t really apply since no one wants war except for the Islamo-fascists) advocates want to make is that Al-Qaeda and the rest of the smaller groups of radical Islamists do not have a ‘home’ country. They operate anywhere they can. And we must fight them wherever they are at any point in time. If a nation provides sanctuary for terrorists, then that nation must pay the consequences as we root out the terrorists that have declared war on America. That’s one reason we are in Iraq…the perceived threat of WMD’s was only one small part of the reason we went to Iraq in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s