Looking for Leadership

Once again, it is time for the United States to select a leader. While much has been made of the 'historic' nature of the female/minority candidate of the Dems, there is also a twist in Republican side: a Mormon is running for top spot.

This raises some questions.

1) Is the Mormon claim that they are just another variety of Christian valid?
2) Does a person's religious view affect his suitability for office?

Before diving into either of these 2 questions, it is important that we reflect on God's hand in this. Ultimately, it is He that oversees the rise and fall of nations. He sets our boundries. He oversees our going out and coming in. The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. He will ultimately achieve the unfolding of His purposes, whatever may happen.

Governments are, at best, a part of the natural, not spiritual order. While they may be governed at times by people who seek to faithfully discharge their duties before God and man, it is the Gospel, not a better government that can make a people pleasing to God.

That said, we each bear responsibility for our own decisions and actions. It behooves us to take seriously the responsibility of living in a land where we directly affect the ruling of our nation.

What should we look for in a leader? Ultimately, the one who comes nearest to the Biblical worldview in their governing. It is not merely a matter of being a Christian, either. It is possible to be a Christian with the wrong worldview. So, naturally, we must know the Word of God well enough to identify what a Christian worldview looks like.

In places like the US, where the public has a direct say in party leadership, the Primaries may even be the most critical step in selecting a decent leader.

In the current election process, since there is a Mormon candiate, some have claimed that Mormonism is just one of many expressions of Christianity. Are they correct?

The simple answer to this is no.

The differences, while many, hinge on the Person of Jesus.

In the Book of Mormon, for instance, they attribute the following words to Jesus

(Alma 7:1-2) "Behold my beloved bretheren, seeing that I have been permitted to come to you, therefore I attempt to address you in my language; yea, by my own mouth, seeing that it is the first time that I have spoken unto you by the words of my mouth, I having been wholly confined to the judgement-seat, having had much business that I could not come unto you. 2. And even I could not have come now at this time were it not that the judgement-seat hath been given to another, to reign in my stead; and the Lord in much mercy hath granted that I should come unto you."

(emphasis mine)

Without going further into their doctrine, this by itself is a blasphemous statement that NO believing Christian could accept as true of the Living God. Even if every other word written were to conform to the truth of Scripture (which it does not) this would be enough to make their doctrine a (literally) damnable lie.

So do you reject him because he is a Mormon?

There was an intersting point made in "Original Intent" by David Barton. The founding fathers took seriously the oath of office, particularily with the emphasis that they would become accountable before a Holy God for their actions while in said office. To paraphrase their view: the religious man, even if he is of a foreign religion (meaning Muslim, Jewish, Hundu, etc.) is always to be preferred above the irreligious man, so long as he believes that he will be accountable before that god in some sort of judgement hereafter (concerning the oath they swore) and exactly for that reason.

This is not to endorse one candidate or another.

My purpose was to reframe the question. Some have asked if electing someone from a different religion is morally acceptable. I would ask you to consider who that person, at whatever level of government, is running against, and what each candidate believes.

Some would default to the athiest if it fell to a choice between an athiest and a Hindu, or Muslim, Sikh, etc.

Athiesm is more pallatable to the public because we are accustomed to it, but do not give preference to an athiest over (another) pagan, simply because a pagan athiest is a more familiar heresy. Look closely at your candidates, whoever they may be.