I’ve Had it with the Line ‘But We’re Not Electing a Pastor-in-Chief’

Source: Townhall | Feb 01, 2016 | Michael Brown

I don’t like worthless, empty slogans, but I have a real problem when those worthless, empty slogans are used to justify a moral or theological position.

To give one example, the slogan “Love is love” is bad enough, but it’s far worse when it’s used to justify same-sex “marriage.”

In the same way, I’m not keen on the line, “But we’re electing a president, a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief.” But when it’s used to justify voting for someone who has a long track record of being ruthless, cruel, unchristian, immoral, profane, full of pride, greedy, and double-minded, then I have a real problem with it.

Put another way, does the fact that we’re electing a president, not a pastor (or priest or Pope) mean that the president doesn’t need to have a solid moral base? That he doesn’t need integrity? That he can mistreat and abuse others? That he can be petulant, self-centered, and nasty? That ethics don’t matter since he’s our political leader not our spiritual leader?

What kind of thinking is that?


Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Discussion
  • Consistent #193

    But I am looking for someone who, along with dealing with our budget and immigration and national security, will stand for righteousness and lead with integrity.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.