What a 180!!! Matt, you may not know me, but I know you and the folks at LC personally, and I think you’re a fine fellow, and we all appreciate what Liberty Counsel and its affiliates do.
But isn’t it outrageously hypocritical of you to now be trying to drag conscientious Christians kicking and screaming into the Romney slime pit, when just a few months ago, you yourself were preaching what great evils would come from such a vote:
Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children.
“Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?” Barber asked rhetorically.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romney’s actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.”
Barber cites two specific examples of Romney’s radical appointments.
“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, ‘living, breathing’-minded judges to the bench,” Barber said.
“Two that come to mind were extreme homosexualists Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany,” he said. “They both had a long history of pro-gay activism, yet Romney didn’t hesitate to put them on the bench.”
“These are people who outrageously believe the postmodern notion that newfangled ‘gay rights’ trump our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights,” he said.
And your use of Scripture to support this betrayal of principle is laughable.
First, you posit this passage as justification for what amounts to a consequentialist ethical decision:
“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16).
You say Obama is a wolf, and you are right. But we should only guard against one wolf? And expose ourselves to other wolves of like propensities and equal dangers? Or we could say, that from a Christian perspective, Romney represents a greater threat than Obama. Obama wants to advance a failed economic theory called Marxism and thus destroy our constitution and our country. Very bad.
But Romney is under an oath to his Church to advance the soul-destroying falsehoods of Mormonism. Which is worse, Matt? A beat up country that can and will recover if we humbly seek God’s blessing, or the eternal loss of human souls, AND the destruction of the country and its constitution thrown in as a bonus?
In Scripture, whom did Christ and the Apostles designate as wolves. Politicians? Or was it those who try to bring false teaching into the church? What did Jesus say?
Mat 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
And who are these wolves? Are they evil pols doing terrible public policy? No, they are alien predators trying to blend in with the sheep, trying to make themselves look like “severely conservative” Christians.
But wait you say, look at their fruit? Surely Obama’s fruit is worse than Romney’s. Really? Matt, I was working as an intern for LC when Romney was governor. You have to know what was going on in MA with Christian health workers getting backed into a corner over abortion, by the Romney administration. They called us, but we couldn’t help them. To this day I still don’t know why, other than that we didn’t have the resources, or couldn’t see how to win, or both.
But Romney has fruit, and it ain’t good. You know the record. You’ve preached on how bad the record was. And now you want to throw that down the memory hole.
But let’s get back to wolves. What did Paul say about these wolves, Matt?
Acts 20:29-30 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Was Paul worried about pagan kings doing nasty things? Obey the king. Pray for the king. Maybe God will save him. No, Paul was worried about people who tried to look like Christians, gaining the confidence of Christians, and drawing to themselves disciples away from the truth of the Gospel, by perversion of the truth, by rejecting the truth of the very Scriptures Paul was then delivering to the church.
And which of our “only two choices” fits that description best? Tough call. Obama’s Black Liberation Theology is a perversion of the Gospel that glorifies man and not God, and Mormonism is a perversion of the Gospel that makes God into a man and man into a god. “Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” Literally.
My dad always used to say, if you want to know what someone is going to do, look at what they’ve done. You say you want to trust the word of Captain Etch-a-Sketch, despite his proven tendency to run roughshod over the truth, both in terms of his own positions and the positions and reputations of his opponents. Is it really being “wise as a serpent” to ignore signals that he cannot be trusted, as you yourself earlier had preached to us? Or is it a fool’s game to trust the wolf trying to hide in sheep’s clothing?
You say, “Some might say I’m putting pragmatism over principle,” and I’d agree with you on that point. Look at your own reasoning. You posit three “realistic” (i.e., “pragmatic”) choices. Vote Romney, vote Obama, or don’t vote. That’s flawed to begin with. There are other, better choices, and you are in effect voting against them by directing us to vote for one of the greater evils.
But the true masterstroke of your “pragmatism” is your claim to omniscience. You say we won’t survive a second Obama term. Are you sure? Did God tell you this? Whatever happened to faith in the living God? Only God knows whether we would or should survive an attempted Marxist coup. We both know we don’t deserve it as a nation. We murder our unborn and teach our children all manner of perversity. We make all our choices based on craven fear over the latest manufactured crisis rather than a steady faith in the power of God. Why should God help us?
But we know that IF God is for us, no one can be against us. Yes, that has a primarily spiritual meaning. But God has the power to help us nationally as well. We are at his mercy. And you are encouraging us, as believers, to forsake that faith and trust instead in the arm of flesh, and not just any arm, but the arm of a man who’s religion is a variant of the same Gnosticism about which John warned in 2 John 1:10-11, that it is antichrist in nature, and that lending it any support, no matter how small, makes us partakers of it’s evil?
So pragmatically, since there is a God, and he does tell us just what to do under conditions such as these, isn’t the really practical decision to stay in a place where we may expect to receive his blessing, to do the right thing as Christians and trust him for the outcome?
In the end, there aren’t just three choices. There are as many choices as God says there are. Our backs are up against the Red Sea, to be sure, but God exists, and He cares for us, and He can make a way where there was none before.
Do the right thing, Matt.