I don’t know much about Shorter University in Rome, Georgia. What I do know is what I read yesterday—that it’s a Christian university associated with the Georgia Baptist Convention and that it has decided to be consistent with that convention’s beliefs by asking its employees to sign a pledge indicating their agreement with the basic tenets of the church. To me, that’s only common sense. If you say “this is what we believe and this is what we seek to teach our students,” you should expect your professors and other staff to be in concert with your goals.

The pledge, though, has now become a center of controversy. More than fifty professors and staff have resigned rather than sign it. Why? What awful points of doctrine and/or practice are included? Here’s what university employees must agree to:

• No homosexual lifestyle
• No pre-marital sex
• No adultery
• No drug use
• Be an active member of a church
• Live as committed, Bible-believing followers of Jesus Christ

My, how oppressive! A Christian university actually expecting their employees, including professors who are supposed to be teaching within a Biblical worldview, to live as Christians! [Note: I don't usually go overboard using exclamation points, but they seemed to apply this time.]

Let’s keep in mind this is a private Christian university that has the authority to set up whatever ground rules it considers appropriate. Not being involved in sexual immorality and not being a druggie would seem to me to be minimum requirements for any institution that claims to be Christian. Yet, as can be expected, this has created a firestorm.

What bothers me the most about this is that some of those who resigned had been there for many years. One of the librarians was openly homosexual. This university doesn’t seem to have cared a whole lot about its Christian commitment for quite some time. By being lax in its internal discipline, it opened the door for the current controversy. If it had been consistently Christian from the start, this would be no big deal now. Therefore, it is now suffering the consequences of its previous policies.

All that said, I congratulate the university now for its attempt to set things straight, so to speak. But this is an object lesson for all Christian colleges and universities: be warned—you may go through a similar rough patch if you aren’t being faithful to Biblical standards now. We need to keep in mind these bracing words from the apostle Peter:

For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

Indeed.

My main reason for writing this blog—its only real purpose—is to bring the Christian message to the forefront as we contemplate the state of our culture and the society in general. Within me resides a hope, which I trust comes from the Giver of All Hope, that what I write can aid, in whatever small way, in restoring a Biblical pattern of thinking that will, in turn, strengthen the foundations upon which our society is built.

I believe there are two chief impediments that are making it difficult to make progress. The first is a misperception that guides some of us hoping for societal restoration; the second is a profound personal failing on the part of those who claim the name of Christ.

What is that misperception? We seem to think that there is a silent majority out there just waiting for the re-emergence of Christian culture. What we fail to understand is that we are living in a post-Christian nation. Whereas, in decades past, most Americans would have subscribed to some type of Christian morality, we are now a nation bitterly divided over the nature of morality—or indeed whether such a thing as morality even exists. Jerry Falwell, as he attempted to get Christians involved in politics back in the early 1980s, started an organization he called The Moral Majority. It rested on the assumption that most Americans believed in Biblical morality.

That was the case at the Founding of the nation; even those who cannot be classified as Christian believers lived in a culture that expected people to adhere to the basic moral teachings of the Scriptures. The onset of evolutionary theory severely undercut that consensus, which eventually led to the holocaust of abortion, the drive for same-sex marriage, and a general philosophy of postmodernism, where each person constructs his own concept of morality. Polls seem to indicate that nearly two-thirds of Americans rarely gather in a church on Sundays.

Yet we continue to act as if what we promote is generally accepted by the society at large. No, it is not. Promotion of the homosexual lifestyle shows up in nearly every television program, in one way or another. It is just assumed by the media that couples live together and engage in sex routinely before marriage. Unfortunately, there’s plenty of evidence to bolster their assumption.

The myth of the moral majority must be shattered before we can make any real progress. We have to see reality for what it is first so we’ll know how to proceed.

The second problem, though, is deeper, and it’s the primary reason we don’t have the kind of influence we seek. It has to do with personal holiness. Now, I know that word—holiness—has become a turn-off. It reeks of past attempts to focus entirely on externalities: don’t wear makeup, don’t watch television, etc. Christians have been their own worst enemy by making holiness into a repellent idea.

True holiness, though, is beautiful. It simply means one’s love for God inspires our thoughts and actions. Holiness is an attitude of the heart that seeks to please God in all we do, and it’s a joyful thing. Yes, a heart for God will lead to changing our external actions, but not because we follow a list of rules. We change because we want our lives to honor the One who brought us out of darkness into His light; we change because it connects us to His heart; we change because it brings harmony and His love into the lives of others with whom we associate.

Christians who live holy lives are attractive; they draw others to them, thereby providing an opportunity to deliver the message God has placed on their hearts: personal salvation first; societal salvation as a result of the permeation of Biblical principles into the society.

My concern is this: too many people who claim the name of Christ don’t portray the Christ they claim to know. I’ve been a Christian now for many decades. I’ve seen true holiness in action; it does exist. Yet it is not the norm. I’ve taught at four Christian institutions of higher learning and have witnessed the sad spectacle of sin destroying that which is good. We don’t talk much about sin anymore; it’s an embarrassment to mention the word in our culture. If we mention it, we’re accused of being judgmental.

But I want to say something very direct: sin is killing us. I am saddened almost daily by “Christians” who don’t act much differently than the world around them, whose language is filled with the same crudeness that we say we deplore, whose attitudes show forth in gossip, slander, and revenge. Those who name the name of Christ have no problem with “shacking up,” accepting homosexuality, or allowing the government to become God. They are endorsing the very sins that are sending our nation into spiritual darkness. Is it any wonder we hardly make a dent in the culture?

I am grateful for those who stand for righteousness; they do make a difference. But far too many who say they want to make a difference are not different themselves. That will never work. What we need is this reminder from Scripture:

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us. …

But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.

Those are not my words. They come from Another. My job today is simply to deliver them. Your responsibility, if you say you are a Christian, is to ponder them and act upon them.

I thought it might be time for a full-blown explanation for why I back Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney, realizing even as I write this that Romney has the inside track for the nomination. If anything I say can make someone reconsider his/her support for Romney or help someone understand better why Santorum should be considered seriously as the Republican nominee, I will have accomplished my purpose. If no one is convinced by what I say, at least I was faithful to write what is on my heart.

Some of what I say will not be politically correct, even in Republican circles, but I urge you to read all the way through before coming to a conclusion.

Why I Support Santorum

I didn’t start out as a Santorum backer. At first, I thought he was an afterthought as a candidate. Neither could I understand why anyone who lost his last Senate campaign believed he had a shot at the presidential nomination. I wrote him off.

Shortly before the Iowa caucus decision, however, I began paying attention to his approach: he was dedicated to meeting people one-on-one; he traveled to every county in Iowa, willing to speak to whatever size group; he ran the campaign on a shoestring, yet was making an impression. As I listened more to him, I realized I agreed with much of what he was saying. When he stunned the political world by winning Iowa [however belated the result], I decided to purchase his book It Takes a Family. Reading it solidified my support.

I don’t know how many who are currently reading this post have taken the time to read Santorum’s book, but I presume it is a minority, to say the least. I’ve reported on the contents of that book in this blog from time to time, offering excerpts and commentary. Here’s what I learned about Santorum by reading it:

• He is a genuine Christian who grounds his politics in his Biblical worldview.
• His worldview, as expressed in the book and in other speeches I’ve heard him give, is, on most points, similar to mine: religious/theological beliefs are the cornerstone of society; government has no right to excise religious faith from the public square; family is the bedrock of society, and policies must be family-friendly; government should only do those things that family, church, and other private organizations cannot do.
• When he discusses history, such as when he contrasts the American and French revolutions, he and I are on the same page.
• While he sometimes allows federal government aid when I would have constitutional scruples against doing so, his aim is never to grow the government but to strengthen the family and those private agencies that form the backbone of a prosperous nation.
• He does not believe government is the solution to our problems, despite what his critics may say.
• Even when I disagree with the specifics of a particular policy he has advocated, I understand the motives behind his advocacy, and they are always honest and focused on trying to do the right thing.
• He has lived out his faith admirably through his devotion to family and principle.
• He and his wife have homeschooled their children because they believe they can provide the type of Christian education the children will need to stand firm in a culture that is slipping away from its Biblical moorings.

For these reasons, I pray for Santorum’s success as a candidate.

What are his deficiencies? For one, he does have a tendency to speak off the cuff and get into trouble for using certain terms and phrases. Yet when I investigate the substance of his critiques—calling Obama a snob and feeling like “throwing up” when he listens to JFK’s speech—I find that I agree with the critiques he offers, wishing only that he had used more wisdom in expressing them.

I always prefer someone who speaks the truth, even inelegantly at times, to someone who is measured in speaking yet has nothing significant to say.

I don’t expect perfection from a candidate; if I did, I would never vote. Santorum’s worldview and heart, coupled with a good number of policies with which I agree, are sufficient for me.

Why I Don’t Support Romney

Since I started with worldview when speaking about Santorum, let me do the same with Romney. Here’s where I’m going to depart from Republican political correctness and may earn the disfavor of many because I’m going to introduce a theological concern. As an evangelical Christian, I want to know what a candidate believes about ultimate reality. For me, Mormonism is a skewed version of reality. Being theologically literate, I cannot simply look away from Romney’s Mormonism and say it doesn’t factor into my analysis of him. From my viewpoint, Mormonism is a cult that tries to disguise itself as Christian. Its basic tenets on the nature of Christ and salvation are not orthodox Christian. In fact, many of its beliefs border on bizarre. So I ask myself whether I can trust someone who has willingly accepted those beliefs.

I do realize, though, that political parties are not churches, and there must be coalitions to achieve goals. Most Mormons—Harry Reid is a notable exception—maintain an outward morality that is similar to Christian morality. In addition, most Mormons are conservative politically, and they believe in limited government and the free enterprise system. Therefore, I don’t automatically conclude that I won’t vote for a Mormon. However, given the option between someone who mirrors my worldview and someone who does not, I lean toward the one with whom I expect to be spending eternity, a Christian brother or sister.

Now we come to political philosophy and policy. Even if Romney were an evangelical Christian, I would still choose Santorum over him. Why? Let me count the ways. Just what is his overarching political philosophy? Is it the current conservatism he says he espouses, or is it instead the way he ran campaigns and governed Massachusetts? They are markedly different.

As I’ve noted before, and as Santorum has articulated in the debates, Romney has no ground whatsoever to attack Obamacare. Romneycare definitely was its forerunner and inspiration. An op-ed Romney wrote for USA Today back in 2009 has resurfaced this week in which he urged Obama to adopt the individual mandate that he [Romney] created in Massachusetts. Apparently, the president took his advice. This revelation also gives the lie to Romney’s defense that he saw his healthcare solution as only for the state, not for the nation. He can’t credibly say that anymore, not when he was pushing for Obama to copy what he did.

On pro-life and the homosexual agenda, his record is spotty. He’s even supported Planned Parenthood. When he first ran for office in Massachusetts, he concluded he had to set aside his pro-life position and run as a pro-choicer to win. That’s reprehensible. Now, all of a sudden, he’s a confirmed pro-lifer again. Why? Is it because he knows he can’t get the Republican nomination running on pro-choice? That was his calculation in the past; why should we believe he has changed now?

Will a President Romney really appoint federal judges who go by the original intent/wording of the Constitution? A survey of those he appointed in Massachusetts would indicate otherwise. Frankly, I don’t trust him, and that’s the bottom line for why he does not have my support.

What If Romney Wins the Nomination?

If Romney becomes the Republican nominee, I will vote for him. Not enthusiastically, but strategically. He may turn out to be a major disappointment as a president, and at that point I don’t promise not to tell my fellow evangelicals who promoted his candidacy “I told you so.” But if forced to vote between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, four more years of the latter would be inconceivable. The Obama worldview is even further from the truth than Romney’s. It is radical and dangerous. If Obama has to work with a Republican Congress, he will just do what he is starting to do now—rule by executive fiat and ignore the role of Congress. He will attempt to set up an imperial presidency. That must be avoided at all costs.

As I noted at the beginning of this unusually long post [I normally don't tax you with this much verbiage], the odds are against Santorum. The states where he is strong divide delegates proportionally; the states where Romney is expected to win, such as California and New York, have more delegates and their primaries are winner-take-all. This is clearly an uphill fight for Rick Santorum, but it’s a fight worth making. He is the better candidate when it comes to worldview and principles. And those should be our guide.

Normally, I would be pleased for a president to attend a prayer breakfast, as President Obama did yesterday. But it would have been better if he had just been an attendee listening to someone with a genuine Biblical message. Instead, he was the speaker, and he used the occasion to say Jesus would approve of his policies, specifically his proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy.

He used the Scripture that says more is required from someone who has been given much. Well, let’s look at that Scripture in context. It’s found in Luke 12 beginning in verse 42:

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

“But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.“

Where to begin?

First, the larger context of the passage has to do with the Second Coming. Jesus had just told a parable about those who were not ready. He then further explained that parable by telling this story. So far, there is nothing about the government taking more taxes.

Second, He emphasizes stewardship of whatever God gives us. The steward had a responsibility to carry out his particular tasks, and he needed to do so faithfully. One of those tasks was to provide rations to the master’s servants, but this is not a government endeavor. It’s simply using the master’s money to pay for services rendered.

Third, it’s an exhortation to stay focused and not allow oneself to turn to sin. He’s speaking of man’s propensity to follow his own selfish desires when he thinks the master [God] isn’t around to rebuke him.

Fourth, it offers a theology of divine punishment for those who don’t follow the will of God, but instead give themselves over to personal pleasures and desires.

Finally, we get to the line Obama used. It is a general principle that states the obvious: if you have been entrusted with much, you will be judged with a more stringent judgment. It actually places on emphasis on knowledge: those who know more, i.e., have a greater understanding of God’s will, and then disobey, will receive a stiffer penalty.

Nothing in the entire passage offers a hint of any government action, and certainly has nothing to do with sanctioning higher taxes on the wealthy.

Using Scripture for one’s own purposes by twisting it out of its context is deplorable. Mr. President, what you said at the prayer breakfast qualifies as deplorable.

Rick Santorum had to leave the campaign trail this weekend as his three-year-old daughter Bella was hospitalized with pneumonia. Her condition was serious, but now seems to be improving. Santorum was up with her most of one night; he said she was really struggling. What makes this even more poignant is that Bella has Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder that usually takes a child’s life in the first year. Her prognosis is not good; only rarely does one with this condition last until the teenage years.

What this whole episode underscores is the Santorums’ dedication to the culture of life. Most parents nowadays, when informed of a birth defect, opt for abortion. The Santorums refused to do so—not just this once, but twice. Back in the mid-1990s, they had another birth trauma. Their unborn child at that time also had a birth defect. The doctor said, rather bluntly, that the child would die. Santorum and his wife, Karen, didn’t follow the advice of many to abort the child. Their pro-life convictions dictated otherwise. Santorum writes in his book It Takes a Family,

I must tell you that our reaction, after the shock and grief, was not to avoid the pain, the cost, or the struggle; it was not to get rid of the “problem,” and it was not to put the baby out of his misery like something that was less than human. Karen and I couldn’t rationalize how we could treat this little human life at twenty weeks’ gestation in the womb any different than one twenty weeks old after birth. At either age, he is helpless, unaware, and thoroughly dependent on us, his parents, to protect him, care for him, and love him unconditionally. So instead of giving our child a death sentence we gave him a name: Gabriel Michael, after the two great archangels.

Santorum then tells how it affected his family and him personally:

No, we had no choice but to fight to save our son’s life. We did all we could, including intrauterine surgery, but our son was born prematurely, and after two hours in our arms, he died. Gabriel died as a cherished member of our family—forever—having known only love in his brief time on earth. Life changes us all, but often nothing like death. At that moment, eternity became reality. After Gabriel, being a husband and father was different, being a legislator was different. I was different.

I honor that kind of commitment. It’s a commitment based on the Biblical principle that each person is made in the image of God and deserves to be treated as a valuable member of a family and a society. Later in his book, Santorum clearly identifies the seared conscience this society has developed over the years:

The social critic Christopher Lasch was right when he said, “Every day we tell ourselves lies so that we can live.” Americans get up every day in a country that permits, fosters, and on some levels even encourages the killing of the same number of children every year as there are people in Maine. And yet the vast majority of us do nothing. We tell ourselves that there is nothing we can do; or that it is sad, but necessary; or that the country is better off without those unwanted children; or that having an abortion is wrong, but you can’t impose your values on someone else. Many Americans simply don’t think about it at all, because they aren’t getting hurt. As another saying goes: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Santorum and his family are exhibiting for the entire nation what a Christian family ought to be. We need more of those models. We need people like Rick Santorum in positions of leadership for the sake of the moral foundation of our society.

Why do I write these daily commentaries? And why do I so often focus on current politics? After all—I can imagine some readers thinking—shouldn’t I spend my time more profitably, writing about theology and/or the Christian’s everyday walk with the Lord? Don’t I realize—they may continue to ask themselves—that this world is passing away and all that matters is eternity?

I understand the concerns behind such questions. Here’s what I believe.

First, our relationship with God, through Christ, is the single most important issue to be settled in everyone’s life. Outside of Christ, there is no hope, both in this earthly existence and in eternity. Everything I do, and how I decide to spend my time, should be based on that truth. Yes, without life in Christ, there really is no life at all. Yes, our current circumstances, bound as we are to this world and its foibles, are temporary in nature; eternity awaits.

Yet I also firmly believe that this temporary situation we find ourselves in is significant. Aren’t we told to pray, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Christians have a serious task at hand; we are God’s eyes, ears, hands, feet, and voice, reaching out to a dying world with the message of salvation. Our greatest responsibility is to reveal His love and redemptive plan for individuals. There is no question about that.

But our responsibilities don’t end there. We also are tasked with spreading His truth into all areas of society, in an attempt to show how that truth can be applied for the good of all. Government affects each of us deeply. How can we neglect to make application to that realm? It is, in fact, one of the key areas where, if Biblical principles are enacted, the greatest number of people can be touched. Every time we inject His truth into the political world, we create an opportunity to arrest people’s attention and draw them to the One who is the fount of all knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

I therefore make no apologies for focusing quite often on politics. I just need to make sure I do so in a way that continually reminds readers of this blog that my whole purpose in doing so is to explain the ways of God and juxtapose them with the ways of man—to illustrate His wisdom and contrast it with man’s foolishness. Humor, i.e., political cartoons, is one method for exposing man’s folly. Critical analysis of the character of politicians is fair game; without that, we will be led astray. Evaluation of the policies being promoted by both sides in the political debate is essential if we are to grasp the difference between success and failure.

Yes, there will come a time when the King of Kings will put an end to this current state of affairs. When He ushers in His kingdom, there will no longer be a need for separation of powers, checks and balances, or evaluation of policies. His policies will always be just; His character is unimpeachable.

But until that wonderful time arrives, we still live on a sinful planet in deep need of the dissemination of truth. Our culture and our government must be redeemed or we will slide into a spiritual abyss.

That’s why I continue to write, in the hope that something I say can help renew minds and bring greater understanding of Jesus Christ and His ways. It is a privilege to serve Him in this manner.

I finished another semester last Friday. The goal of my teaching is always to point students to Biblical truth; history is the vehicle. At the end of my course covering the second half of American history—after I’ve spent weeks showcasing the loss of Biblical principles in America over the last century or so—I like to close the course with a couple of quotes from those who clearly witnessed this loss and sought to reverse it.

Whittaker Chambers and Ronald Reagan are two bright lights in a sea of political manipulation and a spreading humanistic worldview. They spoke eloquently about the need to return to the basic truths.

Chambers, in his magisterial autobiography Witness, offered a combination of affirmation and warning when he wrote,

External freedom is only an aspect of interior freedom. Political freedom, as the Western world has known it, is only a political reading of the Bible. Religion and freedom are indivisible. …

There has never been a society or a nation without God. But history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations that became indifferent to God, and died.

That last sentence is a chilling perspective, but I believe it is accurate. Chambers’s clarion call was to recognize the centrality of God in society, and to realize that indifference to spiritual truth will kill any society.

Reagan was roundly criticized when he called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire.” Yet his description was correct. He worked hard to build the American military again after it fell into political disfavor through the Vietnam tragedy, but in that so-called “Evil Empire” speech, he constantly returned to a spiritual theme, earnestly hoping that those who live in darkness might find true life in the Lord. One of his key lines was the following:

While America’s military strength is important … I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.

I like to use these quotes at the end of the course to remind students that the only path out of any manifestation of spiritual darkness is to shine the light of Biblical truth. My job is to plant the seeds; God causes the seeds to sprout and grow into viable fruit.

Chambers and Reagan also happen to be the subjects of my new book being published next year. My hope is that it too will be a seed that God can use to help turn back the tide of unbelief. We are a nation on the brink of complete disintegration if we don’t change the foundations upon which we are now building. Yet where God is, and where His people, no matter how small a remnant, stay faithful, there is always the possibility that real change can occur.

Keep the faith.