He says in part:
The mindset goes
something like this: Where there is a higher objective or greater good in view,
the lower objective or lesser good must be sacrificed. This idea is sometimes
referred to as “situational ethics” or as the common phrase goes, “the ends justify
the means”.
Sadly, many Christians have
been drawn into the “situational ethics” mentality. Most Christians I know are
planning to vote for Mitt Romney for President in November. Yet Christians by
in large do not view Romney as an “ideal” candidate or even a “desirable”
candidate on his merits alone. However they all view Barack Obama as a much
less desirable option, so Romney is the clear choice at the ballots. The line
of reasoning is pretty consistent; a vote for anyone other than Romney is the
same as a vote for Obama, so the responsible course of action is to vote for
Romney. In other words, the ends (booting Obama out of office) justify the
means (voting for a less-than-desirable candidate). We must all unite together
for the greater good. This particular situation demands that we bite our lip
and do the only thing we can to ensure that Obama does not gain another term in
office — a.k.a., situational ethics.
End quote. [Emphasis, mine]
End quote. [Emphasis, mine]
He goes on to talk about Romney’s still being pro-murder”when
the situation causes too much emotional trama…" Very true and good point.
Karl states:
"Romney is also
well-known for changing his stance on key issues at “convenient” times. If you
believe these changes of heart (also known as “flip-flops”) are not entirely
sincere, then you have at best a person who is double-minded. James 1:8 tells us that such a man is unstable in all his ways (also see Hos. 7:11 & I Kin. 18:21). Even worse, you
may have a person who is so lacking in principle and character that he is
willing to systematically adjust his position on issues in whatever way is most
politically expedient. This is known as the fear of man, and the Word tell us
that the fear of man and not God brings a snare (Prov. 29:25 – also Prov. 1:7, 3:7, 9:10, 16:6). So you’re
willing to vote for someone (to fill the office that demands more leadership
than any other) who is unstable, and may very well be caught in a trap of his
own making." [Emphasis, mine]
Exactly right. I’m glad another person is making this
connection that Romney is not stable but UNSTABLE in thinking. Karl goes on to
explain Romney’s source of faith—that he is not a mere Mormon, but a high
church leader. He then concludes after
explaining the blasphemy of the LDS: “So
you’re also willing to vote for a cultish blasphemer who holds to the doctrine
of Satan himself (Gen. 3:5, Isa. 14:14)!” Right!!!
Karl then asks, “And this truly is the
question. Does God expect us to prioritize our principles in order to achieve a
much better result? Do certain situations demand that we tweak our ethics and
make a decision for the greater good?” [Emphasis, mine]
The answer is given with three examples from Scripture: Saul
and the Philistines; Uzzah and the Ark and; and then Abraham and the Egyptians. All three (and there are plenty more in Scripture) show the disobedience of
pragmatism that is really acting like practical atheists which can bring God’s
judgment.
An excerpt from Karl’s conclusion:
"Time and again we see God’s displeasure with man when he tries to manipulate circumstances by using situational ethics. With politics, as in every sphere, God’s concern is not with us producing results for Him, but with our holiness (I Pet. 1:15-16)! When we fail to obey God’s Word or the principles found therein because we are trying to attain a certain result, we are in effect renouncing God’s sovereignty in the affairs of men and stepping in to “help God out” in areas which He evidently needs the assistance (Job 40:2, Rom. 9:20)!" [Emphasis, mine]
He ends with the fact of God’s sovereign governance over man
and leaders. Ps. 33 and Daniel 4 are excellent passages about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment