Almost four years ago I was standing at the back of the church as the praise run began in the second service. It was the Sunday right before the election. Someone sidled up to me:
"So, are you going to tell the church who they should be voting for?"
I laughed, thinking it was a joke. But they were deadly serious.
Hector's House! What about separation of church and state?
It's all rather confusing to this fellow from down under who, in another life, paid homage to the Queen one holiday in the year and then celebrated Guy Fawkes' attempts to blow up the Houses of Parliament on another.
So who did God want to be President last time? Who was God's man?
Was it McCain, who somewhat conveniently managed to find faith and his way back to the church in the months before the election? Or was it Obama, who'd been going to church for years but still found it almost impossible to convince skeptical conservatives? (Kind of a tall order, really, given a name that sounds like "Osama," a strong pro-abortion platform, and The Donald's persistent rumor-mongering that Obama was born on Mars or in some madrasah in Indonesia.)
The same question has come back with a vengeance again, although with a twist (and I'm not talking about getting magical mormon knickers in a knot). So who is God's man this time?
Is God's man a fiscal conservative with sons as handsome as Donny Osmond? If you answer yes don't forget that as a former LDS Bishop he also happens to believe that Jesus is not uniquely God in the flesh and that we can all evolve into godhood.
Or, is God's man the leader of a party that took out "God" from their platform and then thought better of it, forcing him back in after three unconvincing votes?
Perhaps all this talk of "God's man" is a little misguided. A little too messianic. Could it be that, despite the incredible privilege, importance and responsibility of voting, we put a little too much hope in our elected officials? I mean, to get to where they are they need both the desire to change the world and a well-stroked ego.
I'm not saying that the election is not important. Nor that the choices are insignificant. (Ok, let me tip my hand: I personally think that borrowing to spend what we don't have is a recipe for disaster. I happen to believe that life is sacred, begins at conception, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also realise that good people disagree with me on those issues and some think there are other "justice" issues, such as war and care for the widow and orphan, that should also be factored in.)
What I am saying is that we have an unhealthy tendency to look to a party or a person for solutions that border on salvation. Yet parties and people will always disappoint at some level. ALWAYS.
Viewed from that level, it's almost a choice between the lesser of evils.
But there is a man who is God's Man. And He will never disappoint.
For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity--the man Christ Jesus. He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone. This is the message God gave to the world at just the right time (1 Timothy 2:5,6).He gets my vote.
And I long for the day when He will rule and reign in righteousness, when
The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever (Revelation 11:15).
