Understanding that Scripture has different standards for civil and ecclesiastical office is absolutely critical to evaluating the candidacy of Newt Gingrich, just as it was years ago in evaluating the candidacy of Ronald Reagan.
I can't speak for these two posters, but all too often the discussion is based on a failure to understand that God has different standards for selection and removal of civil rulers than he does for ecclesiastical office.
The end result is a lot of confusion, with some evangelicals demanding standards which are higher than Scripture and some secular conservatives and secular liberals attacking evangelicals for hypocrisy when we support people like Ronald Reagan. This was a problem all the way back in 1980 when lots of southern evangelicals couldn't understand how a Bible-believing Christian could vote for a divorced movie actor rather than a self-identified born again Baptist who had been unquestionably faithful to his wife.
The same questions are coming back this year, but in an even worse form, with Newt Gingrich.
I have been saying for a long time that both Gingrich and Santorum are acceptable evangelical candidates. I would have said the same about Bachmann, Perry, and Cain as well, by the way, but not Ron Paul, John Huntsman, or Mitt Romney; I don't know enough about most of the other early candidates to have an informed opinion.
I think, given the uproar that's now facing us, I need to say more about why Christians can vote in good conscience for Newt Gingrich, just as they could vote in good conscience for Ronald Reagan.
Let's be clear right from the start. There is absolutely no way that Gingrich, based on his past, should be elected as a pastor, elder or deacon in a Bible-believing church without crystal clear repentance and a long history of proving that repentance is real by how he conducts his life. The standards of I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-2:10 are very high, and even if Gingrich were able to meet all of them, there's still the question of someone’s past being so notorious that I Timothy 3:7, being of good report among outsiders, disqualifies someone from church office no matter how clear his repentance may be.
As a married Roman Catholic, Newt Gingrich will never be a candidate for ecclesiastical office, so that question is largely irrelevant.
What is extremely relevant is that we never see any place in Scripture where God applies the standards of I Timothy and Titus to selection of civil rulers.
We have very limited guidance under the New Testament for how we are to select our civil rulers; the key passage is Romans 13 where God sets out the role of the civil rulers to bear the sword to punish evildoers. (By the way, that's a key part of why Jimmy Carter was not qualified for civil office since he grossly failed in performing the primary function of civil government.)
However, even under the Old Testament theocracy where the kings and judges ruled by divine right with explicit divine mandates for their duties, we do not have the slightest hint that King David's adultery with Bathsheba disqualified him from the kingship.
Go read II Samuel 11 and 12. Were there consequences to David's adultery? Absolutely. They included the loss of his child (II Samuel 12:14-23), and chaos in his kingdom (II Samuel 12:11-12).
King David was expected to repent, and he did repent. God spared his life (II Samuel 12:13), and Psalm 51 is a public testimony to that repentance.
However, there is no indicator anywhere in Scripture that King David's adultery disqualified him from office. That's quite different from ordained pastors, elders and deacons who **MUST** be removed from office in such cases. Yes, the prophet Nathan rebuked King David, but nowhere were God's people called to remove David from his office.
Can Christians take Gingrich's background into account? Absolutely. That's one reason why I preferred Santorum, once he became a viable candidate. Also, repentance should be demanded, but the fact is that Gingrich has **ALREADY** repented.
Those who doubt that should read what Rev. Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church, wrote about Gingrich's personal faith at this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2837165/replies?c=33
If anyone has any questions about just how conservative Garlow’s Christianity is, watch this video, posted so helpfully by Right Wing Watch which seeks to discredit Garlow but actually proves that he's a solid Christian and not a compromiser likely to look on Gingrich's background with laxity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV8NSvVME2g
Furthermore, I'm not a Roman Catholic, but the fact is that the Roman Catholic Church's rules are far stricter than those of most evangelical Protestant churches for accepting a person with Gingrich's background. Much about Gingrich's ecclesiastical situation will never be made public and is under the seal of the confessional — i.e., between him and his priest. I happen to be a member of a church which takes a pretty hard line on divorce and remarriage, but Protestant churches which freely accept people into membership despite multiple divorces have no valid grounds to be criticizing Newt Gingrich's personal faith.
Bottom line is this: as long as we had two viable candidates for the Republican nomination, I believe evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics could vote for either Gingrich or Santorum in good conscience.
We now have only one candidate left. Romney is simply unacceptable — he has a background of defending baby killing, homosexual marriage, and other damnable wickedness, and unlike Gingrich, his change of heart is far from clear.
Even if we could vote for a Mormon (a debatable point for me), we cannot vote for a candidate who does not meet the basic standards of Romans 13 in upholding justice and punishing the wicked. Romney doesn't qualify for our support.
I believe it's time to get behind Newt Gingrich as the last conservative left in the Republican race. I understand some people simply cannot do that in good conscience, and I respect that.
However, I strongly urge such people to read this post, take a close look at the biblical references and Rev. Garlow’s statements about Gingrich's repentance, and seriously reconsider. We're not talking about ordaining Gingrich as an elder or making him a Sunday School or catechism teacher; we're talking about whether Gingrich is biblically qualified to be a civil ruler.
If Gingrich isn't qualified, then neither is Ronald Reagan and King David, and I believe that is an inconsistent standard.
1,153 posted on Wed Apr 11 2012 16:19:00 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by sam_paine: “Exactly. A divorcee with enstranged children who authorized the sale of weapons to terrorists like Ronald Reagan would be morally unacceptable to such people.”
1,151 posted on Wed Apr 11 2012 16:11:37 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by 5thGenTexan: “They are not saying they will only vote for someone who can, as President, change abortion. They are saying that they cannot support a person for President who personally is pro-abortion. It is about the person's moral character, not the powers of the office. They choose to support only pro-life candidates, regardless of the powers of the office they are running for.”
Excellent read Darrell.....and well worth the read...
Exerts:
...”there is no indicator anywhere in Scripture that King David’s adultery disqualified him from office... That’s quite different from ordained pastors, elders and deacons who must be removed from office in such cases.”...
....”Christians can vote in good conscience for Newt Gingrich, just as they could vote in good conscience for Ronald Reagan.”......
....”If Gingrich isn’t qualified, then neither is Ronald Reagan and King David, and I believe that is an inconsistent standard.”....
Gingrich is our last hope. I can’t get past Rove’s comment: “they (conservatives)will have a temper tantrum, but when it comes time to vote they will all fall in line.” Then Romney: “The voters will get behind me.” Now, I have a contrary streak and when anybody assumes that I have no choice, it stirs up the Irish in me. I ain’t gonna fall in line or get behind the selected one. I will do my own choosing and I choose Newt as long as he will hang with it. Then if I have to, and am allowed to, I will write in Sarah Palin. I wish every Tea Party member in America would do likewise. Want to kick the GOPe in the teeth? Write in Sarah Palin on election day.