[Colofornian]

It isn’t the fact that he’s a Mormon that bothers me the most. Sure, I’m a Baptist, and I believe the Mormons are NOT a valid form of Christianity, but are aberrant, unbiblical in many of their practices and doctrines, and are in many ways cultic. But the Mormons are NOT violent as a religion. They are not given to “brainwashing,” to kidnapping, to other kinds of desperate or drastic “cultish” behaviors. In fact, Mormons are generally very patriotic, very Conservative Americans. It fascinates me that a number of the most prominent Mormons, like Harry Reid, John Huntsman and Mitt Romney, are actually much more Liberal than most of their fellow Mormon co-religionists. But, I digress. We are not electing a national Pastor. We do not have a Federal Church (see the 1st Amendment), and the President in no way should serve as our national priest or confessor.

How often in the last 4+ yrs have I seen the "we are not electing a national Pastor" mantra? (Way too often) What's worse is to see professing Christians utter it.

Well, I've seen it often enough to write the following in the past; which I repeat:

Question at hand: Are we voting for a 'pastor-in-chief' or commander-in-chief?
Principle involved: This question addresses not only the role and identity of the POTUS, but the perceived 'self' identity of the candidate. If a given candidate thinks he's a 'god' or 'would-be' god, he exposes himself as deceived on one of the most basic elemental identity issues you can think of.

If a candidate doesn't even know who he is fundamentally, how do we know similar distortions won't effect his judgment? Besides, if he inwardly lauds himself as 'divine,' why would we want to reinforce such an idolater who steals glory from the One True God?

A Related Question, but from a distinct angle: Is a POTUS a 'minister' of sorts?

Apparently, Patriot Preacher might say 'no.'

I say 'yes,' and here's why:

Even non-religious people tend to at times honor the Bible. The Biblical record shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the TRUE Lord -- not by some low-level Mormon god who is part of a great number of Mormon gods...

And these Biblical leaders did not -- or were not to -- worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture.

It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" like the soup kitchen down the street.

History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader adheres to, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.

[patriot preacher]

Is a POTUS a ‘minister’ of sorts?

Apparently, Patriot Preacher might say ‘no.’

I say ‘yes’.....
_____________________

You have every right to this belief, Colo. Please understand, however, that your belief defies practically everything the Founders of our nation intended when they gave us our Constitutional Republic.

That we were a “moral and religious people” according to John Adams did not mean that the man in the White House was to be a Shepherd to us in a religious sense.

The Founders agreed with the Biblical idea set forth by Scottish clergyman Samuel Rutherford in his book “Lex Rex” that the “king” or leader of a people was subject to the Law, and that the Law was to be the “Higher Power” (Romans 13) of the Land. In our case, the Higher Power is the Constitution, NOT the President. What does EVERY Public Official swear an oath to defend?

To the extent that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34), our President SHOULD be a moral and upright person. In Romans 13 the government is said to be “minister to you for GOOD...” What does that mean? In the Roman Empire, how did THAT work out? How could Paul write that? Rome wasn’t a “minister” were they? In fact, the the extent that the Bible MANDATES the role of Human Government (Genesis 9, Romans 13), YES, they were.

But WE are our Government according to the Constitution. We have a vote. A say. Whom do we entrust with that vote?Would Mitt Romney be someone that would be a “minister for GOOD” in the sense of enforcing public laws, general right and wrong, punishing criminals — or how about being honest with us, carrying out the agenda the American People desire etc? THAT is why I oppose Mitt Romney. I don’t trust him. Still and yet, compared to Barack Obama, Mitt is head and shoulders ABOVE him on that score.

That still doesn’t make him a “righteous” man, but that’s NOT the standard Paul (nor Moses in Genesis 9) was shooting for in Human Government. We are not comparable to Israel in the Old Testament. Enough with the simplistic notions that “righteous” and “good” and “perfect” must all mean the same thing and that if we don’t get the EXACT candidate WE demand, we’ll quit and go home — or “write one in.” Beware — we do that much, and we won’t have a home to go to, or a nation to live in.