So the president allegedly called certain other countries a name that I will not repeat here, but it was rude, crude, and unattractive. In response, I tweeted this:
“In response to the president’s alleged rude comment about certain countries, I call upon Christian leaders everywhere to refrain from giving any theocratic admonitions.”
What did I mean by this?
Let assume for the sake of the discussion that president did say it. Let us also assume that Christians everywhere agree that this would not qualify as the discourse of a Christian gentlemen. What I want to know is why those Christians who are hostile to “theocracy” are upset when a civil leader does not talk like a Christian gentlemen.
Wait. Is he supposed to conform to Christian standards, or is he allowed to not conform to Christian standards? Do we want a upstanding Christian who applies his faith to everything? Or an uncouth pagan? The one thing that we can’t demand, despite the current and quite valiant attempts, is do both.
Either Christians, as Christians, have something to say about the moral behavior of civil leaders or we do not. If we do not, then the only consistent thing to do when situations like this arise would be to shut up.
If we do have something to say, then we will either say it with an open Bible in our hands, making us theocrats, or we will say it as indignant members of just another constituency. We will speak to him on the same terms—and with the same authority incidentally—as the NRA, or Big Tobacco, or the AFL-CIO. We will be just one more pressure group, something like Church Ladies United (CLU). If there are other options, I would be glad to hear of them.
So when you banish “theocratic” standards out the front door, some of us will run around to the back door in order to see you try to smuggle them all back in ten minutes later. And when you do, we won’t say much, or even try to stop you. I’ll just smile and wave.