However, that phrase, “birth control coverage” is a bit of an oversimplified way to describe the true situation here. What the Obama administration is really attempting to mandate is not simply universal coverage for birth control, but free universal coverage for birth control- with no co-pay, so that a woman would not have to pay any money out of pocket for her birth control medication.

In all of the media coverage and partisan bickering over this issue, I believe we have lost the real sticking point here- and that is this idea that birth control should be co-pay free for everyone.

This all began in August of 2011, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (often referred to simply as “HHS”) announced new guidelines under the Affordable Care Act that added to the preventive services provided by the Act—in particular, expanding coverage for women’s preventive services. Some examples of these services include well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, and testing for HPV, HIV and other sexually-transmitted infections. (More information on this can be found here: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/08/20110801b.html).

Buried in this list of services that truly prevent or detect serious diseases, we find the following listed: “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling”. Contraception methods? What do those prevent? What disease occurs from not using contraception?

The answer is clear: pregnancy. The subtle message here is that pregnancy is some sort of disease- some sort of unnatural, unwanted health issue that plagues women who do not have adequate access to contraception.

But is this really the right way to look at this issue? Unless a woman has a serious medical condition and has been prescribed birth control for it (a situation that certainly does occur and should not be ignored), the main reason a woman would take this medication is so that she can have unprotected sex and not get pregnant. That is not a life-or-death issue by any stretch of the imagination.  In fact, it’s not even something that affects one’s life moment-by-moment. Simply put, it is only an issue for a woman who is having unprotected sex.

People have to pay co-pays for all kind of medications that are truly necessary—psychotropic medications for serious mental illnesses, insulin for diabetes, anti-inflammatories for severe arthritis—the list goes on. Why does birth control get this special treatment?

When it was introduced in the 1960s, the birth control pill completely altered society’s view of sex because, for the first time in human history, it was possible to separate the act of sex and the reality of making a baby. But the truth of the matter is, sex still does make babies. We can try to stop it, but I think we need to be honest about this part of the issue. Excluding rape, sex is voluntary, and when two consenting adults choose to engage in it, they should be aware of the possibility of pregnancy. We need to be very careful about attempting to completely separate birth control from sex and sex from babies.

Also, for the vast majority of women, pregnancy is not some sort of serious disease that has a permanent negative effect on her health. Millions of women throughout history have had babies and lived through it (in fact, many even ended up enjoying being mothers!). Having a baby will certainly significantly alter your life, but ultimately it is a risk you take if you choose to be sexually active. It seems to me that we need to take some time to reevaluate some of our attitudes about birth control, sex, pregnancy, and responsibility.

So the true argument here is not whether Catholic hospitals should have to provide coverage for birth control. It is whether a woman should be able to have as much unprotected sex as she wants without ever really having to concern herself with the possibility of pregnancy—not even so much as to have to open her wallet to get it.

Economists have presented dozens of ideas on the best way to stimulate economic growth in these developing countries. Some say the solution lies in fully embracing international trade. Others say the answer is to emphasize manufacturing instead of agriculture. Still others say the real problem is the developing world’s dependence on the developed world, and all we need to do is break that dependence. Dozens of other models of economic development exist, but most economists agree: there is no perfect process for development. Now, keep all of this in the back of your mind, and let’s switch gears.

The O-Ring Theory

In the 1970s and 80s, the United States was at the apogee of its space exploration program, achieving unprecedented success. However, in 1986, the unthinkable happened. 73 seconds into launch, the space shuttle Challenger literally disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, killing everyone aboard. And what was the cause of the disaster? It turns out that a small cylinder disc, an O-ring, failed to seal one of the rockets, causing the whole shuttle to fail. This tragedy strikingly illustrates how even the most insignificant part can be crucial to a successful launch.

A few years later, the Challenger disaster yielded an unlikely result. An economist by the name of Michael Kremer took the tragedy as a metaphor for any type of successful launch—most specifically the launch of economic development. He argued that just as the seemingly insignificant O-ring played a critical part in the success or failure of the shuttle launch, so too, many equally insignificant players in an economy can determine the ability of a country to economically develop. For economic develop to occur, every part must function properly. It doesn’t happen by chance; it’s the result of well-timed, concerted effort.

The Undervalued Resource

Kremer’s O-Ring Theory of economic development sparked a correlation in my mind: what about the role of women in economic development? Women represent very nearly half of the world’s population, and consequently half of potential labor resources. Yet when you compare women to men in the developing world, you find that women are significantly more underemployed, undereducated, and undervalued than men. Women are so undervalued in many parts of the world that potential parents practice gender selection by aborting baby girls. In China, given their decades-long one-child policy, the practice has yielded a gender ratio of up to 150 men to 100 women. In most developing countries, the role of women is constrained to that of child-bearer—women will routinely have up to 10 children, not because they desire to be a stay-at-home mom (as we see quite successfully done here in the United States), but because they want to create their own labor force. The women’s ability to thrive is related to how many children they can produce.

I find this quite tragic. Studies show that women are an invaluable resource in the workplace. According to an article in Fast Company, women are more likely have a balanced leadership style, better communication skills, and better innovation by emphasizing collaboration.

And in the developing world, the value of women is even more significant. In her game-changing book, Half the Sky, Sheryl WuDunn builds a strong case that an important future indicator of a developing economy is the way it treats their women. Women represent half of the nation’s brainpower, half of their ability to have a productive and creative labor force. The best way to fight poverty, she says, is to mobilize women. And what’s more, women are more nurturing, meaning they’re more likely to educate and advance their children.

Conclusion? Women Could Change the Developing World

As I mentioned before, economists agree that there’s no perfect solution to solve poverty and promote economic development. But what if Kremer is right: what if economic development requires the mobilization and functioning of every part of the economy? What if women are the O-Ring—in this case, a tremendous, yet largely ignored resource? This is just a brief conversation of an incredibly complex topic, just the tip of the ice berg. In closing, I strongly believe that we as Christians must pro-actively pursue a role for women in the modern world so that they too may contribute the talents and abilities that God has given them. Granted, this touches on a different topic (namely, your theological views on gender roles), but for now I’m content to suggest that women could change the game for the developing world.  What do you think?

First of all, recent trends show that abortion is growing more and more unpopular with the general public.  However, my own anecdotal opinion is that Planned Parenthood still enjoys relatively strong support in the general public.  This seeming contradiction is likely not because the populace supports the abortive efforts of Planned Parenthood, but because Planned Parenthood has done a good job of selling themselves as the defender of women’s rights.  As long as people think of Planned Parenthood as “being there” for women in need, they will continue to haul in cash from the government, private foundations and individual donors.

Two things need to be done in order to end Planned Parenthood’s monopoly as the “protector of women’s rights.”  The first is to continue to point out (as so many have done) the detrimental effects abortion has on women’s health.  The physical, emotional and psychological risks of abortion make it an unwelcome ally in the sphere of women’s health.  But more importantly, we must continue to herald the amazing work done by pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.  There are over 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers in the United States, and together they form an intricite network of care, support, and resources for women contemplating abortion.  Their efforts continue to make a fool out of any who would say the pro-life community only cares about children before they are born.

But if the pro-life cause is going to continue to advance, and if Planned Parenthood is ever to be defunded, we must continue to support crisis pregnancy centers in any way we can.  In order for their work to continue they require robust financial support and an army of volunteers.  If you are not already connected with a local pregnancy center  let me encourage you to do so (you can find one in your area by clicking here).  Your donations, both fiscal and temporal, show the world the loving arms of our Savior.  And by reaching out to a poor mother with a crisis pregnancy we are caring for the “least of these” in our society.  The funding of Planned Parenthood is more than just a hot political topic, it is a matter of life or death.

The year is now 2012. Save for the colors of the bumper stickers, how much has changed? As the Republican primaries edge towards their climax, how much has the rhetoric centered on the abilities and character of a proposed candidate versus his or her likelihood at successfully challenging President Obama? Sometimes, a candidate’s electability is not even a factor, such as the rather ridiculous assertion one acquaintance made online that she would vote for convicted serial killer, rapist, and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer before President Obama (also: she would never vote for Mitt Romney – unless he was running against the President). Since when did the person who would be President not have to be good, but merely “good enough”?

Admittedly, in the light of hotel break-ins and stained dresses, the honor once given to the Office of the President has waned in recent decades. Whether it was over a ballot-counting scandal or a “missing” birth-certificate, our last two Presidents have entered office with their eligibility to do so under heavy suspicion. Over the course of the last fifty years, the very image of the Executive Branch has been covered with mud, so it should be no surprise that little effort is now exerted to find the right person to sit in that chair – we simply want to keep the wrong one out of it.

And yet we cannot be defined solely by what we are against. This is a matter of integrity, not only to our country and the principles of representative democracy, but most especially to ourselves as honest, truth-seeking Christians. The corrupt game of politics is decried so frequently it has become cliché, yet we are more than willing to jump in and play dirty – to vote not for the best, but simply for the better – in the interest of a perceived higher cause. Principled truth cannot be exchanged for prudence, no matter the situation.

And to worry about the devastation that one bad President can wreak is to forget that the Founding Fathers had the exact same fear. From its foundation, this country was built on a political process that minimizes the possibility of one person ever undermining the liberties that define the United States. We have no King Obama; the Constitution and its clear Separation of Powers assures us of that. To remember this truth is to realize the freedom (and need) to put a rational, principled leader in the Oval Office – not simply someone who can play the game of election season.

In short, find the person you feel proud to call “my president” and throw your ballot in his or her direction with complete confidence that, if nothing else, you will be voting your conscience. But remember that, when all is said and done, “your” President is largely immaterial – only The President, whoever that ends up being, matters and that person should garner all of the respect that the office carries. With any luck, he or she will represent you in a manner you agree with and, maybe, will be proud to see.

But if the primary reason you cast your vote for a particular candidate has more to do with whom you don’t agree with rather than whom you do, then you should think twice about whom you may find representing you. He won’t be “your President” either.

The fetus is simply a clump of tissue, not a person.  On the internet, this is often followed up with snide remarks about how it’s the moral equivalent to cutting hair or clipping toenails- and Christians are hypocrites for not condemning these practices as well.  This idea is usually based on ideas about the fetus’ viability outside the womb- since it fully relies on its mother for life, it is more like a tumor than a child.  Christopher Hitchens, the late writer/atheist, confronts this idea with his usual eloquence:

“As the evidence about early ‘viability’ mounted, and as advances in medicine made it ever easier for even a distressingly premature fetus to survive outside its mother, the argument showed a tendency to shift. Suddenly, we were talking trimesters. And there was no longer much dispute about whether the unborn subject was alive. It certainly couldn’t be dead, since the whole battle consisted in how or whether to stop its growing and developing (not metastasizing). Now and then there would be a tussle over whether it was a fully ‘human’ life, but this was casuistry. What other species of life could it be? … The original embryonic ‘blastocyst’ may be a clump of 64 to 200 cells that is only five days old. But all of us began our important careers in that form, and every needful encoding for life is already present in the apparently inchoate. We are the first generation to have to confront this as a certain knowledge.” (Vanity Fair, February 2003)

 (Full disclosure: Hitchens arrives at a different conclusion, based on this knowledge, than I do.)  Human development is continuous.  Arguments based on ability to reason, feel pain, and create memories would allow infanticide for the first few months- and only the more courageous of the pro-choice crowd admit to this.

Regardless of its humanity, the negative effects of the pregnancy and birth outweigh the negative of aborting it.  This withers under the mildest scrutiny.  How can the worth of a life be measured before it is lived?  One friend of mine once argued that since many of these abortions take place in poor areas, the abortions are saving children from lives of poverty, drugs, and bad parenting.  Has no life of worth ever come from dark surroundings?  Should it be permissible to kill a three-month-old child, if his/her parents find themselves on the streets?  What about a two-year-old?

I understand that in many cases, a pregnancy can lead to pain (physical and emotional), hardship, ridicule, and danger.  I feel sympathy for the women who obtain abortions in these situations, and I could never imagine the pain and fear in a woman pregnant as a result of rape or incest.  But only about 1% of abortions take place on women in these situations, and only another 6% have health problems threatening the life of the mother.  So 93% of abortions are purely elective, chosen for convenience.  And in every case, whatever the reason, a human being dies.

The idea that abortion should be used to reduce overpopulation is a similar idea.  Only the staunchest pro-abortion thinkers have the moral fortitude to carry this train of thought to its logical extreme: that some people (me) are worth more than others (the third world).  That life in poverty is not worth living at all.  That ‘quality of life’ is some sort of quantitative standard, and is based only on the physical and the temporary.  Along this line of thought, noted eugenicist (and racist) Margaret Sanger promoted birth control, abortion, and forced sterilization of the ‘unfit.’

Ignoring facts, ignoring discussion.  In my brief Google research, I found that most pro-choice websites apply this tactic.  The only mention made of pro-life arguments is some studies which purported to show connections between abortion and higher incidences of breast cancer and mental illness.  I have no position on the accuracy of these studies (although the NARAL website simply states they are false, without linking to or referencing any studies), but the fact that they are listed as the only science-based objections to abortion is incredibly dishonest.  The only mention of the idea that personhood begins at conception is in the context of legislative efforts (personhood amendments) that threaten abortion rights.

A current issue which perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy, ignorance, and willful blindness of the pro-abortion movement is the missing girls around the world, especially in South-East Asia.  ‘Missing girls’ refers to the dearth of baby girls in societies that see them as a burden.  A New York Times article last May reported that as many as 12 million girls have been aborted in India in the last thirty years, giving them the lowest ratio of girls to boys since independence.  The response from much of the pro-abortion world has been to promote laws to discourage sex-selective abortions, which would be laughable if its implications were not so heartbreaking.  What argument currently used to justify ending pregnancies could not also justify targeting baby girls?  If the pro-abortion community protests too loudly about this ongoing tragedy, we might begin to wonder they believe their own rhetoric about the value of a fetus.

In a world where abortion is not only legal, but celebrated, life cannot be protected because life is given no objective value beyond what it can do for me.  In this culture, individuals see others as means to various ends, not as ends in themselves.  And the ‘missing girls’ are only one consequence.  And it remains vital for me to vote for leaders who recognize the worth of life.

This year’s State of the Union Address was tempered by the reality that the vast majority of Americans feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction.  Additionally, the fact that the campaign season is already underway made for a more charged and contentious atmosphere.  However, when taken as a whole, this year’s edition was surprisingly bland.  There was the usual laundry list of promises.  Most of which sound popular but likely won’t come into being.  And there was the typical partisan jabs and finger-pointing that have become so commonplace on Capitol Hill.  But there weren’t many highly memorable moments in the address.  All in all, it is safe to say that the state of our union is similar to what it has been for quite some time now.

So, how should a Christian view this speech?  Putting aside our own personal biases for just a moment, I think this occasion gives us an opportunity to reflect on a few principles of Christian civic engagement.  Many of us approach politics like a presidential state of the union address.  We have a litany of things that we would like to see accomplished, and we are quite confident that if they were to be passed our nation would be a much better place to live.  But the hard reality is that most of the items on our political to-do list will never get accomplished.  And, even if they were to be passed, it would not transform our country into the idyllic paradise that we envision.  This is because we still live in a sin ravaged world.  One in which all of creation rebels against the Creator.  No amount of laws or policies will change the state of the human heart.

What then are we to do?  Retreat into our churches, waiting for the Second Coming?  Hardly.  We are to keep fighting for the policies we believe would be better for our country.  Keep advocating for the rights of the oppressed and downtrodden.  Keep demonstrating to this world what biblical justice looks like.  Our motivation, however, is not to tidy up our little corner of the world so we can live more comfortably.  Rather it should be to show a broken and hurting world what the Savior looks like.  Passing just laws will not justify the sinner, but the manner in which we advocate for such laws can show the world a glimpse of His love and perfection.  Ultimately we will never fix all the problems in our world, but by taking on some of them we will be the tools God uses to bring more people into a saving relationship with His Son.

Twitter logged 3.9 million tweets about SOPA in one day, Google collected more than 7 million signatures in two days, and over 500,000 people “liked” Mark Zuckerberg’s status on the subject. The result of all that digital noise? Besides thousands of people realizing that the frat boy from college actually cares about policy, at least half a dozen congressmen changed their minds on the issue. That’s impressive impact. But a key question remains: What difference does all this make to a Christian?

Some may say that certain issues are neutral, that Christians and the Church don’t need to take sides. However, if the Bible is the manual for everyday life, there has to be some kind of application to an issue that has millions talking about it. Plus, thoughtful responses from believers from a biblical worldview can go a long way when talking with others trying to grasp the issue.

Proponents of the bills say that they help to nip piracy in the bud. In actuality, they hardly impact piracy (merely putting a band-aid over an unsightly issue), and they use a sledge hammer rather than a strategic and careful tweak. Basically, the government could cut off your Internet access to entire sites simply because someone pastes a link to an allegedly fake product in the comments section.

SOPA and PIPA are supposedly intended to support individual creativity and protect one’s unique ability to find a need and meet it with a product, yet they would do so by dramatically limiting access to the single greatest source of information and creativity in existence. The bills are about as counter-productive as a guy saying to his friend, “Let me take that speck of dust out of your eye first, then I’ll have the experience to take out the plank in my own eye.” As the Bible clearly illustrates, that logic is dramatically flawed (Luke 6, Matt. 7).

What’s more, infractions under the bills are treated as guilty until proven innocent. If someone’s site receives a complaint, under the proposed laws, it will be shutdown without an opportunity to defend his or her case. The fact is, we already have a legal system that addresses copyright. These laws just provide blunter instruments to restrict behavior more rapidly. Under the U.S. Constitution, that’s a violation of due process, which is a way not only to limit false claims (which experts say would abound under both proposed laws) but also to respect an individual’s ability to present his or her perspective on an even field. Under the Bible, it’s a violation of God’s command to not show favoritism (Lev. 19:15), to present just cause (Deut. 19:15), and to prevent special and/or biased interests from prevailing (Num. 35:30).

It is hard to imagine big companies not filing complaints against their competitors under false pretence, in essence stomping out start ups, entrepreneurs, problem solvers, or small businesses – i.e. the little guys. These bills would silence millions of voices at the will of the established and connected. This is decried throughout the Bible, while we are admonished to be wary of those who come with lofty ideas but who may be motivated by ulterior motives (Mat. 7:15). If anything, the weak and unconnected are to be given greater latitude and benefit of the doubt.

There is, of course, a biblical framework for encouraging honest work and holding cheaters accountable (1 Thes. 5:12-16). But this framework includes the application of grace and due process (Jam. 3:17). This prevents hasty decisions based on one-sided accusations.

The issue isn’t that protecting against piracy is a bad thing. The problem is that SOPA and PIPA create a new protocol that leapfrogs due process (supported by both the U.S. Constitution and the Bible) and risks harming more than it helps.

Certainly, freedom necessarily ought to function in tandem with responsibility, but when any group decides to apply their values over another’s freedom, the whole system is corrupted. Christians are prone to flatly apply biblical standards to others’ lives rather than allow them to come to the truth on their own, but that usually has negative repercussions that don’t help the unbelievers come closer to salvation. Perhaps this is why Jesus asked questions of the woman caught in adultery rather than condemn her (John 8), why God gave Adam choice in the garden, and why Peter gave Ananias and Sapphira the opportunity to come clean (Acts 5).

Society might not function as it would if the Bible were the universal standard. But then again, this world is only temporary and is the platform to reach out to others, not to constrict them against their will. It’s clear that Jesus understood this. Maybe we ought to do the same when it comes to politics.

Before his victory, Tim Tebow’s name was everywhere; but since his spectacular feat on Sunday, his popularity has reached a new zenith. From setting records on the football field with more than 300 passing yards against the Steelers Defense (incidentally the best defense in the NFL) to records on the internet with more than 9,000 twitter updates a second following the game, Tebow is unstoppable.

His undeniable skills on the football field are unmatched, except perhaps by his undeniable faith in God. Every touchdown is followed by his trademark “Tebow” in the end zone, as he kneels in thanksgiving to God. Every interview includes a profession of faith or a reference to the Bible. And every Christian football fan heralds Tebow as an incredible example of what it means to follow Christ. Finally: we have an outspoken believer at the forefront of pop culture.

Everywhere around the country, Christians are rallying behind “Tebow Time.” It doesn’t have that much to do with the Broncos—we’re just glad Tebow makes us proud of our faith. Every Christian is quick to defend Tebow (especially when we see John Elway’s sullen expression off-field). Even my company, a non-profit Christian ministry, has altered HR dress code policies to allow us to sport Tebow jerseys in the office. We need to stand behind our brother, right?

And I’ll be the first to admit that I’m 100% behind Tebow. What’s not to love? Unfathomable comebacks; outspoken, almost rebellious, belief in God; and the surging enthusiasm of thousands of fans. And despite all the glory, it appears that Tebow is still a humble guy, just doing his job for the glory of God.

However, I’ll also confess that my fellow Christians make me a little nervous with their Tebow fanaticism. Something about it just doesn’t feel right to me (and judging by some of Tebow’s comments on the same topic, I’d say the discomfort is mutual). My basic concern is that we’ve elevated him to such a high level. It’s as if we finally found someone that we can hold up to the secular world and say, “See! We’re cool, too.” But the thing is, I don’t think God finds Tebow any more spectacular than many other Christians who surround us in this world. Yes, Tebow has been incredibly public with his faith; but to me, he’s just being obedient in the opportunities that God has given him—just like dozens of other courageous men and women I know who surround me. The point is that God gives all of his children certain opportunities to serve him. It’s up to you to steward those opportunities as best you can, whether that’s on the football field or in your company’s call center.

Come Saturday, I’ll still be cheering for Tebow as he takes on New England. I’m proud of what he’s doing, and I think you should be to. But I’ll also remind myself that my other less glamorous brothers and sisters are doing no less for the Kingdom of God.

Income: $21,700
Expenses: $38,200
New Debt: $16,500
Outstanding Debt: $142,710
Budget Cuts: $385

These numbers reflect the federal budget for 2011, where the government brought in 2.17 trillion dollars, only to spend 3.82 trillion, bringing the total national debt to 14.27 trillion.  Suddenly the recent budget cuts of 38 billion dollars don’t seem that impressive.

Practically the entire country recognizes that something needs to be done about our nation’s financial state.  And obviously it is the difference of opinion about what exactly needs to be done that is causing all the controversy on Capitol Hill.  But a good step for all of us in the cheap seats would be beginning to understand what the numbers we are talking about actually mean.  For that reason, I think this one bit of government funded junk mail may actually have been worth the price.

Question: Can a Christian Vote for a Mormon? Road 1: Focus on Humanity and Track Record Road 2: Personal Alignment More Important than Affiliation Road 3: Discriminate Now, Compromise Later Road 4: Vote for the Least Flawed Candidate

Every Candidate Is Fallen - Dr. Fred Smith

Christians are wondering, “Should we vote for a Mormon for President? Are we violating our faith commitments if we do so? Would a Mormon in the White House be bad for the country?”

Let’s begin with the Bible to answer these questions: Genesis says all are created in God’s image. We all share a common humanity, and a Mormon is likely to face the challenges of service in the White House in ways similar to most people.

Second, we all share a common fallenness. No one is perfect, and we’ve never had a perfect president. Like others, Mormons are not perfect. We always vote for less than perfect candidates and Mormons are no exception. Christians should be comfortable with the theoretical consideration of voting for a potential Mormon candidate on basic biblical grounds.

The specific question is whether to vote for Mitt Romney, if he is nominated. Will he be the “Mormon President” not the “US President”? Two factors are important here: First, does Romney “grind an ax” for Mormonism; is it central to him? It does not appear so. He is in the tradition of Presidents who speak generally about morals and God but who are secularists day to day. Such people have been effective presidents throughout history.

Second, might Romney appoint Mormons only to his administration, narrowing the scope of his administration, which should reflect the diversity of the whole nation. One clue to this might be those he picked to serve with him on the Olympics and in his Massachusetts administration. If these were mostly Mormons, there is cause for concern, but not otherwise. If Christians can satisfy themselves on these two matters they should have no qualms about voting for him.

- Dr. Smith is an Associate Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Liberty Baptist
Theological Seminary

Vote For The Candidate Whose Platform Aligns With Mine - Tim Brown

I don’t see that voting for a Mormon presents a theological or philosophical problem for the evangelical Christian given political reality. Here’s why: I would rather have a Mormon working for me than a Christian working against me.

The question isn’t, “Is Mormonism heresy?” That question is definitively settled for the evangelical Christian. The question is, “Can a Mormon be President?” More exactly, “Can a theological heretic be a competent President?” Well, would you support a Mormon Republican who sought to protect life in the womb or a Christian Democrat who was indifferent to it? Would you support a Mormon Republican who calls for a strong defense or a Christian Democrat wanting to scale down our military to a position you would consider weakness? Would you support a Mormon Republican who championed 2nd Amendment rights or a Christian Democrat who wanted to pry your gun from your cold dead hands?

These aren’t theoretical questions. (In politics, issues of trinitarianism take a back seat to public justice). I vote for the person whose platform most closely aligns with mine. In the world of political reality, this may turn out to be a Mormon.

- Tim is a pastor at Calvary Chapel in Fremont, CA and blogs regularly at CrossConnection.net

Voting For A Mormon Legitimizes A Cult - Kolburt Schultz

The perplexing question of how Christians should handle a Mormon presidential candidate is influenced by a number of factors. The first thing to consider is whether it is the general election or a primary election. In the primaries we have a lot more room to be discriminating of the candidates. Once the general election comes around, however, the stakes are higher and more compromises need to be made. With the question at hand, however, it should be stated clearly that it is not a sin to vote for a Mormon. However, for one important reason I think that it is not advisable for followers of Christ to give their support to a Mormon candidate, particularly in the primary.

Mormonism is a cult by most recognized definitions of the term. They are also experiencing rapid growth worldwide and would gain more credibility were a Mormon to be elected president. It can be difficult for non-Christians to understand the differences between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism, and for such a high profile public office to be held by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I fear many will simply assume that there is no distinction between the true Church and this cult.

In the end, voting for a Mormon (unlike voting for a Buddhist, Muslim, or other non-Christian) presents the possibility of Christianity being marred by a heretical sect.

- Kolburt is the co-founder of FaithfulPolitics.org and a regular contributor.

Vote For The Least Flawed Candidate - Lynn Baber

Every election requires a voter to choose between a flawed candidate and a worse candidate. If the choice in 2012 is a Mormon vs. Mr. Obama, Christian voters must choose from one of these options:

1. Vote FOR Mr. Obama whose bias is completely toward humanism and against the God of the Bible.
2. Vote FOR a Mormon who upholds most Christian ideals.
3. ABSTAIN from voting in protest, which simply advances Mr. Obama.

The gospel message is one of personal choice and accountability. How could any Christian rationalize his or her decision to not participate in the political process? What will happen to the man or woman who decides to “abstain” on the issue of relationship with Christ?

- Lynn is the co-founder of Amazing Grays Ministry and blogs regularly at LynnBaber.net

*Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only.  The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the organization or of FaithfulPolitics.org.