Ravi Zacharias was apparently asked his thoughts on a Romney presidency:
What we want is a politician who will understand the basic Judeo-Christian world view, and on the basis of that the moral laws of this nation are framed, and then run this country with the excellence of that which is recognized in a pluralistic society: the freedom to believe or to disbelieve, and the moral framework with which this was conducted: the sanctity of every individual life.
If we are looking for a minister to run this country just look back and see what havoc sometimes has happened when the church got aligned totally with the state. That’s not what we want. We want political leadership that is wise, political leadership that frames itself on the moral framework of God and recognizing that you cannot dictate political ideaology to all of humanity. That’s why Jesus refused to run for office, that was not what his mission was about. His mission was to change hearts.
Also of note is a commenter:
however, modern day mormonism culturally speaking is more inline with the judeo-christian framework (even very much inline with it) than i have seen from the recent southern baptists who have been in office – and i am a southern baptist.
Taken together, this is quite a narrative. Zacharias is arguing that what’s important is not a candidate’s theology–it is whether he subscribes to Judeo-Christian values. That is the very same point EFM has been making. It is pointless to debate the fine points of Governor Romney’s theology–and to, as so many do, make guesses as to what his eternal trajectory is. The point is his values–those are what a politician, as opposed to a preacher, needs. And there can be no question about those; they are evident from his life and record.
The commenter adds another interesting dimension. Far too many people observing the 2008 presidential race seem to be obsessed with having a candidate who belongs to the right denomination–basically, a mainline or evangelical Protestant one. But how well has that approach worked so far? Don’t forget who the main Southern Baptists in presidential politics have been over the past 30 years: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards. Looking at that list, it’s even clearer–values, not church membership, are what matter in picking a president.
And that’s not, of course, to say, that one should not seek doctrinal correctness and membership in the best possible church. Those things are terribly important. But they shouldn’t be how we choose a president.
Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt