It’s one thing to, as I mentioned the other day, take into account a candidate’s religion. It’s entirely another to simply say, as an evangelical pastor in Iowa just did while explaining an attack he made on Senator Brownback, “Protestants should vote for Protestants.” But if we evangelicals set the precedent in this election that that’s the way we should do things–shooting ourselves in the foot–we can look forward to more ugliness just like this. We can also look forward to more bad governance, because what church you go to has little or nothing to do with what you believe politically and how you put it into action. And I say that as someone who, just like Rev. Rude, left the Roman Catholic church before becoming a Christian.
UPDATE: A reader writes in regarding that last sentence:
Doesn’t this seem to imply that Roman Catholics are not Christian? I of course know you don’t believe that, but that sentance DOES appear to imply that. And in a post condemning “protestants should vote for protestants,” which I am perfectly on board with you on.
Ugh. See what this type of ugliness brings? Responses that are themselves unintentionally ugly. What I meant by my statement was that when I was a Roman Catholic–I was confirmed and the whole bit–I was not a Christian. I do think one can be both, but I am sure I was not–and I was only talking about myself, not trying to pontificate on what church(es) one must join in order to be saved. (Obviously, no one is saved by joining a particular church, not even mine.) I apologize for the lack of clarity on this sensitive subject.
UPDATE II: Reader Brian writes:
you’re digging yourself into a deeper hole – the only one who decides who is Christian is Christ.
Hole or no hole, couldn’t have said it better myself.