Of course, for too long successive governments have enacted and tolerated laws that are evil (such as the legalizing of abortion). What’s new in our day is that laws are being proposed and enacted that attempt to force Christians to give up core Christian doctrines (e.g. Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation) and ethics (e.g. biblical definition of marriage).

When the Government does this, it is crossing the line from being God’s servant to being God itself. When that happens, what should we do? Thankfully we have a biblical example of similar governmental usurpation of God’s place in Acts 4, when the Apostles were commanded to stop preaching Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation.

The apostle’s response was not a simple “No way!” Rather, it was a respectful and biblically reasoned “No!”

“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20).

Their “No” was framed as a question, appealed to the leaders’ knowledge of God, and explained the preaching of Jesus as something that they couldn’t help doing. But it was still a “No!”

When forbidden to preach Christ-alone-ism and commanded to preach many-ways-to-God-ism (or pluralism) we respectfully say, “No! And here are our reasons.”

1. Pluralism disobeys God
What’s the first and greatest commandment? “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deut. 6:4-5).

It was first given to Israel as they prepared to enter a multi-faith environment, Jesus reiterated it in the midst of a similar multi-religious culture, and it remains the first and greatest commandment to this day. Everybody must have the God of the Bible as their only God and everybody should love that one God with everything they have.

Pluralism disobeys God because it says you can have any, many, or no gods and you certainly don’t need to love Him with everything you’ve got.

2. Pluralism diminishes Scripture
Pluralism says that there are many paths to the top of the mountain. There’s a Jewish path, a Hindu path, a Buddhist path, etc., and we all meet up at the top in God. This diminishes, undermines, and rejects the Bible’s message that there is one path up the mountain and it’s Jesus Christ (1 John 5:12; John 14:6; 3:36).

Political leaders can pass as many laws as they like but they can’t change the truth of Scripture by legislation or by majority vote. They may decide that gravity doesn’t exist, vote against it, pass laws against it, and prosecute its supporters.  But if any one of them chooses to jump out the window they’ll discover that no matter how public, vehement, and repeated their assertions, gravity is still very true.

3. Pluralism defies logic
The future heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, is meant to take an oath to be the defender of the protestant faith. However, he’s decided that he wants to be simply “the defender of faith.” What kind of faith? Any kind of faith? There are people who still believe it’s OK to sacrifice children. Are we going to defend their faith?

Even secular journalists see the folly of this. Janet Daley of the Daily Telegraph wrote: “You cannot defend all faiths – at least not at the same time – because each has beliefs that render those of the others false.”

It’s not faith that saves but what or who faith is in. Many Muslims’ faith is stronger than many Christians’ faith. But no matter how sincere, zealous, vigorous, and confident faith is, if it’s in a falsehood it will not save. Thankfully, the weakest faith in Christ will certainly save.

4. Pluralism damages evangelism
What motivated the New Testament apostles and evangelical missionaries through the centuries? It was the belief that Christ is the only way to be saved.

We’re not funding missionaries and doing evangelism because we think it’s a good idea, it’s a nice hobby, or it makes us feel good. It’s because, to put it bluntly, without Christ, you’re damned. And if we don’t believe that, then let’s stop all evangelism and outreach, and let’s call all the missionaries back and stop wasting our money.

But, “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). There is no other name in India, in Pakistan, in Iraq, or in Antartica. What about Afghanistan? No other name. What about the USA? No other name. No second name, no third name, no fourth name. No other name.

5. Pluralism despises our neighbor
We’re being told today that preaching the Gospel is hatred. No, to be silent is hatred. To say nothing about Jesus to the perishing is hatred. To see someone in error and hold back the truth is hatred.

The second great commandment is “to love our neighbor as ourselves.” That’s why to every pious Hindu, orthodox Jew, secular atheist, sincere agnostic, radical Muslim, and nominal Christian, we tell you with a heart overflowing with love, Jesus is the only Name under heaven by which you can be saved.

6. Pluralism denies Christ
The Apostle Peter had denied Christ in front of a little servant girl a few weeks before because he was so afraid of the religious and political leaders. Now he faces these same leaders and is again charged with knowing and preaching Christ.

What will he do? Is he going to deny Jesus again? Will he just use the general name “God,” and avoid offending his accusers?

No. From his “I don’t know the man” of a few weeks previously, he now preaches the Name above every name. What a moment! The denier of Christ becomes a spirit-filled preacher of Christ to the crucifiers of Christ (vv. 8-12).

And notice it’s not enough to say, “He is a Savior,” or even “He is my Savior.” No, “He is the only Savior.” The Savior that excludes all others. “Neither is there salvation in any other.” There are no options, no alternatives, no substitutes, no fall backs, no back ups.

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The conservatism I believe in is often termed social conservatism and it can be summed up under six headings;

Firstly, I believe in the traditional Family and the Home as one of the principal symbols of social conservatism.

Social conservatives generally believe in the traditional view of the family as the basic building block of any stable society. While acknowledging that many families don’t always work out as planned, I believe that a solid, stable family is the best environment for children to be brought up. It is their first school where they are taught basic values. We are relational beings and the family is the place where we learn our social skills, our respect for authority and hopefully some good manners.

As any social worker will tell you, the attachments made in the first few weeks and months of a child’s life will affect their experience of relationships for the rest of their lives. For social conservatives the family is the most tried-and-trusted institution. It offers the kind of multidimensional care that the feed-and-forget state cannot. To quote John Hayes MP;

…government can undertake some functions undertaken by a family or a community. The state, or market, can replace the breadwinning role of a father, but it can’t tuck a child into bed at night….

Secondly, I believe conservative Values

It is hard to imagine a Conservative leader today standing up at the Party Conference and saying that the first of the Party’s main objectives is ‘To uphold the Christian religion and resist all attacks upon it’ as Winston Churchill did in 1946. Politics needs a moral context.

Beliefs such as capitalism without a moral context simply descend into the celebration of self interest.  Policies need to follow principles not focus groups and polls. Values such as justice, equality, decency, respect, compassion are not formed in a vacuum. When political leaders believe that they are the supreme power in a nation, and have no higher power to which they are accountable, it can lead to disastrous consequences.  There must be a divine standard to which we measure all our actions. As Lord Hugh Cecil has said:

Religion is the standard by which the plans of politicians must be judged, and a religious purpose must purify their aims and methods.  Emphasising this truth, Conservatism will be the creed neither of a superfluous faction nor of a selfish class.

Thirdly I believe in Realism, Pragmatism and a Limited Role for the State.

I reject the left wing idea that through social engineering and just the right amount of funding, a utopia is attainable. Stalinist Russia is surely all the evidence we need that a utopian society is a socialist fairy tail. To quote the Conservative researcher Michael Veitch:

For the Conservative, an appreciation of the fallen nature of mankind has led to an understanding of the appropriate view of the state.  Because people are flawed, it is futile for the state to seek to bend their wants and desires to its will – a common mistake of the Left through the ages.  Furthermore, because man is a flawed being, it follows that the state – a man made institution – is equally flawed.  History bears witness to the fact that it is therefore folly to place too much power into the hands of the government.

Conservatism is not controlled by an ideology like socialism. As conservatives we seek to pragmatically solve problems based on knowledge, realism, and tried and tested conservative values.

Fourthly, I believe in Responsibility

Many Conservatives talk about economic and social freedom, but freedom with no limits leads to chaos. Social conservatives believe in personal, community and corporate responsibility. The more people take responsibility the less the state needs to get involved. Responsibility cannot be legislated, it must be taught primarily through the family as children are brought up, and local communities taking responsibility for their more wayward members. Margaret Thatcher in her now famous quote on society can say it better that I can:

We’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. They’re casting their problems on society. And you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.

Fifthly, I believe in Compassion

Unlike the top down solutions of the left, conservatives understand that real compassion can only be communicated through people at a ‘grass roots’ level.

The conservative approach to compassion is distinctive. We understand that the institutions of civil society form the soundest basis for a caring society. School choice, zero tolerance of crime and a safety-net approach to welfare are other favoured hallmarks.  To quote John Hayes MP:

The state and the market are one dimensional – providing material care. They don’t provide the personal touch. Someone down on their luck doesn’t just need money dispensed from behind a plastic screen. He also needs encouragement, friendship and hope. He needs to know that someone is in his corner. He needs help to walk tall again.

Lastly, I believe in Tradition

Social conservatives do not look around for the latest political fad and do not collapse at the first challenge of political correctness. Our principles and beliefs are grounded in something stronger and deeper than passing fads. As Edward Leigh MP has said:

Tradition is accumulated wisdom. Established customs and practices have stood the test of time, and should be preserved for the benefit of present and future generations.

Conclusion

In closing, let me summarise social conservatism with this excellent quote from Russel Kirk in The Conservative Mind:

• “Conservatives generally believe that there exists a transcendent moral order, to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society.
• Conservatives uphold the principle of social continuity. They prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know.
• Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long and painful social experience, the results of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice.
• Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order can ever be created.”

1. How much does he want it?
It’s been worrying to see Romney so defensively weak while being pummeled by Obama’s negative ads about him and his business record. There comes a time when you have to stop smiling and start snarling. Is this just going to be another half-hearted McCain-type effort? When’s he going to put on the gloves, never mind take them off again? You can’t win this thing without wanting it more than your opponent. The Ryan pick shows that Romney wants it big, and is prepared to fight big for it; not an ugly Chris Christie slugfest, but an ideological fight about the fundamental principles and future direction of the country.

2. Why does he want it?
If he had picked Portman or some other boring grey suit, we could only conclude that he was playing safe, hoping to win by “not being Obama,” and then managing American decline in a more competent way than Obama. In other words, he wanted it more for his C.V. than for the country, more for himself than for the rest of us. The Ryan pick shows that Romney’s not in this just to get the Oval Office, but to get the country back on track.

3. What will he do with it?
This was the question that niggled most conservatives deep in their hearts. Is he just going to re-arrange the deck chairs in a nicer pattern, or is he going to repair, rebuild, and re-launch the ship? Is he going to kick the can down the road again, or is he going to change the game? Does he have the guts, the determination, the courage to do what so desperately needs to be done?

The Ryan pick demonstrates that Romney is not only in it to win it in 2012, but to win for future generations too. It offers a clear choice for America’s future – An entitlement society or a responsible society. And BTW, as Ryan’s budget demonstrates, “responsible” includes caring for the weak, the elderly, and the poor, but in a way that also secures a hopeful future for our young.

Bonus: And check Denny Burk’s analysis of Paul Ryan’s record on social issues for further encouragement. Time to add Paul and his family to our prayers. They’re about to be “Palined.”

I regret any comments I have ever made which may have cast any doubt on the personal faith of our president, Mr. Obama…I apologize to him and to any I have offended for not better articulating my reason for not supporting him in this election — for his faith has nothing to do with my consideration of him as a candidate.

This is the right decision and I admire Graham for doing this. While we are called to compare a person’s profession of faith with the fruits that are evident in their lives (Matt. 7:16-18), I believe that Franklin Graham’s original comments were wrong, and that for the following reasons:

• It’s one thing to bring your concerns about a person’s faith to that person in private, it’s another thing altogether to raise these concerns in front of millions on breakfast TV.
• While we can certainly question whether a person’s particular policies and practices are consistent with a Christian profession, it’s a huge step from that to proclaiming that a person is not a Christian.
• There have been previous Presidents whose lives have been contrary to their Christian claims, yet they have not been treated this way by Franklin Graham or his father. That incongruity is where the unfounded allegation of racism finds its energy.
• While the seemingly “Christ-less” testimony President Obama told Graham about how he came to faith is very worrying, it was told in private, and should not have been re-told in public.
• Graham’s criticisms of the President’s faith were not based on Scriptural marks, the fruits of faith,  but on the way he told his testimony.
• Graham not only refused to say if President Obama was a Christian, he ended up giving more credibility to the allegation that he is actually a Muslim.
• While saying that he was not in a position to say if anyone was not a Christian, he did just that with President Obama, and then pronounced that Rick Santorum definitely was a Christian.

Three lessons to be learned from this debacle:

1. Train: We have to admire Graham’s bravery for going into the lion’s den and contending for the Christian faith in the public square. But public spokesmen like Graham should also be constantly and thoroughly trained to deal with the tactics of an extremely hostile media. In this interview at least, Graham seemed to walk straight into their trap and, judging by his rambling and defensive remarks, was completely unprepared for the question.

2. Honor: In opposing some of the anti-Christian policies of President Obama, Christians must stand out from the rest of the opposition by continuing to give honor to whom honor is due (Rom. 13:7). And if we honor God in this way, we have the promise that He will also honor us (1 Sam. 2:30).

3. Pray: We should be much more prayerful for men like Franklin Graham, Al Mohler, James Dobson, etc., who have the opportunity and the courage to represent Christ in such a difficult arena. May God give them much wisdom and wise counselors to help them continue to bear witness faithfully and persuasively.

But we should also pray for President Obama and all who lead us that they would all be truly converted to Christ, or that they would follow Him far more consistently.

Here’s the original controversial interview.

Despite handing the Republicans an open goal with his despotic attempt to coerce religious institutions to pay for their employees’ birth control and abortions, the Republicans have contrived not only to miss the goal but also to shoot into their own net by getting mired in a debate about the rights and wrongs of contraception, instead of keeping that debate focused on freedom of religion and of conscience. And while scoring own goals, for good measure let’s throw the whole game away by questioning Obama’s theology, and even whether Obama is a Christian or a Muslim.

Rick Santorum has been the worst offender among the candidates. It’s just so foolish for a Presidential candidate to not only allow himself to get drawn so deeply into the contraception issue, but to deliberately keep it alive, and then to launch out on Obama’s “phony theology,” followed by unconvincing attempts to say he was only talking about his “green theology.” And to top it all off, Franklin Graham disgraces himself with his horribly unconvincing, defensive ramblings about the genuineness of Obama’s Christianity, climaxing with the “Son of Islam” nonsense – on breakfast TV!

This is not just miles “off message,” it’s inter-planetary. And it’s so small-minded in the face of such huge societal and economic problems. At this rate, President Obama can start writing his inaugural address.

Where, O where is the grand vision? And where is the candidate who can cast the vision with attractive, compelling, and persuasive words – without getting distracted by every gnat that buzzes in his ears.

That vision must have two simple parts – The Economy and Society. And it’s got to be ruthlessly focused, rousingly big, and relentlessly positive.

Economy
When the Republicans talk about the economy, all people actually hear is: “Cuts, cuts, cuts.” That’s so small, so expected, and so negative. It’s designed to appeal to the 50+1% who like to think that the cuts are going to fall on the other 49% or perhaps on the next generation.

Where is the Republican who can honestly and courageously articulate the benefits of proportionate shared sacrifice for huge long-term gain? Where is the Republican who can reach out to the poor (both “deserving” and “undeserving”), the “entitlement generation,” the takers, and persuade them that there’s a much better way for them and their families? Is there no one who can connect with them, motivate them, and unite them with the rest of society? Is no one even going to try?

Society
And, of course, the economic problems cannot be solved without addressing societal problems, especially that of family breakdown.

But when the Republicans speak about society, all people hear is “Wrong, wrong, wrong.” Gay marriage? Wrong! Abortion? Wrong! Single motherhood? Wrong!

These things are wrong, but angry condemning never helped anyone. We need a Republican who can paint a much bigger and much more positive vision of a renewed and revitalized society built on the basic building block of the family and respect for precious life. Holier-than-thou tones and denunciatory attitudes won’t cut it.

Again, is there no Republican who can compassionately reach out to the tens of millions of broken homes and broken lives with care, concern, and constructive efforts to at least slow down the rate of failing families and murdered babies. Is there no one who can inspire a new generation of young people to live lives of purity, commitment, and loyalty. Sounding like a whiny Pharisee won’t cut it here either.

The present range of candidates look terribly small, undisciplined, blinkered, and short-sighted. Maybe one of them could still grow into the desperately needed, big-vision leader who will be ruthlessly yet positively focused on the economy and society. But the time is very short.

And the opposition is very great. There’s a huge political class with an intense personal interest in growing the numbers of the dependent poor in order to maintain their own demoralizing and divisive power.

In the communist era maybe, but not today, right?

In Russia maybe, but not in the USA, right?

In the extreme left of the Democratic party maybe, but not among conservatives, right?

Think again, last week, in the USA, a highly respected conservative journalist revealed that politics is his god. Dr Charles Krauthammer (yes, I’m afraid so) used his Washington Post column as a call to worship with him:

For all the sublimity of art, physics, music, mathematics and other manifestations of human genius, everything depends on the mundane, frustrating, often debased vocation known as politics…Because if we don’t get politics right, everything else risks extinction…

We grow justly weary of our politics. But we must remember this: Politics — in all its grubby, grasping, corrupt, contemptible manifestations — is sovereign in human affairs. Everything ultimately rests upon it…

Fairly or not, politics is the driver of history. It will determine whether we will live long enough to be heard one day [he means heard by aliens – I’ll get to that!]

I find this so hard to believe, coming as it does from a man whose opinions I respect and whose character I’ve admired. “Everything depends on politics…politics is sovereign…politics is the driver of history…politics determines the length of our lives and of the earth’s existence.”

(By the way, if you substitute “Jesus Christ” for “politics” in these quotes, you come pretty close to an orthodox confession of faith. But that would never have got past the Washington Post censors, would it!)

I found it doubly hard to believe because it came in the same article that Krauthammer expressed the opinion that extra-terrestrial life exists and that it shall soon be discovered, even within the next few years!

At this point, my incredulity was so far off the scale that I double-checked to see if it was all written tongue in cheek. I wasn’t sure which claim was the most outlandish, that politics was God, or that ET was just around the corner. But I couldn’t find any evidence that Krauthammer had written with his tongue in his cheek or with a New Year’s dram in his mouth.

And people say believing in God is difficult! For all my interest in politics, I find it easier to believe that ET will phone us one day than that politics is our last best hope. If ever there was an opportune time to call everyone away from vain hopes of societal transformation via politics, it’s now. The problems are too huge, the people are too small, the proposed policies are too trivial.

While Christians should strongly support the political process and play an active role, we must do so with the base belief that neither the best personalities nor the best policies give us any hope of “saving” a nation. If we believe otherwise, we are dishonoring God by substituting an idol for Him, and risk  therefore forfeiting His all-too-necessary blessing. We are also doomed to despair.

We so desperately need politicians who recognize and confess the limitations of even the best politics and policitians, and who will say instead, “Everything depends on God…God is sovereign…God is the driver of history…God determines the length of our lives and of the earth’s existence…Therefore let’s seek His blessing by honoring Him in all we say and do.”

Alternatively, and more briefly: “In God we trust.”

And I include Romney in this “fail” too, because although it looks like he will eventually soon emerge as the nominee, his continued inability to capture the hearts of most Republicans, despite the “carnage” of fails around him, is a terrible reflection on his own candidacy.

Rick Perry: Think fast, speak clearly.
A leader must be able to communicate clearly and confidently, not just in set speeches, but in debates and interviews too. You can press the hot-buttons of pro-life and traditional marriage as often as you want, but it will never make up for an inability to think on your feet and articulate your thoughts under pressure.

Michelle Baachman: Be positive and happy.
People want leaders who are not just against things, but who also present a positive and hopeful message. Happy leaders are usually popular leaders.

Rick Santorum: Be a friend of tax-collectors and sinners
There’s a difference between being the moral-values candidate and being the holier-than-thou candidate, If you’re going to take the moral high ground, you must not make people feel as if you are looking down your nose at them.

John Huntsman: You can be superior without making people feel inferior
If Santorum sabotaged himself with an air of moral superiority, Huntsmen did himself in with an air of intellectual superiority. No one ever connected with the masses by projecting the image of a pin-stripped diplomat or of an intellectual snob.

Ron Paul: Distinguish between personal preferences and people’s needs
You can have lots of great ideas, but two or three loopy policies will close people’s ears to anything you say.  In a time of great national peril, Paul sadly and selfishly  failed to distinguish between what the nation desperately needs (fiscal responsibility) and his own personal hobby horses (e.g. legalizing of Class A drugs and prostitution). Sometimes pragmatism is a moral virtue.

Herman Cain: Be sure your sins will find you out
Cain was finished as soon as he starting aggressively attacking his accusers. We’ve all seen guilty people react this way. An innocent man in his position would surely have come in front of the media and said something like, “As a man of great moral integrity, I’m humbled and shaken by these accusations. Having prayed over this before God, I can honestly say that I have a clear conscience. However, I’m deeply concerned for the women making these allegations, and plan to meet with each of them to see if I have ever done anything that would have made them say what they are saying.”

Newt Gingrich: People hate hypocrisy
Newt grasps the size of the nation’s problems, and has the brain and courage to produce the necessary policies, but he’ll never get the opportunity because of his moral and financial hypocrisy.  Although he seemed to be overcoming the moral failings with his “redemption and forgiveness narrative,” the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac “history lessons” millions ruined the story.

Mitt Romney: Say “Sorry.”
Mitt Romney would have had so much more and so much warmer support if he’d simply said sorry for Romneycare. The defense that, “It was a tailor-made solution for my own state and never intended to be a model for the rest of the nation,” just doesn’t make any sense to anybody but his campaign.

Far better to have said, “We were pioneers in trying to find solutions to healthcare problems. I don’t apologize for trying, but with the benefit of hindsight, it’s obvious that we made mistakes for which I apologize. And with the benefit of that experience, I’m now in a position to lead our nation forward in finding a solution that will combine fiscal with moral responsibility.” Is it too late to say that? Of course, that alone won’t win over everybody to Romney. But it would at least indicate that he is sympathetic to, and wants to be supported by, the Tea-partiers and other Americans who rightly fear the over-reach of government into their lives.

Finally…
Although I’ve picked out a flaw, in some cases a fatal flaw, in each of these candidacies, I think we must also express considerable admiration for the courage and sacrifice it takes to put oneself up for election in today’s media climate. America has thousands of leaders, from all walks of life, who would make better Presidents than any of the present candidates. They have all the character, morality, experience, knowledge, skills and abilities to lead this great country. But when they look at the moral and social consequences for themselves, their families, and their friends, they conclude that the cost is simply too high. That’s understandable, but deeply regrettable.

While we continue to pray for better leaders and for those in authority over us, it’s at times like these when it really is a comfort to remember Christ’s words, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Before I was converted to Christ in the late 1980′s, I was a bit of a political zealot. After a monotonous succession of dull and disastrous male leaders, Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a small shopkeeper, burst on to the UK scene with clarity, confidence, and courage. She took on the Unions and won. She took on Argentina and won. She took on the media and won. She took on the Labor party and won, and won, and won again. Many powerful men tried to take her on, and lost. Home ownership soared. Multiple privatizations formed a new army of shareholders. The stock market boomed and many made small fortunes.

These were good days to be a young man in the UK, especially if you worked in the financial services industry as I did. Inspired by Mrs Thatcher’s renewal of the UK, I joined the local Conservative party and campaigned for Winston Churchill’s grandson in a lost-cause of a seat in the socialist republic of Glasgow. We spent part of our time running from vicious dogs, and the rest of the time from violent people who didn’t take too kindly to an upper-class Englishman on their territory. The Conservatives seemed to think it was a valuable rite of passage for their rising stars to be battle-scarred while fighting unwinnable seats in the most socialist areas of the country.

The “Tea-Party” women
Anyway, not long after, I was converted to Christ and my life, thankfully, took another direction as my passion for a cross on a ballot was replaced by a passion for the cross of Christ. But I often think back to Margaret Thatcher and the condescending and cruel way the political and media elites treated her, when I see the way that some of the Republican women are being treated in the USA. Although Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have suffered to some degree, it’s especially the “Tea-Party” women that are under all-out assault. Like Mrs Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, Michelle Bachmann and others come from humble backgrounds. None of them come from big money or famous families. Like Mrs Thatcher (and most “ordinary” people), they have some pretty obvious character flaws and rough edges. Like Mrs Thatcher their “straight-talk” sounds abrasive in a world full of polished spin. Like Mrs Thatcher, they do not cower before power or hide unpopular views. Like Mrs Thatcher, their past life and family connections are often used to embarrass or shame them. Like Mrs Thatcher, they are mockingly impersonated and caricatured. (Yes, we had a Saturday Night Live in the UK then. It was called Spitting Image).

Without approving all that they say and do, I cannot but admire the tremendous courage and tenacity of these women. And I cannot but daily pray for them and their families. Can you imagine what it must feel like for these “ordinary” people and their families to be daily torn asunder and to have their past raked over and over and over. It must be terrifying at times to face the media in interview after interview knowing that every interviewer is out to kill you with questions.

Jezebels?
Yet, I’ve noticed that some Christians feel very strongly that none of these women should be in politics in the first place, and that these “Jezebels” are getting what they deserve for “deserting their families.”

Some of this is motivated by a commendable desire to uphold male headship. They say that women should not take leadership positions over men. I agree that this principle is unquestionable in the Church and in the family sphere. However, is it also true in the civil sphere? Always? Even if it may be the norm, the ideal, for men to lead in the civil sphere, might exceptional times sometimes call for exceptional measures?

For example, think of the time of the Judges. These were anarchic and leaderless times. Israel was hanging on to existence by the skin of its teeth. And just when everything seemed hopeless, God would raise up a Judge, a special temporary leader to deliver Israel from her enemies. These Judges were not so much judicial figures, but rather military deliverers with some limited civil leadership roles. They usually came from humble backgrounds, and had few resources and flawed characters. And one of them, and it was only one, was a woman – Deborah (Judges 4-5). She was a believing woman, and she was a brave woman. In fact her courage is in stark contrast to the cowardly men of the time, like Barak, who were too afraid to take on Israel’s enemies. And to emphasize this contrast, the story concludes with another brave women, Jael, driving a tent-peg through the head of Israel’s arch-enemy. As I said, these were exceptional times!

Deborah was the only female judge. She was not the norm, but the exception. She was a special Judge whom God, in His mighty grace, raised up to rebuke “the establishment” and to expose the cowardly failure of Israel’s male leadership.

Maybe we are living in similar times. And maybe God, in His grace, is raising up more exceptionally courageous “Deborahs” for such a time as this” and for similar purposes. If so, we should pray for these women and their families. And we should also pray that men in politics would hear the divine rebuke and bravely step up to the plate with some straight-talking and some straight-dealing.

Tent-pegs not required.