In the summer of 2011, The FAMiLY Leader (TFL) called on Republican presidential candidates to sign its marriage vow. When it was released, the Iowa organization said that it would not support or back any candidates that refused to sign the pledge. Mitt Romney refused to sign it, though he submitted an alternative pledge to uphold traditional marriage.
Though I thought at the time the vow went beyond what the Scriptures require and bound the conscience in a way the Bible warns against; in the end, it was signed by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, among others. The organization also said that signers should also pledge not to support other candidates who refused to sign the pledge. Both Santorum and Bachmann have since reneged on the pledge, made before God, and endorsed Romney. So much for vows and pledges!
Now The FAMiLY Leader itself has itself broken its own pledge. This week I received a flyer in the mail that was endorsed by Focus on the Family (CitizenLink) and TFL, suggesting that I vote for Romney because Obama has switched his position on “gay marriage.” Of course, it ignores Romney’s letter promising to support the Log Cabin Republican agenda. It ignores the fact that Romney was the first governor in the country to sign paperwork requiring that his state recognize homosexual marriage. Romney also supports “civil unions”, a sort of fake marriage license, which is what Obama supported before his election. Romney has also said that the Boy Scouts should make Scout Masters of openly gay males. If this is the position of the Family Leader, it should state so, publicly.
As I have stated before, The FAMiLY Leader is to be commended for its efforts to oust judges in Iowa who have thrust unnatural marriage upon us. But even in that effort, I fear, politics has gotten in the way. When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal spoke in Marshalltown recently on the “No Wiggins” Bus Tour, the first few minutes of his speech were devoted to bashing Obama on economic issues. What was sad was that there was a couple present, associated with Marshalltown Community College, who may have been willing to vote “No on Wiggins”, but also may have been supporters of Obama. This was bad timing, poor planning and probably unwise. Was political gain put above principal, once again?
Compromising in legislation is sometimes necessary; however, compromising your principles means they aren’t principles. Just in the last few days, the Billy Graham Association removed from its list of cults, the Mormon religion—coincidentally—just hours after Billy Graham endorsed Romney for president. Now they are putting out a full-page asking Christians to vote for him. Is there any limit as to what some professing Christian leaders will do in order to get Obama out of office?
This is just some of the fruit of exalting politics over principle. It made no difference to TFL that the last few speakers who introduced Romney at the GOP convention were Mormons and that he plugged his beliefs several times, and mocked the notion of hell (perhaps the first presidential candidate to use profanity in a prime time speech).
It was just a few years ago, that Christians were outraged that a Muslim congressman from Minnesota took his vow to uphold the Constitution with his hand placed on a Koran. What will they say if Romney takes his vow with his hand placed on a book of Mormon?
“Oh well, vows before God don’t mean anything, anyway.”
“A Bible, what’s that?”