The old adage is, “Never discuss religion or politics in polite company.” I suppose, based on this saying, I’m not quite fit for polite company! As a pastor, I talk about religion and faith often; I guess you could say that is expected. Being a former political scientist, I certainly have perspective on the second part of that old saying as well, though there seems to be a notion in our country that pastors ought never to discuss politics. I strongly hold to that Baptist distinctive of a separation between church and state, and I think it is very wise for pastors and churches to refrain from formally endorsing political parties or candidates. However, for a pastor to remain silent on issues of political importance is to abdicate his responsibility to speak truth to power and to help shepherd the flock entrusted to him by God in all matters of life.
One would have to be off-the-grid entirely to be unaware we are in the ramp-up to the presidential election, which is a little under a year away now. We have an unusual situation in terms of the nomination process, as the sitting president is term limited from running for another term and his vice-president has opted not to run. This leaves the president’s party with a wide-open nomination (this occurred in 2008, also, but prior to that we have to go back to 1952 to find a similar situation). On the opposite side, there are numerous candidates vying for their party’s nomination, many of whom have no real chance of securing it. Eventually, through the primary and caucus systems, we will be whittled down to two candidates for the presidency.
As November 2016 approaches, we are reminded that elections have consequences. When we consider this truth, we often think of the short and intermediate time frames, specifically as it relates to questions of public policy and the economy. What kinds of laws will the prospective president seek to have passed in Congress? What kinds of budget initiatives will he or she pursue? How will the prospective president respond to international crises? These are all important questions to ask, but sometimes we need to consider the long-term consequences of a particular election. One way a president helps to secure his long-term legacy is by who he or she would appoint to the Supreme Court, should a vacancy arise. Currently, of the nine members of the Court, four are in their upper 70s or early 80s. Two of them are stalwart liberals (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who would be 83 at the inauguration, and Stephen Breyer, who would be 78), one is a unwavering conservative (Antonin Scalia, who would be almost 81), and one is a moderate who is the deciding vote in every close case (Anthony Kennedy, who would be 80). It is not inconceivable that the next president would nominate two new members to the highest Court in the land, and given the delicate balance that currently exists (evidenced by several recent decisions), it could have incredible repercussions for decades to come.
So, as you are considering who will receive your vote in the coming primary, research the candidates’ judicial philosophies and who they might consider nominating to the Supreme Court. Consider a candidate whose desire is to glorify God with everything he or she does, as that will impact the men and women they consider for the Court. Just something to think about…
0 Comments