This news and article is already a few days old, but maybe you haven't heard it or haven't given much thought to it. I have, and have now taken the time to comment on it. Some may be surprised to know that my libertarian-leaning albeit "conservative" self has actually defended Sanders in the past as well as the present. I have respect for the guy. In a political environment of lies, half-truths, and chicanery, Sanders stands out as a passionate straight-shooting truth-teller. As a matter of fact, even though his political ideology (yes, everyone has an ideology, biases, etc.) is in most ways directly opposite of mine, I would prefer him or someone like him to someone who ostensibly shares some or even all my convictions but whom cannot be trusted. Our current president comes to mind. That being said, Sanders' obviously impassioned and sincere (not to mention forceful) questioning of the nominee concerns me. Oh, believe me - I'm still ultimately an optimist; God will fulfill his purposes. However, since I live in just a sliver of His timeline, I'd like things to go well in regards to my lifetime and my children's lifetimes - thus I have some concern for those things I see and hear in this small sliver of time. Well, anyways, I have some thoughts concerning Senator Sanders' recent questioning of Russel Vought, Trump's nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Read the article first (it wouldn't hurt to watch the questioning via YouTube as well), but after you do that then consider my thoughts. Here they are:
1. Yes, Sanders' questioning essentially DOES amount to religious test, and the Constitution prohibits a religious test for federal offices.
2. The exclusivity Sander's so stridently objects to ("Muslims...stand condemned") is true from a historical and orthodox (not heretical) Christian perspective. It is nothing new. Christ's exclusive nature as Savior is clearly taught in Scripture. Its taught by Christ himself as well as His apostles. If it were not so, then there would be no command or need to evangelize, no warning against false Christs, idolatry, the danger of hell, etc. This exclusivity would and does of course also logically extend to convictions and statements about other groups and people being condemned (Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Agnostics, Atheists, etc.). Furthermore, If someone claims to be a Christian but does not affirm the exclusivity of Christ as Savior then they are simply not a Christian in the historic sense of the word. The Scripture states that the Gospel message will not only be foolish to many, but it will be offensive to many as well. Therefore, if one's type of "Christianity" is a "Christianity" without any offense then it is not Christianity - and that person should take up another name for themselves; you can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't please everyone with your stated convictions and opinions.
3. The exclusivity of the Christian message (the message Vought dared to affirm in his post) has a theological and ultimate meaning, NOT a civil one. I wonder if Sanders understood this. For instance, when Vought speaks of being "condemned" he does not mean that the aforementioned people should be put in prison, shunned, not given fair judicial hearings because they are already "condemned", etc. This last part about "condemned" not having a civil element to it is extremely extremely important in the context of this whole issue! It's vital.
4. Biblically, ALL mankind stands condemned before God without the saving work of Christ. It's not a racial thing. It's not an ethnic thing. It's about the mediatorial work of Jesus the Messiah/Savior/Lord and whom a condemned person (everyone on Earth without the accomplished work of Christ on their behalf) places their trust in, and whom the condemned person (everyone on Earth...) believes this Savior to be (ultimately God Himself). The fact that the Bible teaches a condemned mankind of which some will be powerfully saved from wrath is clear and indisputable.
5. Sander's objection to Vought's statements about Islam having a "deficient theology" (and logically other theological positions being theologically deficient as well) is not very well thought-out. Sanders can disagree with the statement, but how can he object to someone making a statement that a view they believe to be NOT the truth is deficient in some way? If there is truth about God, and someone believes they hold those (or most) of those truths, then naturally they would have to consider a significantly different position to be deficient because it would not embrace the propositions they have been convinced are true. Sanders I'm sure would consider Capitalism or the free market to be deficient in some way, wouldn't he? If someone were to assert to him that the sky was green I'm sure he would consider their view deficient, wouldn't he? I wouldn't fault him for this either. I would expect it. It doesn't mean I couldn't be friendly with him, respect him, or otherwise value him and treat him well as a human being. As a matter of fact, I respect someon who holds a position for reasons they have carefully thought out and I even respect them if they try to persuade me to the tenets of their position. This would be evidence they not only care about truth but actually care about ME.
6. Has Sanders considered that both Islam and Judaism as well as many other religions have exclusive claims as well? Most Muslims would believe I am damned because of my belief in the tri-personhood (trinity) of God. Would he question a believing Muslim nominee or a believing Jew nominee the way he questioned Vought? If so (and it might be so), is the only acceptable nominee for a federal office in Sanders' eyes a nominee who has a totally secular worldview? If so, this would be a very new turn for what it means to be "American." The exclusive messages of the religions I mentioned are not just believed by fringe groups or terrorists, but are integral to what has defined these religions throughout history. Sure, there are those (especially now) who are nominal or cultural Jews, Muslims, etc. and don't really believe the scriptures and convictions which have defined their professed religion throughout history, but I'm talking about those Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc. that define themselves as such precisely because of these definitional convictions rather than their ancestry or the types of clothes they wear or what music they listen to.
7. Sanders did not give Vought nearly enough time to answer his questions, and he didn't seem to reflect adequately on the answers Vought was trying to give. There are questions that cannot simply be answered with a "yes" or a "no" but instead must be prefaced by explanation so as to provide a proper context for the answer so that the answer is not misunderstood/misinterpreted. Sanders is not an unintelligent man, but maybe he does not understand that the questions he was asking required a longer answer than he was providing time for. I suspect however that Sanders was letting his own biases and passion get the better of him - causing him to shut down Vought before he could give full answers.
8. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland ...see my point 2.
Well folks, that's all I have to say for now. I only very rarely post in my blog, but for some reason I felt this was one of those times I should.
