Why an 'Evolving' Position on Moral Issues is Inappropriate for a Sitting President

Barack Obama has pulled a John Kerry numerous times on the issue of same-sex marriage.  He was for it before he was, well, not sure about it. Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are 'evolving'.

Evolving views on certain issues are fine.  For example, a president's views on foreign policy stances with a particular nation may evolve with circumstances in that nation, including who the leader is, the level of aggressiveness the nation puts forth, or the level of human rights abuses found therein.

Presidents might change their views on defense spending, or welfare policy, or any other host of social or political issues that might change during a presidency. (Some of these may also have a moral component, but they are primarily political issues.) We the public usually support the change if the president was our candidate, and speak out against it if he wasn't. Sometimes we might even consider the substantive nature of the change-of-position, but usually, it's about the man.

But one area where views ought not be shifting is on moral issues.  One of the reasons the US Constitution requires a citizen to be at least 40 years old to be eligible to run for the presidency is so that the person might have enough age and maturity to have established a 'moral compass' that guides them through the myriad of decisions they face in office. Moral issues are never about the man, but always about the issue, because the stance on the issue defines the man (or woman) in office.

Ronald Reagan defied even his own party advisors when he called the Soviet Union the, "Evil Empire".  They told him such morally decisive language would offend and be long-term destructive to the US position on various Cold War issues between the two countries.  But Reagan had a moral compass, and he followed it.  It was one of the reasons he was such a successful president.  He turned out to be right:  the USSR eventually failed as a political experiment, though not until about a year after Reagan left office.  His challenge to Gorbachev to "tear down this (Berlin) wall" came to fruition in 1989.  This moment may be the defining moment of his presidency as history unfolds.

 I miss Ronald Reagan.

Even Jimmy Carter was willing to take a moral stand on an issue in which he believed.  He issued the famous executive order prohibiting the assassination by US operatives of foreign heads of state, even if they posed a clear and present danger to US national security.  I vigorously opposed this move at the time (even though I was about 16), and still think it is wrong today, both on moral and biblical grounds.  But I will give President Carter credit for following his moral compass.

A sitting US President needs to have established moral values.  Whether you support same-sex marriage or not; whether you think it is a doorway to equality for all or a step toward barbarianism, you should expect your president to have a clear and unequivocal position on it, and to state that position for all.  I know Obama has not done that, and I don't think Romney has either.

If neither candidate for President has a clear moral position on this or any other sensitive moral issue, I'm worried.  Really worried.

Which Billy?

Two Billys are in the news this week.  Billy Graham has released a statement supporting North Carolina's Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The other Billy, Bill Clinton, has been in North Carolina speaking against Amendment 1.

Here's the simple postulate:  Would you rather take your advice on moral issues from Billy Graham, or Bill Clinton?

Yeah, I didn't think it was that hard either.

Atheism and Morality- Is there such a thing as morality beyond God? (Thinker Thursday)

This started out as a question asked by a friend in our local church social network called 'The City'.  My friend Chris posted this-

I’m always interested in British thinking.  It is often quite different from what we typically encounter in the Texas Panhandle.  The article linked below is an interesting essay on morality.  I would be curious to have someone decipher the article for me.

    Morality beyond God


I initially responded with the following post-

[begin post]

What is there to decipher?

    This author is very much infused with Nietzsche-an “God-is-dead-ism” and is trying to find a basis for a universal (morality) in a worldview of relativism.

    She does get one thing very, very right.  She says, “However, the enthronement of God as the source not only of the laws of nature but of moral law has its origin not in the argument from design, but in the narrative of the scriptures.”  That’s absolutely true.  If we reject the authority, inerrancy, and divine inspiration of scripture, we leave ourselves not with a three-legged stool, but a no-legged stool.  One look at the direction of American culture is all the emprical evidence we need of this fact.

    Here’s her inescapable predicament…she claims, “No human being is exempt from the temptation to make things worse in his own interest, nor from the responsibility not to do so.”  That’s a moral absolute, in a statement with no foundation in which to ground it.  Who says (if not God, as she claims) that no human being is exempt from anything?  How dare she state an absolute from within her worldview of relativism?  (If you make the statement that ‘there is no absolute truth’, is that statement absolutely true?)

    Without the absolute of an infinite creator who establishes moral law, there are no absolutes in human behavior.  There’s not even a standard by which to judge good or evil.  Atheists like to point out the ‘problem of evil’ for the theist.  However, in reality, they have it backwards.  If there is no God, there’s a much bigger ‘problem of good’ for them to deal with.

    No absolute moral authority, no morality.  In fact, to state that there is a basis for morality outside God would itself be an immoral statement, because you are infusing yourself with absolute moral authority.  Everything moves from’the good’ to ‘the power’.  As Marx said, if you remove the absolutes of God, then all that’s left is me gaining power over others.

    Look at the two hundred million murder victims of the 20th century for evidence that he was right.

[end post]

It occurred to me a bit later to add a spin on Tertullian's quote about, 'What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem'...so I added, 'What hath London to do with Amarillo?'

Chris replied in much the same way as R. C. Sproul, Jr., did, in this very useful blog post from Ligonier.org.  (If you want the Cliff's Notes version, Tim Challies give it here.)  Basically, the answer is, 'much in every way'.

I was thinking about this last night and this morning when I ran across four different blog posts over on James White's website, aomin.org.  These posts are all responses to the 'Consensus Statement' (which aomin.org humorously calls the 'Atheistic Ethics Confession of Faith') published recently by militant atheist Sam Harris and others.   These are much more detailed in how they answer the ideas that we can have moral codes without ultimate moral authority.  I highly recommend you take time to read them.

    A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 1

    A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 2

    A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 3

    A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 4

 This isn't easy reading, all of it, but it is important reading.  Are you prepared to do anything more than just blush and stammer when one of your acquaintances hits you over the head with, "We don't need God to have a moral code in society...how can you insist on the need for God?"  If you aren't, please re-read Jude 3 and 1 Peter 3:15, then come back to these articles and become ready.