Can A Tebowing Santorum Change Culture?

 

A TV preacher named Ken Copeland gives a good impersonation of a lot of (misguided) Christians trying to get them “saved.”  He adopts a hillbilly voice, buck teeth and a bit of an uneducated drawl and screams at someone,

Do you know JESSSSUS?!!  I’m here to show you how to become a Christian so you can be JUST LIKE ME!

Despite a much more savvy Christian population in the past 20 years, they are failing miserably to grow the church.  Over the 20% population growth of the past years, the church only grew by about 2%.  It seems the average American has a better chance of catching Bieber Fever than the gift of salvation.  And yet these same experts are the group telling us that Santorum would win on the “social” issues because he is the “Tim Tebow” in the race.   Someone needs to go back to grape juice communions I think.

Yes they are both vocal about their faith.  But the comparisons pretty much end right there.  There are any number of Christians in the NFL who are vocal about their faith.  And a few as successful.  But Tebow not only has the raw skills to lead men – he has evidenced over and over again form High School on.  I understand that attraction to have someone “like you” in the White House.  It gave us Jimmy Carter in 1976 – the first professed “born again Christian” President and look where that got us.  African Americans used the same criteria last cycle.  So far that’s not working out too well either.

The idea that a guy who openly loves Jesus will somehow get more people to be moral is naive.  Tebow had to actually win multiple impossible games and inspire his ENTIRE team, not just the offense.  It may surprise some that even then, new converts were not suddenly flocking to church after Tim’s thrilling 6-1 run.  (And hopefully none left after his 2-4 exit.)

The brilliance of Ronald Reagan or even Bill Clinton, isn’t that their values attracted voters.  It is that they became accessible and acceptable to broader base.  Only 54% of Republicans (who are statistically more likely to be “Christian”) saw divine intervention in Tim’s on field exploits while on 38% of Democrats and 35% of Independents did.  Even Tebow’s “miracle comebacks” didn’t convert the skeptics.  Those numbers are oddly similar the exact number of religious in each party.

There is a huge difference between liking someone, or even appreciating their accomplishments, to making the leap of a BEHAVIORIAL CHANGE to be like them.  There is a “process” to change that involves desiring, deciding and THEN acting upon a belief in the psychological model.  And the “desiring” part between wanting to be like a charismatic successful guy like Tebow and Santorum are worlds apart.  Were the whole “getting to know you” thing a reality instead of an apparition, the Senator would not have lost by over 17 points in his race.  The people who had lived with Political Rick and Pious Rick didn’t like what they saw. (And you can no longer use the excuse it was his Iraq war stance since his opponent also had a similar stance.)

Santorum comes across as judgmental, arrogant and pretentious to many of the “non-converted.”  Not a great way to win friends and influence voters.  Even Tebow’s most ardent naysayers admitted he was a likeable guy who didn’t force his views on anyone else.  Santorum wants claims to want to intervene in America’s bedroom.  BIG difference.

Have you ever changed your views by a stranger with an “I’m better than you” attitude telling you how bad you were or what you were doing was wrong?  I’ve got terrible news for you who think electing Rick Santorum will “change” the culture.

He will be as helpful to Christian values as Barack Obama has been to race relations.

Why do I say that?  Because the guy can’t see the world through anything other than the “Law.”  There is no message of the grace and mercy of Christ.  Even in the debates when George Snuffleupagus asked the embarrassing fidelity/character question to all the candidates, only Santorum used it to try and promote himself and make a dig at Gingrich.  You simply do not know the Jesus of the bible if you feel that is right. In fact, it was the Mormon who showed grace and good sense telling ABC to move on and get to the issues.  As I pointed out by the objective number of exaggerations and opponent attacks from the debates, it is Gingrich – not Santorum – who has shown more Christian virtue.

The self-righteous don’t win people to their cause.  It is why Jesus was so hard on those who used legalism as a battering ram.  And no amount of effort can “earn” you salvation.  “It is a free gift lest men should boast.”  As a famous preacher I listen to says, “you don’t need to tell sinners they are sinning.  They already know.”

It is a 2000 year struggle for the Church to come to the realization that TELLING people to do good doesn’t make them good.  Or WANT to do good.  Saint Paul said, “I did not come to you with fancy words to persuade you mentally, but with demonstrations of God’s love in power.” (PolitiJim paraphrased edition)

The understandable fear is that if you do NOT hold up a standard of “right” and “wrong” you end up with – Lady Gaga and the 2012 Grammy Awards blaspheming the Catholic church.  But history shows these revivals and national repentances are never led by popular culture.  They are led by the Spirit of God.  The Great Awakenings, Azusa Street and the rest all started from a very small group of people crying out to God just like it did in the Upper Room. Not through billboards or even the charisma of any individual pastor or preacher.  (God showed his sense of humor by starting the Asuza revival with a one eyed pastor of a tiny church in Los Angeles called “Seymore.”)

The very bullhorn of “Christian values” Rick Santorum is championing  is the very thing that will turn off, not change Americans even without his “baggage” of social culture gaffes and campaign actions.  Did you notice when he won Iowa, he wasn’t asked about Iraq. He wasn’t asked about how to fix the economy or why he thought his jobs plan would work.  He was constantly asked about his statements and views of gays, women and the church.  That really helps to convince the 20% of the Independents we have the answers to win in November, right?

By all accounts from The Barna Group, although 76% or so consider themselves “Christian,”  only half of Americans are “committed Christians, (not meaning they should be mentally committed – though I have a few I’d personally recommend - but who consider their faith “important” and something they are committed to.)  About 35% are truly “born again” (not just think they are) and roughly 10% fulfill all biblical criteria of a “real” Christian.

Christian marriages have the same rate of divorce as the rest of the country.  A majority of Americans not only don’t think homosexuality is wrong, they support gay marriage.  Not only are people who embrace Santorum’s faith in a severe minority, they proved with the reelection of Bill Clinton that they only care about jobs and the economy.  And no one has ever accused Rick Santorum of having the charm, eloquence or communication skills of Der Slickster.  If you think I’m wrong, think of it in reverse.  Am I the only one that remembers how the Dan Quayle contingent turned the ‘92 GOP convention into the political version of the 700 Club and was partially blamed for the loss to Clinton?

Unfortunately, Rick Santorum is not the political comparison of Tim Tebow in performance either.  Unlike Tebow who always was a quarterback with leadership skills from late High School on, Santorum has almost no executive experience and his leadership is of other lawyers or legislators.  I suppose the equivalent would be either a slot receiver who ran in plays or the offensive coordinator who suddenly wanted to play quarterback.  Gingrich attracted great wrath of the Democrat party because rags like Time Magazine were saying he effectively WAS setting the Presidential agenda as a Speaker of the House and running the country.  Romney ran the Olympics, Bain  and was a Governor.

As readers here know, it has irked me to no end that people are still buying Santorum as the “principled” candidate of character.  I have been shocked to find how much evidence there is not only for extremely non-conservative and non-principled positions, but the number of character issues that became apparent to Pennsylvanians.

Tebow is too young to have many mistakes.  We can be sure there isn’t any since the media had been dying to show him to be a hypocrite.  Those of us who believe in moral values are held to a higher standard, in part because we claim that is what defines us.  And personally, I think we should be.  If you are Chicago Bulls MVP Derek Rose, your opponents can’t wait to go up against you to prove THEY are better.  With the “anti-moralists,” they want to challenge EVERY presumption of Christ-like character not only to prove you are NOT any better, but to justify their own foibles.  Tebow is enormously generous, uncritical of teammates (even sparing receivers who surely deserved it at times), humble and – well - pure. 

Except for covering up the affair of John Ensign, there isn’t anything to stain Santorum on the personal monogamy issue, but in the other areas…not so much.  And he will get slammed on the problems with his own giving, charity problems, unseemliness of HIS teammates, and off putting arrogance (below).

This isn’t selecting your favorite singer on American Idol.  This is a JOB INTERVIEW that requires skills of knowledge about how everything that government touches works, how political forces can be used and preempted to get legislation passed and most importantly to lead, inspire and command.  Granted, the above video isn’t his best Q&A (forget content here – I’m just talking style) but there are a dozen such instances of similar obnoxti (new PolitiJim word) in the first 15 debates.  Why do you think WE ALL didn’t want him and he hovered under 5% until everyone else got knocked about?  And as I’ve asked before, why do you think the general public will warm up to him any faster than we did?  (And he still isn’t garnering a majority even PRIOR to his new upcoming negative ad enema.)

So ask yourself this question.  With the pending crisis's looming of: world wide economic melt down; out of control spending on government programs and public reliance on them; increasing threats of a nuclear Islamic jihad; and worse, why in the world would we want to nominate someone with a propensity to get “off topic” on gays, contraception and women’s emotions?  Don’t Republicans have enough challenges to overcome in the public perception already and try to teach/persuade/inspire them WE have the answer to help America?

Of course some want to follow Santorum because they say he better exemplifies their values.  As I study the REAL record of Senator Santorum, I see an obnoxious, exaggerator who misuses money to his PAC’s and charities and he himself doesn’t even tithe.  If you ONLY look at the character issues involving issues of money such as his misuse of state education funds for his children, not even reaching one third of the recommended payouts for his charity that the Better Business Bureau would approve, only paying out a fifth of the money he collected to help others to get elected and only giving 1% of his income to God (Malachi 3:10 says you are a robber of God for less than 10%), you might be reminded of the scripture:

Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.

I am much more trusting of a Christian who is upfront on their mistakes and works to correct them, than someone who pretends they have none and yet have many.

Posted in: 2012,campaign,election,politics,Rick Santorum,rsfiles