In an impassioned piece on why he believed Herman Cain was innocent of the dubious charges brought against him, Arlington, Texas pastor, Dwight McKissic wrote: >>>
The purpose of this article is not intended to endorse Herman Cain for president; but rather to defend Mr. Cain against the scurrilous, scandalous and shameful attacks on his character...
Why are these charges being brought to the public’s attention at this point? The answer is obvious. Mr. Cain has thus far done the impossible. Who would have ever thought that an American Black conservative would be leading the pack for the Republican nomination for president of the United States within a year of the election? No one. That, my friends, is why these charges are being leveled against Mr. Cain. Who has the most to lose if Mr. Cain succeeds? The liberal media, rival candidates, and the Black liberal democratic civil rights community (//link)
In the same post, I shared my switch from Cain support not necessarily based on the decided guilt of Cain but on the complete bungling of the charges by him and his campaign. To our brother McKissic I responded:
I like Cain. I contemplated volunteering for his campaign. I still like Cain. But he sorely botched the publicity about the alleged scandal. It made me rethink my allegiance to him as a presidential contender. Not because I think he did so and so with women. Rather because he and his campaign heads folded under pressure. That said, I don’t think he’s ready for the office of national leader. He could ‘fold’ under pressure at crucial moments... . I think Cain will win the assault. But I think he will lose because of it, not based upon guilt but simple inexperience in dealing with tremendous pressure. In other words, while I was ready to vote for Cain a month ago, his campaign advisers, who are obviously top-heavy toward political stupidity, made me into a doubting Thomas (//link, //link)
I was dead wrong. Herman Cain did not win the assault. Nor does it appear now that Mr. Cain is as innocent of the claims of immoral conduct that both brother Dwight and I imagined. Dr. Al Mohler writes a revealing piece on Cain's fundamental mistakes, a piece entitled "For Christian Men: The Lessons of Herman Cain." Says the Southern seminary president:
When the first charges of sexual misconduct were alleged, the first problem for Herman Cain was his inability to dismiss them immediately and demonstrate his innocence with credible argument. Instead, Cain fumbled the charges badly. In retrospect, he fumbled them at least in part because he could not dismiss them — and this was fatal to his campaign.
Look closely at the charges. One woman charged that Cain had made a sexual advance after taking her out on a night of socializing and entertainment in Washington, DC. Cain’s situation would have been radically different if he had been able to respond that he had always maintained a policy of never socializing alone with any woman other than his wife. If those close to Cain had been able to support his claim, the charge would have been very difficult to press. Cain made no such claim. There was no denial that he had been alone with the woman in this context.
...[Cain] had engaged in behaviors that no Christian man should allow himself, opening his life to moral vulnerabilities that no man can responsibly accept.
Dr. Mohler then rightly concludes:
The Christian man must plan his life, including his business life and his professional career, in such a way that he does not allow himself to be in a situation in which he can be credibly accused of such misconduct. A Christian man does not socialize alone with a woman who is not his wife — period. Though this can sometimes add complication and cost, a Christian man should not travel or conduct business in a way that exposes himself to sexual temptation or opportunity
Good-bye, Herman Cain. We commend you to the Lord and His grace. We pray for you and especially your wife, for few understand her grief over the apparent betrayal you've committed against her.
With that, I am...