As Glenn Beck continues to rise in prominence, he is becoming a target of Christians. He was already a big target for liberals, the left, and the mainstream media. Conservative Christians have their own objections. To begin with, he's Mormon.

Now, let me concede that I would be uncomfortable having a Mormon as president.  For Beck, I think I might be able to swallow that discomfort, because I think he's the real deal. The other big Mormon on the scene is Romney, and for that man it appears that whatever is politically expedient is what is driving him at a particular time or on a particular issue. His Mormonism is a big strike against him, but as far as credentials for elected office go, he fails on a number of very important levels. Like, can he be trusted at all.

Of course, Beck will never run for the presidency or probably any elected office. He's a media personality. Surely we should take this into account.  That said, 95% of what I have heard him say is 100% spot on. If we could have a full blown, orthodox Christian saying the same stuff with the same level of exposure, perhaps I would start tuning Beck out and tune in this other guy instead. But where is this person?

And let's say you give me this person... will I be able to say that 100% of what I hear him say is 100% spot on? Of course not. Should I dispense with this guy until I find one who is 100% right on 100% of the issues 100% of the time? Of course not.

Herein lies the big problem within Christianity: how to deal with people who disagree with you- on both big and little things. The general tendency is to demand 100% agreement on all essential details or otherwise the person is thrown into the manure pile. (And we all disagree on what are 'essential' details.) The apparent rationale is that any kind of associating with such a person is nothing short than utter compromise.

I hate to say it, friends, but I do not give any other person the power to compromise my values. I do not give them the power to influence me, speak for me, or think for me. I am the captain of this ship. When my ship comes in contact with some other ship, I may allow some of the other crew to wander around my deck interacting with my crew, but at night, that crew goes home. I think that for many readers on the conservative side, they're about the same way. Yet these same will think that this interaction represents compromise.

That's nonsense. It is utterly impossible to interact with people who are in 100% agreement on every issue. It can't be done. There aren't two people in the world who agree on every issue in every way.  If there are two that think so, then let me facilitate their conversation! 

My concern is that we tend to be harsher with the people who are in near agreement with us than we are with those who are far away from us. There is some basis for that in some ways, but we must add one more important ingredient regarding the present situation: we are at war.

If we consider things by analogy, we may remember World War 2, when the United States and England allied with their enemy- Russia- to defeat their common enemy, Germany. Winston Churchill, in one of his speeches, even said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." During times of war, depending on the nature of the enemy at hand, one makes and keeps strange allies.

In a very real sense, we are at war, albeit a presently and possibly perpetually cold one. If we set aside the issue of that holocaust which is abortion on demand, we can still detect the outlines of a gathering storm that could inflict all the same horrors on our country and the world as were endured in the bloody 20th century. It is only minor consolation that those who would bring this about themselves wish to learn from the same period and bring about their regime(s) bloodlessly.

It is the various agendas at work to bring about what is nothing less than a world wide totalitarian state that Glenn Beck has courageously portrayed. This is not the time to shun potential allies. Can you imagine some Christian smuggling a Jew out of occupied France and refusing the help of a Mormon? That would be silly. Well, it's silly now, too. If we were to try to continue the parallel further, we would say that we are living in a 1920-1930 period, and not the 1940 period. The lesson we may wish to apply is that shutting down threats before they carry out their dastardly designs makes much more sense than trying to stop them after they've implemented them.

So I think we should give Glenn Beck a break. And you can probably name a couple of other folks who didn't live up to every one of your conservative principles, but in general, they 'get it.' We're going to need every last one of them to stem off the coming tide.

This does not in any way mean that we should throw off discernment and good judgment or mince words, even with potential allies. About the worst thing that can happen is for people of principle to stop talking about their principles and arguing for them. It will be principle that wins the day. Still, if we leap too often to lynch those (on our side) who entertain notions that we ourselves reject, the consequence will be that people won't be up front about their beliefs any more. And that describes most of our politicians.

We want principle. We want to discuss it. But we also have to be able to distinguish between friend and foe, if only because our foes are happy enough to ally with anyone with a warm body provided they can further their agenda.

Anthony Horvath is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries and the author of the 'end of America' book series, Birth Pangs.