Should Christians Avoid Politics?

head in the sandFrom the archives. First appeared on 2/27/09. (Original discussion thread.)

If recent polls may be believed, most Americans now see their country as seriously troubled. For conservatives the times are especially disturbing. We are deeply opposed to the political philosophy now in power but are also alarmed at the resulting economic policies. We believe the solutions now in progress will be more damaging than the problems they are supposed to solve.

Among principled conservatives feelings about the situation range from intense frustration to utter futility. To many, the segment of Bible-believing Christendom that eschews politics is looking more and more like home. They are eying the creed that participation in politics has little or nothing to do with our responsibilities as followers of Jesus Christ and finding it increasingly attractive.

Over the last few months, I have also felt the appeal of tuning out. But certain realities have doggedly called me back to the belief that in a nation such as ours Christians can and must be involved in politics. And we have this responsibility even if—perhaps especially if—it appears we will accomplish nothing.

God cares what nations do

A principle feeding my conviction that believers should be involved in politics is the fact that God has expectations of nations. He is not “judge of all the earth” in a solely individualistic sense, nor is He concerned only with the salvation (and transformation) of individuals. Consider, for example, God’s rebuke of the nations in Amos 1:3-15. Here He finds fault not so much with how individual citizens have behaved but with how they have acted collectively as a nation. And they are judged accordingly.

Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they have threshed Gilead with implements of iron.” (NKJV, Amos 1:3)

What’s more, at least once in Amos the judgment of a nation has nothing to do with its treatment of Israel or Judah.

Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime. But I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the palaces of Kerioth; Moab shall die with tumult, with shouting and trumpet sound. And I will cut off the judge from its midst, and slay all its princes with him,” says the Lord. (Amos 2:1-3)

Here God holds the national entity called Moab to an ethical standard which it had violated by its handling of the remains of the king of Edom (a nation condemned for sins of its own in Amos 1:11). Apparently, God has ethical expectations for what nations do when acting as nations. In other words He cares about national policy.

Given the fact that policy in America is shaped by the involvement of the electorate, we cannot separate policy from politics. If God cares about what nations do as nations, He cares about what the United Sates does as a nation, and He cares about the politics that shape what we do.

We are the government

Amos and other prophets show that God expects nations to treat other nations properly. Similarly, Romans 13 reveals that God expects nations to govern their own citizens properly, and He assigns specific responsibilities to government. Verse 4 indicates that the governing authorities “bear the sword” and serve as diakonoi (servants) and ekdikoi (justice givers or punishers) for God. The words good and evil appear repeatedly in the passage, emphasizing that government’s duties are ethical and moral.

It’s impossible to take these verses seriously and conclude that God does not care what happens in Congress or in my state assembly. But the implications of the passage for a society such as ours extend much further.

By design, the United States is a nation of laws shaped by the influences of representative democracy. The founders did not aim to give every man an equal voice in state or national policy, but they did aim to give every man an equal voice in whom he would send to act on his behalf (not necessarily to vote as he would vote but to build policy that protects the best interests of his family and his nation). Regular elections—coupled with the right of public protest—were built in to ensure that policy-making is never wholly separated from the citizenry.

To say it another way, in America the difference between government and the governed is intentionally blurred by law so that citizens have governing responsibilities (policy-shaping responsibilities), whether they want them or not. To be a citizen is to be an indirect policy maker. In that sense, we are all “the government.”

The fact that we are all legally entangled in the policy-making process means that the question is not “Will I be involved in politics and try to shape policy?” but rather “Will I shape policy well or will I, by passivity and silence, shape it poorly?” What we commonly refer to as “not involved in politics” is just a way of saying “not putting any effort into policy-making responsibilities.”

Because our government is structured the way it is, the moral and ethical responsibilities of government in Romans 13 are our moral and ethical responsibilities as citizens. The only difference is that, for most of us, our involvement is that of indirect influence rather than direct execution.

The place of prayer

I have often heard that the role of the Christian in earthly politics is simply to pray. Isn’t this what we are commanded to do?

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. (1 Tim. 2:1-2)

What the Scriptures require here is clear. Believers must pray for and about those in power and do so with the goal that they will essentially leave us alone.

The passage might seem to imply that we should also leave them alone, but that view extends the passage beyond what it actually says. Rather, prayer is never a substitute for action in Scripture, just as action is never a substitute for prayer. For example, Jesus commanded us to pray that the “Lord of the harvest” would “send out laborers” (Luke 10:2), yet He still commanded us to “go into all the world and preach” (Mark 16:15). The apostle Paul said it was “his prayer to God for Israel that they may be saved” (Rom. 10:1), yet he included outreach to Jews throughout his ministry. Likewise the call to pray for “all who are in authority” does not preclude acting deliberately to influence them.

Taking action when we have neglected prayer is foolish and irreverent, but praying when we ought to be acting is foolish and irresponsible. Imagine that fire fighters have been summoned to the site of a burning apartment complex. They arrive, take positions, unpack the hoses, and connect them to hydrants. But rather than douse the flames, they pull out their cell phones and repeatedly dial 911 as the building burns.

The analogy is imperfect. God possesses the power to intervene directly in the affairs of men and “put out fires” in response to prayer alone. But should we assume that direct intervention by Himself alone is His intention when He has not said so and has given us the means to attack the flames ourselves?

Morality shapes everything

A final reality that keeps me from adopting the “politics is none of our business” stance is the fact that the moral condition of a community impacts everything else in it. I cannot fulfill my responsibilities as husband and father as effectively in Sodom as I can in better surroundings. And if Lot chose poorly in going to “the cities of the plain” (Gen. 13:12), am I not choosing poorly if I allow “the cities” to come to me? What’s certain is that we and our families cannot be unaffected if moral decadence descends all around us (2 Pet. 2:7-8).

Proverbs underscores this principle.

A wicked man accepts a bribe behind the back to pervert the ways of justice. (Prov. 17:23)

The proverb describes a perilous situation. A morally corrupt man influences or makes policy but does not do so according to principle or law. He perverts “the ways of justice” by seeing that someone is punished arbitrarily rather than for wrong-doing. As this blight spreads in a community, people see less and less relationship between their behavior and what government does to them. Lawlessness increases, and eventually no one anywhere is safe.

If I live in such a place, I can only successfully protect my family and my property (God-given responsibilities) as God intervenes to prevent what is otherwise the inevitable course of nature. But will He intervene in that situation if I could have stemmed the tide of lawlessness years earlier but chose not to?

Just as declining morality ruins the relationship between law-abiding behavior and personal well being, it also ruins the relationship between labor and personal prosperity.

Much food is in the fallow ground of the poor, and for lack of justice there is waste. (Prov 13:23)

This proverb can be taken to mean that lack of justice has allowed the poor to be robbed, but the view that answers best to the evidence is that injustice has somehow led the poor to let their land lie idle. This meaning is more clear in the ESV.

The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice. (ESV, Prov 13:23)

The proverb describes a situation in which the land of the poor could have been producing abundance, but bad policy (or poor execution of good policy) made waste more appealing. The poor here probably feel that growing the crops will do them little good because the fruit of their labor will be taken away, either by robbers or by oppressive taxation. Either way, immoral policy has guaranteed that citizens and their families see little relationship between hard work and food on the table. As that relationship deteriorates in a community, production falls off. Soon there isn’t enough of anything.

We’re foolish if we believe that bad policy and moral confusion can spread indefinitely without eventually hindering our own ability to live and serve God. Yes, God can intervene to spare His children from the worst that lawlessness and want bring on a society, but should we assume that He will do so if we have the means to influence policy and morality for good but choose instead to “avoid politics”?

Some may object here that we “cannot legislate morality.” But in reality government exists for no other reason than to punish “evil” (what is morally wrong) and reward “good” (what is morally right). To the degree Christians can influence policy toward effectiveness in that purpose, we are wise to do so. To do less is to welcome a future of violence, chaos, and poverty from which God will have no obligation to deliver us.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

You begin you argument by stating that God cares about what nations do. This statement is so obvious that no one could ever argue with it. God also cares about what demons do. So what. This is a non-sequitur. How does one link the fact that God cares about what nations do with the moral imperative that Christians in America can and MUST be involved in politics? God commands all nations to repent of their sin and to follow Him. Politics are absolutely unnecessary for God to care about what nations do. The proclamation of the gospel is a much more viable answer to how God addresses the sin of the nations than political involvement. Why default to politics when the church is called to address the sin of the nations and cultures through preaching?
In America, citizens influence policy by voting and advocacy. In a sense, we are the government. If God holds nations and governments accountable, then he would also hold those who influence government (or choose not to). There are sins of omission and sins of commission. This is the crux of the difference between you and the most of the rest of us in this thread. You think we aren’t responsible in any way for what the government does. You’re wrong. In 2002, only about half of Christians in the US bothered to vote. If they had voted, there would be about 20 million extra votes in congressional races, local elections ect. Let’s say 70% of these Christians would have voted for pro-life candidates. That’s a net of 14 million extra pro-life votes. Who knows the kind of impact that could have had in government policies such as abortion funding, appointing judges. We could have more children alive right now, if more Christians simply decided to get off their rear ends, take a little time to get to know candidates, and cast a vote for life. Why would you decry abortion from the pulpit, and not urge people to actually do something about it with a moral imperative. God holds us accountable for our actions, and the foreseeable effects of our actions.
We are not all the government. That is a major leap on your part. We have a voice. We have a say. You throw the word responsibility around as if Christians, by nature of being Americans are being irresponsible, and therefore sinning if they are not engaged in political process. This, I contend, is the result of Americanism being placed upon Christianity. I call it the Americanization of Christianity. We are not of this world. Our citizenship is in heaven. You state that Christians are ethically and morally responsible for governmental decision by nature of the type of government we have.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show how Americans, specifically Christians, should not be held accountable for our actions in the political sphere. Our citizenship is in heaven. We are not of this world. Great verses quoted out of context. We are not of this world, but we are in the world.

[JT Hoekstra] Should we join the Black Robe regiment as our forefathers did?

http://blackroberegiment.ning.com/ BRR
I would be very, very careful when considering joining such an organization, and don’t think I would join the BRR.

We are to seek the good of the city, as others have cited, but I do not think that we should fight to preserve “our nation” simply because it’s “our nation”. Our true allegiance is to God, not to the US (as much as it pains me to say that!). We are commanded to uphold divine law when state law contradicts it (eg abortion).

Insomuch as we can and should work for the good of our society, we should do so. We are commanded to be obedient to divinely appointed rulers (Romans 13), to be salt and light to others (Matthew 5), and to love our (political!) enemies (Luke 6). We are told to be good citizens, but there are times when being a good citizen will conflict with US (or state) policy. In those cases, obedience to God trumps political allegiance to Democrat or Republican or Independent. It certainly trumps attempts to purge ‘the ungodly’ from government, and indeed provides them with a perfect excuse to crack down on Christianity and Christian beliefs.

We (generally) think that by voting Republican, we can ‘save’ America…we can’t. Only God can save America, and I am convinced that any kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote] Quixote-like quest to ‘save America from the Liberals’ (or whomever) or to ‘preserve the second amendment’ or to police ‘the national boundaries’ - as noble as those goals may be - is counterproductive at best and wasteful of the limited resources that God has entrusted us with at worst. If God gives you license in your conscience to work in some way as a politician or something - go for it! Support the politicians you think will be best! But fighting to save ‘the nation’? No, leave me out of that. I’ve got God’s work to do.

Peter wrote this, and I think that it’s a passage that merits discussion:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

Submission to Authority

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

I think the burden of proof is on you to show how Americans, specifically Christians, should not be held accountable for our actions in the political sphere. Our citizenship is in heaven. We are not of this world. Great verses quoted out of context. We are not of this world, but we are in the world.
Nowhere have I hinted that Christians should not be held accountable for their political behavior, whatever it might be. We should and we will. My point is that what holds us accountable is Scripture, rightly interpreted. That is the WHOLE point. Moreover, those who attempt to manipulate Christians to behave in a specific manner politically, will also be held accountable. Those who judge Christians as irresponsible and sinful for not voting will be held accountable. Those who say that Christians should NOT vote or be involved politically will be held accountable. I say neither if you have been paying attention. Basically I say it is up the believer to determine the nature and scope of the political behavior, not me. I say this because Scripture neither commands engagement nor passivity. And yes, I will be held accountable for my advice. What is my advice? At the risk of turning blue in the face, my advice is as follows:

1. Obey civil authorities as servants appointed by God.

2. Submit to civil authorities.

3. Keep the peace where possible.

4. Pray for civil leaders to the end that we may lead a tranquil life.

Since this all that Paul and Peter said about the issue, it is all I am going to say about it. If you wish to indict me for not going as far as you like, please include the apostles in that indictment for consistency sake. And I really like that kind of company.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

[edingess]

Since this all that Paul and Peter said about the issue, it is all I am going to say about it. If you wish to indict me for not going as far as you like, please include the apostles in that indictment for consistency sake. And I really like that kind of company.
This is logically fallacious. What if the rest of the Bible says other things? You appealed to context earlier. Paul and Peter weren’t talking to a culture in which the average person had any impact on the government at all. It’s no wonder they didn’t tell them to vote, since they couldn’t. We can deduce from scripture that all kinds of things are wrong or right, without Peter or Paul saying them.

I am not the one telling people that they should be involved in politics nor am I the one saying that people should not be involved in politics. I am saying that the only guidance Scripture gives on the matter is what I have already stated. If you want to assert that Scripture says that believers must be involved or that they must not be involved, it is up to you to provide Scripture, rightly interpreted, to that end. My burden was to establish that “ought” ought not be part of the discussion. And I think Sripture’s lack of “ought” supports my position that “ought” ought to be dropped from the discussion. :-)

If you think there is a positive case for “ought” and that a moral imperative exists in the text, I would love to see you make it.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Ed,

You are clear I suspect some people simply are not listening. You are not saying one cannot make the argument for their conscience or even why participating in politics is a biblically principled thing, rather that the force of the language may not be carried by an implied divine command which is the language that has been used.

Take some of this same group and talk about “Christian music” and watch them suddenly lose their interest in principles so great they license the force of “ought” or implied divine command.

You are absolutely correct. I was beginning to wonder if I was as poor a communicator as the replies seemed to indicate.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Here’s a simple line of reasoning

(non controversial) Governing authorities ought to lead countries well.

(apparently controversial to you) American citizens are part of the American governing authority structure in their positions as voters and members of society.

God would like American Christians to exercise good governing authority. (If a majority of citizens votes out a US Congressman, he has to leave. He is to obey his voters in a sense.)

By not voting (at least the basics) American Christians are failing to exercise good governing authority in ways they can impact their country for the better. (None of this is to the exclusion of other means.)

If you won’t accept that Americans are part of our government, then you won’t accept this line of reasoning. But get off your high horse about standing with Peter and Paul.

(apparently controversial to you) American citizens are part of the American governing authority structure in their positions as voters and members of society.
The fallacy in your argument is that it begs the question of how Christian Americans can best influence governing authorities. I am pretty sure Paul had this in mind as did Peter when they penned Scripture. According to them, the best way to influence governing authorities was to obey, submit, seek peace, and to pray. Of course this goes hand in hand with preaching the gospel, evangelizing those governing authorities, baptizing converts, and making disciples.

I would argue that Americans are not really “part” of the governing authority structure in America. I would argue that we have a voice in who is part of the governing authority in America. However, I firmly believe that true Christians have no real voice in what takes place. We are far too small to matter. There simply isn’t enough of us. But if you throw in the hypocrites and imposters, I suppose you might have a little bit more of a voice, but still too small to effect much. The best approach is lifting our voice and preaching the gospel, obeying the laws of the land, setting moral examples in how we hold one another accountable and in how we love one another and praying for those who are in authority. Look at who we elected. And he seems poised to win again.

I wonder what would happen if churches spent the same amount of time on basic doctrine, evangelism, good works, and discipleship as they do on politics. We have politicians who are supposed to be Christians and who engage in wicked leadership every day. And those churches know it and do nothing. The Catholic church is a perfect example. Why does she not excommunicate politicians who she knows for a fact are for abortion?

Should I vote for Obama? Should I vote for Romney? Can a true Christian ever give their approval for leadership to man they know hates God? By voting, I am approving that man’s principles, am I not? The church is worried about gay marriage and yet over 50% of marriages in the church end in divorce, just as high as the world and some say slightly higher. Let me give a real life example from a PCA church that I am intimately familiar with.

A woman and man got married. They courted for about a year, neither of them spring chickens, middle-aged. For some reason, the woman got cold feet, AFTER the marriage. She thought maybe she sinned because her previous divorce may not have been proper. Her pervious husband was an unbeliever who refused to reconcile after a separation. Anyhow, the next thing I know is this woman and man are living separately. She thought she made a mistake marrying him and that God understands that people make mistakes and He is very merciful. The elders did very little. No charges, no nothing. People knda just wondered what was being done about it because no one knew. Then the man left the church. And then, without warning, the woman left also. Come to find out the man filed charges against the woman for illicit divorce and the elders refused to discipline her. They told the man she could repent without having to reconcile. The man filed a greviance with the Presbytery only to be told that his former spouse resigned the church and it was a moot point. No one did anything. If this kind of nonsense goes on in conservative churches like the PCA, can you imagine what happens in less conservative groups? The church needs to get busy doing the things Christ has called her to do. When the church recovers the gospel, starts discipling people again, and begins to exhibit the true marks of a church, maybe we can talk about politics. Until then, I intend to spend my time talking about the things that I think really matter: the gospel, conversion, evangelism, good works, discipleship, discipline, doctrine, holy living. In case you haven’t noticed, we are missing most of these elements in most of our churches while everyone is busy playing with Washington Politicians.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

According to them, the best way to influence governing authorities was to obey, submit, seek peace, and to pray. Of course this goes hand in hand with preaching the gospel, evangelizing those governing authorities, baptizing converts, and making disciples.
Where is it that Peter or Paul said they were trying to influence their government by making these commands. No, it was for a “quiet and peaceable life.” Merely obeying is not complete influence in our context. It’s the first step towards influence, but it’s just that.
I would argue that Americans are not really “part” of the governing authority structure in America. I would argue that we have a voice in who is part of the governing authority in America. However, I firmly believe that true Christians have no real voice in what takes place.
This is an assertion, not an argument. You’re saying you would argue it, so argue it. You don’t appear to in the rest of your post. We have a voice, but it’s not a real one? Huh? In voting, you never really know if your vote will make a difference until after they’re counted.

It seems that by your many words, you’re avoiding supporting your assertions with arguments, and when I google you on the rest of the interent, this seems to repeatedly be the case, and the frustration of many.

Let’s suppose that those who assert that (1) Christians “ought” to be politically involved, that (2) Christians “must” be politically involved and that (3) Christians who are not politically involved are irresponsible, bad citizens, and sinning against God and country, are actually right for arguments sake. That is where we land after all. Either it is a sin not to be politically involved or it is not. Either Christians are going to stand before Christ and given an account for voting or they are not. There is no middle ground. After all, if Christ will not have anything to say to non-voters for not voting, then this whole discussion is useless. So, that being said, there are a few more issues that emerge; hundreds is more like it.

1. Can I vote for a president who is for abortion because I like his tax policy? Would that be a sin?

2. Can I vote for a president who is for higher taxes because I like his abortion policy?

3. Can I vote for a president who is eliminating certain benefits from seniors and unwed mothers and their children because I like his abortion and tax policies?

4. I have some extra time on Thursdays and Saturdays and the local democrats or republicans need help signing people up to vote, am I sinning by not doing my part?

5. I have never made a political contribution, is that a sin?

6. Can I refuse to vote for a conservative president because I don’t like his illegal immigration policies.

7. Which party is “more” Christian, democrats or republicans?

8. How do I vote for a president who is liberal on abortion but conservative on the other issues?

9. Is it a sin to vote for a politician who is for gay marriage?

10. Is it a sin to vote for a conservative politician if he is an atheist?

If this argument is true:

It is a sin not to be a good citizen

All good citizen are politically involved

Therefore, it is a sin to be politically passive

Then so is this one:

It is a sin not to be a good citizen

Good citizens know the best path for the country’s policies & laws

Good citizens engage in the polical behavior that will move the country down that specific path

Therefore, it is a sin for Christians not to be politically engaged in those specific activities that move the country down the path that is best for its well-being and future health

This would mean that it is a sin to vote for any politician who holds a view that may move the country down a path that is bad for the country.

Okay, now we have to figure out what is bad for the country.

So now we have this thorny little issue facing us. If it is true that being a “good citizen” means “x,” and the Bible commands us to be good citizens, then it naturally follows that if we neglect “x” we actually sin against God. When we allow “others” to define what a good citizen is, as opposed to exegeting that information from Scripture, we are now in a position to create rules and standards that are firmly extra-biblical. Of course we have not even approach the question regarding who gets to define what a good citizen really is. That must be answered since the avoidance of sin depends on it.

This is why we should search the Scriptures to see if they give us any help understanding what a good citizen is, what God expects in terms of our relationship to governing authorities.

1. A Christian citizen is to be in subjection to civil authorities.

2. A Christian citizen is to recognize civil authories are ministers of God.

3. A Christian citizen recognizes that resisting civil authority is resisting God.

4. A Christian citizen pays their taxes.

5. A Christian citizen prays for the civil authorities.

6. A Christian citizen submits to civil authorities, kings, and governors for the Lord’s sake.

Paul says we do this, recognizing the authority as a minister of God as well as for conscience sake. Peter clearly tells us we should be good citizens for the sake of the gospel. The Christian interest in society is the gospel. We seek to do all we can to be the most capable witnesses to that gospel that we can be. When civil authorities look at the Christian community, it should be as a very narrow religious entitity with a religious interest. They should not see us as one more group to pander to.

Christianity became the official state religion under Theodosius (378-395). I strongly recommend that anyone who is truly interested in the question concerning church-government relationship begin with Scripture that actually addresses that issue specifically and then jump over to this period in church history and take a look at what resulted once Christianity began to become politically aware and involved. I will submit to you that since the late fourth and early fifth century, it has been utterly devestating. There may be an occassional bright spot, but only occassional. On the grand timeline, it looks quite dismal.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

[Shaynus]
According to them, the best way to influence governing authorities was to obey, submit, seek peace, and to pray. Of course this goes hand in hand with preaching the gospel, evangelizing those governing authorities, baptizing converts, and making disciples.
Where is it that Peter or Paul said they were trying to influence their government by making these commands. No, it was for a “quiet and peaceable life.” Merely obeying is not complete influence in our context. It’s the first step towards influence, but it’s just that.
I would argue that Americans are not really “part” of the governing authority structure in America. I would argue that we have a voice in who is part of the governing authority in America. However, I firmly believe that true Christians have no real voice in what takes place.
This is an assertion, not an argument. You’re saying you would argue it, so argue it. You don’t appear to in the rest of your post. We have a voice, but it’s not a real one? Huh? In voting, you never really know if your vote will make a difference until after they’re counted.

It seems that by your many words, you’re avoiding supporting your assertions with arguments, and when I google you on the rest of the interent, this seems to repeatedly be the case, and the frustration of many.
One, the whole idea of tanquility is related to the activity of civil authorities in this context. We pray, God moves in civil authorities (should He will), and this results in conditions leading to peace.

Two, your statement that Americans are part of the governing authority structure was no less an assertion than mine.

Three, if you believe there are enough genuine Christians in this country to vote our way out of the conditions we are in, then I have nothing else for you. I know of no one who actually believes that. You may have a little more strength when you throw in the hypocrits and the imposters (as long as your ok rubbing shoulders with them), but even still, the numbers don’t and won’t add up. This comes down to trust and faith in God, not trust and faith in the church’s ability to transform culture through political involvement. Nonsense! The minute politics entered the church they began corrupting her and so far as I can tell, they have not ceased.

You refer to JP Holding on your google inquire. Mr. Holding is an interesting individual. I actually think he may have been kicked off SI because his tactics are quite outside the bounds of Christian charity. He has posted false information about me because I opposed Licona’s recent treatment of the resurrection and insisted that he (Holding) not refer to people who disagree with him as stupid, morons, idiots, etc. If you wish to line up with JP, that is your decision. Obviously my views trouble you quite a bit. It is not my goal to frustrate you or to offend you. I only wish to talk about the truthfulness of the things that are being suggested here in the spirit of Christian charity. I think my position on the matter is pretty clear. It also seems clear to me that your objection is not quite hitting the target you intend. I have been there before. I remember my path out of a quasi-charismatic background as a young Christian and then my move from Arminianism to Calvinism. My objections we being answered with ease repeatedly and I was constantly facing objections I could not asnwer. Today, I am a five-pointer. When we are threatened by Scripture, that is when change is ripe and truth is discovered. Only let us walk in the truth once we see it.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4



I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m actually not standing with anyone or against anyone. I’m just observing that I’m not the only one frustrated with your lack of argument. Maybe it’s time to reflect on how you come across on the internet. That’s all.
Two, your statement that Americans are part of the governing authority structure was no less an assertion than mine.
True, but you’re the one in the relative minority here on this subject. Your entire argument hinges on this one point, and you can’t even set forth an argument about it. Still waiting. I want to see what you can positively put forth positively to prove your statement, because I don’t think you’ve really thought it through.

Above, I talked numbers. I’ve attended meetings in the US Capitol of pollsters and researchers who look at how many Christians vote and how. We basically track the rest of the population in voter turnout, which is about 40-50% of eligible voters. Just given the sheer numbers, if Christians actually used their voice, there could be huge ground-shifts in who is elected. Assuming all Christians voted in the 2008 Presidential election, and 70% of them voted for the pro-life candidate John McCain, who would have appointed conservative justices to the US Supreme Court. There would be about an extra 16 million votes for a pro-life candidate. John McCain lost by about 10 million votes in the popular vote. The electoral vote is even more telling. Your own state of North Carolina barely went to Obama by a mere 14,177 votes, or .3%. I think you Christians in NC could have worked a little bit found a few more Christians to get out and vote. President Obama went on to appoint two justices to the US Supreme Court who will ensure more years of the evil of abortion. Christian voices and votes really really matter, but we just don’t use them. God judges us not only for our actions, but for our inactions, and the foreseeable effects of our actions.

Thank you for giving me a glimpse into your world. Suffice it to say that you are no doubt speaking from extreme bias due to where you live every day.

Jesus was in the minority as well. That didn’t seem to stop him from possessing the truth about, well, everything. This thinking is very consistent with how politically oriented people think. I have more than you, that must mean my view is valid, credible, or even truthful. This is not so in the Society of Christ.

The last time I checked, I never participated in legalizing abortion. But the civil authorities sure did. Federal judges are appointed for LIFE my friend. I have no say over their judicial activism whatever. And even if I vote for a conservative, I still have no say over who he will appoint to the courts. Recent history proves that. We have a voice and even that voice is extremely limited. Moreover, lets suppose I vote for a conservative who then changes his view on an issue or even changes parties. Then what? Vote him out? Okay, but in the meantime he works to legalize gay marriage and I am partly responsible because I helped put him in. Give me a break!

Why is it a sin to vote for one man who is for abortion and not a sin to vote for a Mormon? Why is it a sin to vote for one man who is for gay marriage and not a sin to vote for another man who will install programs that will remove benefits from poor widows, unwed mothers and their children when he gets the chance?

Taking Scripture alone, you know, sola scriptura, tell me why it is sinful for me to vote for Obama, but not sinful to vote for Romney? I know Christians who have always voted, but will likely sit this one out because they cannot, in good conscience vote for a Mormon. Am I to judge them? Am I to say to my brother that he is sinning? ME GENOITO! Who are you to set up this “ought” and place it upon the backs of Christians and then leave them dangling as to how they should carry out the “ought.” IF you are going to declare that everyone not voting is sinning and being irresponsible, then I demand explicit representation from Scripture, rightly interpreted, and clearly presented. And on this matter, Scripture MUST be clear. Scripture is never obscure when it comes to sinful behavior! I think that is called the doctrine of perspecuity.

Are you telling me that Christians “ought” to have voted for John McClain rather than Obama? We just keep getting deeper and deeper into foolish legalism here. Of course I did not vote for Obama. When I was younger and less reflective about my views, I also judged people on these issues. I have since learned better and have repented. What I have learned is that if you disciple people properly, in the word, you won’t have to tell them who to vote for. They will review their principles and vote from their worldview. What are we really after? What is our goal? If we could snape our fingers, as Christians and fix “it” tomorrow, what would “it” look like tomorrow? No abortion? But still divorce rates at rediculous levels? No gay marriage? But still homosexual behavior all over the place? Small government and low taxes? But still the church not engaging in the good works she is called to? Conservative politicians? Yet no or very little evangelism and true gospel preaching taking place in the community and the churches?

It is just as sinful and ungodly to be pro abortion as it is to be a Mormon my friend. Its like boycotts. You simply can’t win for losing. How does one determine the right path? You whole argument hinges on the assumption that the old American way of living and thinking is the right way. Can you make a case for that from Scripture? Are we as Christians called to create governments and then ensure that they remain on track? Is that our calling? There are so many issues in this topic that we could spend a year examining it and be no closer to a solution.

I abhor your idea that God is going to judge Christians for not getting more Christians out to vote. You have no Scripture whatever to make such a legalistic claim and you seem to do so with great comfort or any hesitation. Personally, I think this is a big part of the problem in the church and certain large denominations are little help in that regard. Moreover, the idea that there are that many real Christians in NC is far, far off the mark. Most of these people could give a rip about the gospel, sanctification, heaven, hell, the bible, etc. They are nothing short of moralists running around with the Jesus label stamped on their head because it makes them feel good. And we don’t hesitate to use them when we want to push through our own agenda, which may or may not even be biblical. The world sees the church as a political front. They think that most Christians just use religion as a power play to get their way in Washington. And the more political we become, the more we give credence to that view. It is almost to the point that when the culture hears the word Christian, politics comes to mind before Jesus does. I wonder why that is.

Finally, I have no idea who these men are. None! I don’t know them. I do not know their character or anything else about them. All I know is what I hear. Yet, God is going to hold me responsible for voting for a man that I know absolutely nothing about, really and truly. So what I know his position here or there. When we place elders in position, we know them very well. One could make the argument that since you really don’t know these men you should not endorse them at all because they will reflect on you as a believer. You will be blamed for thier misgivings and poor leadership! I don’t make this argument, but it sure seems to me that it could be a valid one.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

When the church is seen to endorse a specific candidate, she must live with everything that candidate does after taking office. If that unbelieving candidate entangles himself in wickedness, guess who else is culpable by the worlds account? Thats right, the church. We put our own reputation on the line when we so visibly endorse certain candidates. And if the media is good a protraying those candidates in a certain light, they drag the church with them, good, bad, or indifferent.

There is more at stake here than most people realize. I care about the gospel. I love the church. If we are to be hated, and we are, then let us be hated for Jesus sake, not for the sake of some politician the world perceives represents the beliefs and views of the church.

I pray for God’s grace and mercy.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4