Christians and the governing process

[Soulfyre]

This is less an area where we argue political affiliation, but political responsibiliy. How should the Christian engage in the political process? How should the Christian make choices regarding the administration of the governing authorities of our cities, counties, states and the nation? What is God's purpose for government? The topics for discussion here are many and the pitfalls are sometimes less than obvious.

For example, should we as Christians automatically support any candidate that appears to call upon the name of Jesus and confess him as Savior and Lord? Can a Christian compromise on areas of strict moral definition? Can Christians afford to be single-issue voters? What is the significance of our servanthood to our Savior in diverse areas such as economic justice, the environment, care for the sick and oppressed, protection of the weak and the fatherless, the support of the family, pubilc education, and international conflict?

I hope that in this area we will move past party politics to discover what our primary concerns as Christians should be, and how we may best interact with our chosen leaders and affect the political process to the glory of God.

[melinky]

The topic for my Bible study class last week was "Security" with readings from 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 Kings. Basically our study looked at the way the people of Israel found security in their leaders. At the end of the reading we have a workbook and one of the questions was this:

What kinds of actions and attitudes of leaders do you think God blesses? What kinds of actions and attitudes demonstrate faithfulness to God’s will?

I think that the leaders that Christians look to, are the ones that God blesses; the ones that demonstrate faithfulness to God's will.

To me, this would be a leader who will not compromise his/her morals, for if he/she will compromise his/her morals, what else will this person compromise?

[melinky]

Thy will be done!

[mpethe]

How do you feel about Bush for 4 more years? As an American? As a Christian?

I don't know if I would consider Bush a Christian or not - despite what he calls himself. Do you?

[melinky]

I would certainly call Bush more of a Christian than I would Kerry. My biggest problem with Kerry came when he said at one of the debates that he was a Catholic (I can't remember if he said devout) but as president, he would side with the people. When I first thought about this, I thought that was a good thing. Then in my Bible study, we were learning about kings who went along with the people rather than God. This did not make God a happy camper. At least Bush stands up for Christian ethics.

My best friend is a Catholic and according to the Catholic church, Kerry is not a Catholic because he is willing to consider abortion. I guess with the Catholic faith, you support the church's views 100% or not at all. Apparently, there has even been some talk about withholding communion from him because of some of his political views.

My only problem with Bush was the way he sniped at Kerry throughout the campaign. I felt this was not showing Christian morals, nor was he setting a good example for the youth of our country. The campaigns for both candidates were deplorable and I feel they should both be ashamed of their antics.

As for Bush for 4 more years, I feel that it's better than the alternative. I don't want gay marriage condoned by the government, I don't want abortion approved by the government. I don't want a man as our president who vehemently claimed that our government would capture and "kill" terrorists.

Just my 2¢ worth,

Melinda

[Soulfyre]

mpethe said:

How do you feel about Bush for 4 more years? As an American? As a Christian?

I don't know if I would consider Bush a Christian or not - despite what he calls himself. Do you?

You ask a good question, mpethe. In answer, retrospectively, I would have to say that if I take him at his word, I would have to say “Yes, George Bush is a Christian.”<br>
Now it is a far different, and perhaps more profound, question to ask to what extent George Bush is consistent with his Christian faith. And this would probably result in a wide range of responses, depending upon different people's view of what obedience to Jesus Christ demands or a political leader who has the dubious challenge of leading a “democratic” country. There is the ethical challenge between representing the will of one's constituents, and maintaining one's personal moral integrity.

One might wonder, given the current widely divergent views of the First Amendment to our constitution, in which “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”, how a Christian President could effect moral change within the United States? Those representatives of the judiciary who view our Constitution as an essentially living document, have used this to make broad rulings inhibiting any suspected “cross pollenation” between government and its representatives and religion, especially any form of evangelical Christianity. “Religion” is deemed a private manner, which cannot intrude on issues of public or civic morality. Essentially, our President can be a moral—even religious—individual (we even tend to prefer it), as long as he doesn't expect us to be, and that he doesn't make decisions-of-state based on his religious convictions. A “strict reconstructionist” would take this amendment in its original intent, which was to reserve such decisions to the sovereign states. But the Fourteenth Amendment, often referred to as the “equal protection” clause of the Constitution, has essentially applied the “protections” guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to actions of state, county, and local governments. This was primarily to guarantee that the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, was carried out by the various state governments. The “Law of Unintended Consequences” has expanded the federalism of the United States. In the United States, it is even now less “freedom OF religion” than it is ”freedom FROM religion”. But I digress.

One of the primary benefits of the Presidency is that it is a “bully pulpit” (originally coined by Theodore Roosevelt, in which the term “bully” simply meant “fine or excellent”), from which to persuade the people of the United States concerning issues and courses of action. Few in this modern era utilized the “bully pulpit” as well as President Ronald Reagan. Agree or disagree with the man, he was well aware of the power of the presidency to persuade, cajole, and even pressure change. His daring command. “Gorbachev...Tear down this wall!", was an outstanding example. President Bush has not been an effective “communicator” or “persuader”. Some may even accuse him of intemperate decisions (although based on faulty, although widely accepted evidence). I also am concerned that his virtual refusal of the use of the veto pen has allowed an increase in “pork barrell” legislation giving financial and tax benefits to special constitutencies that is unconscionable, further balooning a mounting debt.

In this recent election, I admit that my vote was against John Kerry. Many who voted did so related to a belief that the federal government has become far too liberal, and is no longer cognizant of the overwhelming support for a far more traditional morality among the people of the United States. Many feared that John Kerry and John Edwards, whose voting records in Congress were two of the most liberal (surpassing Kennedy), would then be in a position to appoint to the federal judiciary man and women who would further erode support of traditional values in the United States (including freedom of expression by Christians). Many feared that given John Kerry's having met with the leaders of North Vietnam while still a member of the Naval Reserve while the United States was at war, was an act of treason that harmed many of our prisoners of war, and that such a predilection did not speak well of his willingness to allow his personal viewpoints concerning diplomacy to overwhelm what might be considered common sense, to the danger of our citizenry. And his tendency to shift his political opinions with the winds of sentiment within his party to garner a constituency bespoke a man too ready to sacrifice his own moral beliefs (whatever they might be) for convenience or support.

Essentially, however, a vote “against Kerry” is a less than stellar endorsement of George Bush. I believe that to treat the recent vote as a mandate (a 3% majority) would be foolhardy. There are many problems which face our country: a difficult and protracted conflict; spiraling medical costs and costs of insurance, leaving many without adequate access to medical attention; an economy which, although expanding, has replaced higher paying jobs with lesser paying jobs, decreasing the spending power of many, or requiring that some people hold one, two, or three jobs to try to make ends meet; a federal deficit that is monstrous in its proportion; and I could go on. Much discipline, a sense of Christian obligation, and skillful statesmanship, both at home and abroad, will be required. George Bush could learn a great deal from the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a truly eloquent politician, who will now need to call in his debts.

My concern is that we, as Christians, demand accountability at all levels of government. That we, as Chrisitans, demonstrate our own surrender to our Living Lord Jesus Christ in lives of consistency and compassion. That we, as Christians, uphold justice and mercy, and do not forget the plight of the poor and sick. That we, as Christians, no longer be willing shills for the first politico who mumbles the right words about “pro-life” or “marriage amendment”. And this will demand far more of us than an unquestioning support of George Bush because he is “a Christian”. It demands that we, in turn, demand that consistency from a Christian leader that the Lord demands of us. No less is acceptible.

[melinky]

Soulfyre said:

My concern is that we, as Christians, demand accountability at all levels of government. That we, as Chrisitans, demonstrate our own surrender to our Living Lord Jesus Christ in lives of consistency and compassion. That we, as Christians, uphold justice and mercy, and do not forget the plight of the poor and sick. That we, as Christians, no longer be willing shills for the first politico who mumbles the right words about “pro-life” or “marriage amendment”. And this will demand far more of us than an unquestioning support of George Bush because he is “a Christian”. It demands that we, in turn, demand that consistency from a Christian leader that the Lord demands of us. No less is acceptible.

To that I have a two word comment,

AMEN BROTHER!

[Juan]

I just read this on a friend of a friend's blog,

www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=koreahn&tab=weblogs&uid=140872669

Really makes you think about Bush a bit.

[Soulfyre]

Juan said:

I just read this on a friend of a friend's blog,

www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=koreahn&tab=weblogs&uid=140872669

Really makes you think about Bush a bit.

I'm glad you posted this. You're right. It does say a lot about the President.

God bless and keep you and yours, Juan...

Matthew

[melinky]

What a great story! Thanks for sharing.

Melinda

[karenin]

That was a sweet post, i'm definitely going to pass that along. i'm not even going to try to comment on the whole topic, but i just wanted to offer an interesting opinion of c.s. lewis. in mere christianity TEXT lewis suggests that there should be two types of marriage, Christian marriage and civil marriage which is recognized by the government. what are your thoughts on the idea of this kind of 'separation of church and state?'

[Soulfyre]

karenin said:

...but i just wanted to offer an interesting opinion of c.s. lewis. in mere christianity TEXT lewis suggests that there should be two types of marriage, Christian marriage and civil marriage which is recognized by the government. what are your thoughts on the idea of this kind of 'separation of church and state?'

Wow! You do have a way of posting really pertinent questions. I'm working on an inadequate response, but thanks for asking the question that reveals the elephant in the room.

God bless,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[rgrove]

Soulfyre said:

Wow! You do have a way of posting really pertinent questions. I'm working on an inadequate response, but thanks for asking the question that reveals the elephant in the room.

Is this it Matthew?

homepage.mac.com/mbrown52/pages/145.html

[Soulfyre]

Actually, yes. That link to my homepage site (which is largley reproduced at the topic of the same name on this board) is my clarification on this issue.

God bless and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Alejandro]

I am not old enough to vote, but my political stance is thus: Minarchist.

I do not feel that pushing Christian morality upon others is the way to go. I do not think it is right for us to decide how others should act, we are to love our neighbors, not force them to act a certain way. Yeshua is the example we should all be following. We should, as Christian, love and continue to pray for those who do not see the ways of the Christ as important or, needy--not force our beliefs onto them.

I remember hearing something back a while ago that went something like this: President Bush is a Christian, but he does not allow his religious beliefs to interfer with his political stance. That is something that admire about him, and hope it to be true.

I think it is time for the Christians to take back the morality of Christ from the politicians. Too many times have I heard people saying they are going to vote just because one person is pro-life. How ridiculous! It seems this would be a great way to get votes, become prolife. Though, this cannot be true 100% of the time, and is not true. Just think of how much power you wield when 4 out of 5 homes in a America are Bible reading homes, and you say you are a Christian. How many of people will vote for you just because you are a Christian, or not really one? (Not intended to be a jab at the President.)


It is good to know that we have a man of God is the White House, but I do not think that is what America needs, though. We need God as our Commander in Chief and until we get God there, we will still be wondering the desert. No matter how pure a system is in its intent, it ends up in self-worship; we need to unite under the banner of Christ. Be strong brothers and sisters.

Peace, Love, and Light through Yeshua the Christ,
Alejandro