Dear Self-proclaimed "Evangelicals,"
Stop it!
The term, "Evangelical," has a meaning. Evangelicalism was started in response to fundamentalism which was started in response to liberalism. Fundamentalism was okay at the start but veered off into some far out directions. So the Evangelical concept kicked in. Evangelicals stressed conversion -- that people need to be transformed by being born again -- and biblicism -- a high regard for and obedience to the Bible -- and activism, especially in missionary endeavors, but also social reform, and, finally, "crucicentrism" -- the centrality of the cross of Christ. "Evangelical" has become a meaningless word. Like liberalism and fundamentalism and even catholicism before it, evangelicalism has drifted off into pointlessness. "We are definitely confident that you must be born again, but we won't stand on that and we won't be judgmental about it and, look, you can probably get to heaven in a number of ways." "We affirm the Bible! Except, of course, where we disagree with it. Then we're right and it's wrong." "Oh, activism? Yes, definitely! Well, maybe not over missionary work and maybe only in the current liberal agenda of social reform." "As for keeping the cross central, we do, but surely that's too narrow-minded and exclusive." And "evangelicalism" vanishes in a puff of smoke.
Now we have so-called "Evangelicals" campaigning for Trump. First, what does "Evangelical" and "campaigning for" any candidate have to do with each other? Standing for Christ and lobbying for politicians don't go together. An Evangelical could, perhaps, lobby for a politician, but not on the basis of being an Evangelical. Nothing in that original definition includes politics. Worse, you claim, "I'm getting out the vote for Trump in the name of Jesus." Have you heard the man? Do you not recall his own claims to sexual immorality, or his nonsensical (at best) tweets? Have you not seen him willingly dismantle attempts to make the planet better (something God commissioned humans to do) in favor of big business? In what world is Donald Trump a "good, moral guy" that should receive the commendation and support of anyone worth bearing the name "Evangelical"?
So, please, Evangelicals, stop. Do you want to campaign for Donald? By all means, do so. Just don't bring Christ into this. Just leave the "Evangelical" name at home when you do. Stop. Stop ditching the basics of evangelicalism and calling it "Evangelical." Ditch the basics if you want, but stop calling it that. Our world has decided to hijack so much of what we believe and value to mean something we don't. So "love" and "marriage" and "moral" and (most recently) "sex," for instance, have been stolen, twisted to mean something new, then reapplied to our foreheads as if we believed them in their new sense. Stop doing that, Evangelicals. You're not helping. The name of God is blasphemed among the unbelievers because of you. Please, just stop.
23 comments:
Stan,
I completely agree that Evangelical has lost any meaning or distinction in terms of theology. I believe that some of that is because the term has been redefined by the media, and other non-evangelical groups into a pejorative rather than a descriptive term. I also agree that voting for Trump (or for Biden) because you are an Evangelical is a mistake. Too many conservatives are following the progressive lead in putting an inordinate amount of faith in politics and political activism, rather that in Jesus.
Precisely my two major concerns: redefinition and faith.
Wow. After all these years I find a post of yours incredibly nonsensical. Like Dan, you cling to Trump's highly flawed character to assail Christians who nonetheless find him to be the best option at this time...which he clearly is and has proven himself to be. At least you don't cite Al Moehler, who recently has decided he will indeed vote for Trump the next time around.
Since when is perfection a requirement for any Christian to demand of a candidate? As much as most of us would prefer more in the way of "presidential" behavior, his performance otherwise has been far, far better than his detractors are willing to acknowledge. It is his performance that drives support from Christians...Evangelical or otherwise...after having only his promises and the threat of Hillary driving it the first time.
I don't see that too many are pretending to put anymore faith in human efforts than in Christ, and it seems rather absurd the inference that we must never put faith in anyone except Christ as if doing so is the same thing. It is not. I have faith that my wife will stay by my side. Is that a problem? I have faith that some people will act in good faith. How does that diminish my far more important faith in Christ?
I also don't see the problem in Christians forming coalitions to support people, policies or anything else, nor do I see it as problematic in any way as to their priorities regarding Christ. My politics is informed and influenced by my faith, belief and understanding of Christ and His teachings. Thus, so is my vote and I can justify my choice based on my Christian faith without much problem. Failure on the part of any candidate to perfectly match my hopes and expectations does not mean my faith was mistaken. My faith in a candidate only goes so far as to have faith that he'll do better in the job than his opponent, but that comes with the understanding that I might be disappointed when it's all said and done. But that's always the case.
Look at it this way: Suppose you have a better candidate in mind and that person actually vies for the Republican nomination. If you support him in the primaries, you're support is a demonstration of your faith in his ability to do the job and do it better than Trump has thus far. And I cannot believe that YOUR Christianity isn't influencing your decision. If your choice is a crook, or has some extremely sinful behavior that comes to light later, you have not in anyway blasphemed God by proclaiming the influence of your Christian beliefs in your choice, nor have even if you keep your beliefs to yourself. (proclaiming or not means nothing)
Finally, as to what "Evangelical" means to anyone, I don't much care. I attend an "Evangelical Free Church" but do so because I believe it's teaching is sound from a Biblical perspective as I understand it. I don't much care what it says on their letterhead.
Wow! I guess you either didn't understand me or didn't read what I wrote. "Do you want to campaign for Donald? By all means, do so." I have always argued that we should vote and I am not suggesting that anyone not vote. I am not telling anyone how to vote. And what nonsense that I have suggested that perfection is a requirement for any candidate! Absolute nonsense.
You obviously run in different circles than I do. I cannot tell you how many Christians told me four years ago that if Hillary got elected it was the end of the nation. That, contrary to what anyone might suggest, is putting faith in political leadership. Further, I can't tell you how many Christians I've talked to who tell me that if you're a Christian, you'd better be voting Republican. Otherwise ...? It's this apparent link between being a Christian and some political party thing that I am talking about.
My beliefs obviously influence my political views and my choices for office. Obviously, since I believe Christians ought to vote (as in "have a moral obligation to") I would hope their beliefs would influence their choices. All I'm asking is that they don't tie "Christian" to "my vote" as in "Real Christians vote this way" and that they don't make choices inconsistent with the name they're using, like "Evangelical."
And since you don't care what "Evangelical" means and don't identify as one, why are you reading their mail? :)
I agree with Stan, you're taking issue with things he didn't say.
As to your stance on Evangelical, I have to say that it's possible that people not caring about what words mean (especially in a theological sense) could be part of the problem. The problem is that these terms (Reformed, Evangelical, Fundamentalist) were actually coined to delineate particular theological positions. One can go back and find out what the fundamentals were that the Fundamentalists rallied around. Those terms started as theological identifiers that denoted certain shared/agreed upon beliefs. Unfortunately, as Stan notes, those terms were expanded and diluted first from inside their own ranks, then appropriated as pejoratives by progressives. I'd suggest that the meaning of terms is pretty important.
In the case of the E Free Church, not only does the name indicate theology, it also indicates polity. while I'm not suggesting that it's vital to have an understanding of the polity of ones church affiliation, I am suggesting that it does matter and probably shouldn't be ignored.
Maybe I'm too much of a nerd on this because of the things I've witnessed around theology and polity, but I'm pretty confident that it does matter to some degree.
Finally, the Evangelical tradition has a history of demeaning scholarship and theological training which, I believe, actually sowed the seeds of the destruction of the movement almost from it's inception.
Trump's sinful ways didn't "come out after the fact". Our president doesn't need to be perfect, but only a morally upright president can lead this country in a better direction. Aggressively supporting a morally bankrupt president on the basis of Christianity reflects poorly on Christianity. Doing so says that your Christian beliefs stop short of your political beliefs. When Bill Clinton was discovered to be having illicit affairs we rightly protested. But now, when it's "our guy" we simply ignore it? That is a double standard, and it reflects poorly on our Christian convictions. Support him as a Republican if you choose. But by supporting him because of your Christianity says that your Christianity is worthless. You are attaching the name of Christ to that man's wicked ways. Supporting him because of your Christianity only serves as fodder to mock Christ. Because of my Christianity, I couldn't vote for either of them in 2016, and because of my Christianity I won't vote for either of them in November. My belief in Christ's morality is more important than advancing my political agenda. And if more Christians voted their conscience rather than their Party, we might actually see some changes to the leadership options. But we have long since been voting for the lesser of two evils than for a better person. Vote for him because you like his politics, but please keep the name of Christ out of the mud.
As I did in my last comment, I'll be responding to multiple people, so don't anyone take this as a direct response, but a response to the last three of you (the first was toward two).
I also voted against Hillary as opposed to voting for Trump. But that vote was also putting faith into the belief that we would suffer less should Trump prevail. To not vote, or to vote third party or write-in...for someone with no chance at all of winning...that's putting faith in the belief that the nation will survive the suffering. There's a fine line here and little distinction between having faith in an outcome and having hope that things will work out.
I would also argue that the threat that Hillary would be great is now overshadowed by a far worse situation, where the leftism Hillary promised is now more overt and thus more of a threat than ever. I have faith that reelecting Trump will avert that definite crisis for at least another four years. I'm not so goofy as to pretend no bad can happen nonetheless. It's a matter of knowing that losing this time around will bring about problems that Trump's first term corrected. He's done a really good job and I have no reason to believe it won't continue, even if I accept that possibility that he might do something really stupid. But should he lose, stupid is guaranteed. I have faith that is the reality.
"Real Christians" acknowledge the truths I've presented here. There is a good choice and a bad one just as there was last time around. This is not to say that the good choice is perfect, or even an acceptable reflection of Christianity. But that's not the same as saying it is indeed the vote real Christians should make. We KNOW what the Dems want to do. We KNOW that Trump favors the opposite in almost every case...if not all. The result is "more Christian", if you will, than the other party will provide us and until an apostle is running for president, Congress or dog-catcher, I'll go with the closest available. Sad to say it's still Trump, but happy to know that he hasn't been anything like what even I feared he might be when I voted for him. Not even close.
As to terms used to categorize Christians, I've never been to interested in them. I accept that some denominations are more "progressive" while others are more "conservative" and each of those terms can suggest something different to different people...which is why I don't stress over them. I attend, I listen and I judge according to my own understanding and where possible, I confront and discuss that which isn't clear until it is. Then, if need be, I move on. Even to look up the terms and the mission statements of the congregations that use them only goes so far in helping me choose one from another. Eventually, I have to spend the time. Theology and polity both matter to me, the former far more than the latter, and far more than the word they use to describe themselves (except the word "Christian". That's really important).
"Our president doesn't need to be perfect, but only a morally upright president can lead this country in a better direction."
And yet this one's done just that.
"Aggressively supporting a morally bankrupt president on the basis of Christianity reflects poorly on Christianity."
Few, if any, Christians have done that. They "aggressively" supported him because his campaign promises reflected that which is far closer to what is acceptable to the Christians who did so. Having kept most of those promises thus far, he's proven such Christians were right to have taken that chance. I would expect that I wasn't the only one to hold the nose and expect the other shoe to drop. In that sense, I guarantee you my faith in God was in play...not any faith in Trump.
"But now, when it's "our guy" we simply ignore it?"
This is absolutely not what most Christians did. It was a choice between an immoral guy and a worse Hillary. But now that he's been in, what has he done that is akin to Bill Clinton's time in office? Any blue dresses of which you're aware? I don't think so, so his "moral bankruptcy" has not been a factor at all, has it? No double standard at all here. Especially now.
And again, like Dan, you're trying to assert a falsehood regarding why I (and those like me) voted for him initially, and now, with his time in office as track record, it means far less than it did in 2016...meaning it means nothing. I do indeed support him because my Christianity compels me to do so. I even stand by my belief that no one from the party should challenge him, but instead should support him more fully and run on his coattails in '24.
Those who would mock Christ over Christian support for Trump are those who mock Christ anyway. Who cares? I am indeed voting my conscience, which insists that doing nothing when a disaster awaits is wholly unChristian. Suffering ensues when we sit back and pretend that both sides are equally harmful (though Trump has proven himself to be beneficial). It's not a "political" agenda here. It's an American agenda and an agenda that is mindful of what is best for the most people. YOU'RE the people putting Christ's name in the mud, because you can't stop focusing on the mud.
https://faithit.com/noah-drunk-david-homewrecker-20-screwed-up-people-god-used-perfect-will-jarrid-wilson/
It's ALWAYS a choice between two evils, two imperfect people, two who fall short of the Glory of God. I find the refusal to vote for this guy at this point to be rather sanctimonious.
"'Real Christians' acknowledge the truths I've presented here."
And that, dear Marshal, is exactly the kind of thinking I was addressing in my comment to you. First, the country can't survive if either we don't get the right leader in or we get the wrong one in? My Bible reads, "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Rom 13:1) My Bible says, "He changes times and seasons; He removes kings and sets up kings." (Dan 2:21) My Bible says, "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will." (Pro 21:1) Second, the fear that the nation won't survive suggests among other things that this nation is God's nation and God couldn't stand it if His nation failed. It's the classic "God is on our side" as a nation. It suggests that the best possible good in the eyes of God is to have America continue. Third, really? You are equating agreeing with you on how to vote as the definition of "real Christian"? That if someone ultimately trusts God to establish authority, to raise up or remove our leadership, to ultimately do what's best, they're not a real Christian? Really?? Your version is "the ends justify the means ... even if the means are offensive to God."
I'm sorry that you've arrived at the point that you feel you can dictate what should be right political thinking on our part -- what would be moral or immoral for us to vote -- based on your religious views even though those religious views seem to contradict Scripture.
I get that "labels" (like "Evangelical") mean nothing to you. Our current state of affairs has sort of forced that on most of us. It has eliminated many valuable methods of communication just by muddying the language. Today, even "Christian" doesn't mean anything. Nor does "God," "love," "marriage," even "male" or "female." They all depend on who's using them and who's hearing them. We've made a grand mess of things. That it doesn't matter to you isn't surprising, but it isn't good, either.
In fact, I'm a bit concerned (for you) at the fervor with which you approach this topic of politics. My post was urging believers to trust in God rather than politics and you either missed that or think it's wrong.
Yes, those who would mock Christ over Christians who support Trump would mock Him regardless. But that doesn't mean we need to add reasons for them to mock Him. Your mentality is the same one that says "they're going to have sex anyway, just make sure it's safe sex." Or any other encouragement of a bad act because "they'll do it anyway". We should be pointing to the glory of God.
When I said that Christians should vote for someone else, it was a call to shake up our ridiculous two party system, as if there are only 2 types of people in this country. In this day, neither party truly reflects the majority of people. In our current system you are either Left or Right. Neither the extremes of either side, not there moderates of either side, or anything in between is represented by our 2 party system. If Christians actually voted their religious beliefs and not the lesser of two evils, we might actually be able to affect some change in this country. As it stands, the best we can hope for is to slow the flow, barely. The Republican party of my childhood would see the modern one as Liberal. And the Democratic party would see the current one as way out there, extremists. At best, voting for Trump is putting a rock in the river of Liberalism. The collapse of our nation as a democratic republic is nigh. The Founders knew that this system of government would only work in a mostly moral society. It requires people to have personal integrity and selflessness. That is not our citizens today. We live in a country that believes it is better to ask forgiveness than permission (ie, get what I want regardless of right or wrong), and that "I" is the most important person. But political reform will never come to pass because too many Christians have given up on what's right in lieu of what's less bad than the alternative. And now our faith and Lord are impugned because we turn a blind eye to the sins of our leaders while decrying those same sins in the people. Hypocrisy is the fastest way to prove your beliefs are false. Christians supporting an immoral leader BECAUSE of their Christianity are admitting that their beliefs only matter up to a point. And that tells the world that those beliefs don't matter at all when it comes down to actual life. Our religion is made moot by our unwillingness to actually live and vote by it.
Ultimately, what happens to this country doesn't matter to me in the face of what happens to the Church. If this country must crumble for the Church to begin to grow again, then let. It. Fall.
More clarification:
"And that, dear Marshal, is exactly the kind of thinking I was addressing in my comment to you. First, the country can't survive if either we don't get the right leader in or we get the wrong one in?"
Well, that depends upon what you mean by "survives". I would say it means that the country survives as it was intended to exist. We are clearly drifting further from what the founders intended and the further we do, the less America survives. Merely having people live in a country that is still named "the United States of America" doesn't mean we've survived. Thus, to allow the wrong people to win any election moves us further away from that which this nation was founded to be. That's a truth that real Christians would acknowledge. Where do I go wrong with this?
"My Bible reads, "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Rom 13:1)"
I don't disagree or reject this. But what needs to be kept in mind is unlike the governments in existence at the time Scripture was written, ours is by consent of the governed. As such, we are the means by which God grants authority, just as the ancient Israelites were the means by which God brought about punishment. Not voting, or voting for someone with absolutely no chance of winning (third party, write-ins) is to abdicate one's responsibility when the possibility that the worse of two evils may rise to power as a result. This was the case in 2016, when we didn't know how Trump's past would influence his presidency (very little as it turned out), and the alternative to him was clear in her intentions. Now, we know that Trump's salacious past has not at all manifested, and his work as president...in the face of all manner of constant attack and obstruction from both parties...has been to push us closer to those founding ideals in a manner that benefits even those who hate him. As such, the choice is far more starkly clear.
"Second, the fear that the nation won't survive suggests among other things that this nation is God's nation and God couldn't stand it if His nation failed. It's the classic "God is on our side" as a nation. It suggests that the best possible good in the eyes of God is to have America continue."
None of this is at all a reflection of my position. I have no illusions about what God can or can't stand and I don't have any doubt that when the end time comes, we'll see that He has a plan. We're always moving in that direction anyway, but we're not, I don't at all believe, meant to live as if we should just let all the evil that will bring it about do what it wants. I don't do the "God is on our side" bit. I favor doing all that's possible to make sure we're on His side. Whether you like it or not, Trump is far closer to His side than was Hillary or is Joey Plugs, Bernie Shamders or any other leftist out there at this time. It is true because by virtue of party philosophy and platform, the right side of the ideological divide still draws from the founding intent, which was very influenced by Judeo-Christian ideals. We'll never be a perfect reflection of God. But I won't sit back and do nothing...or do that which is impotent in having any real effect...that allows us to further drift away from Him. It is a good in the eyes of God that a nation exists which reflects His Goodness. To whatever extent we can push the nation toward that goal, the better it is for all and most of all, it is for His sake and greater glory that we must.
"Third, really? You are equating agreeing with you on how to vote as the definition of "real Christian"? That if someone ultimately trusts God to establish authority, to raise up or remove our leadership, to ultimately do what's best, they're not a real Christian?"
Yes, because of what I just said above, then No, because it doesn't reflect what is implied by your second question. Again, due to our system of government, God establishes authority through our actions as voters. Vote poorly, and He'll give us what we deserve.
"I'm sorry that you've arrived at the point that you feel you can dictate what should be right political thinking on our part..."
Don't be. You're doing it too by suggesting that it is against the faith to vote for someone like Trump because of his salacious personal history...as if that's all we must consider in the voting booth. It isn't.
"I get that "labels" (like "Evangelical") mean nothing to you."
No you don't. But perhaps I wasn't clear in expressing myself. I don't care what it says on the front door of the church if what is preached on the inside is in keeping with my understanding of the faith. I have no problem moving on if I hear too much that isn't or is that which I can't resolve through my understanding. I went to a UCC church for a time...even chaired the Board of Elders and was council president...but moved on when I realized the congregation was too tied to the denomination which I vocally opposed. (Because of how UCC congregations are autonomous, I felt there was a good chance this one might be open to more conservative understanding. Some were, but too many weren't.)
Words do mean things to me, and I tend to go with traditional understandings as you do. That's a different issue than what kind of Christian others might label me. I don't much care about that compared to what kind of Christian I am.
And I very much do trust God more than politics, and certainly more than politicians. But I also know there's a vast difference between having faith in God...which is paramount and overshadows any other...versus having faith in my fellow man. My faith in the latter is not the same.
I don't know how I can clarify my position any better.
"Yes, those who would mock Christ over Christians who support Trump would mock Him regardless. But that doesn't mean we need to add reasons for them to mock Him."
I'm more than happy to explain the nuances they choose to overlook on their way to their next attack. I won't worry if they don't inquire about it as they are who they are.
"Your mentality is the same one that says "they're going to have sex anyway, just make sure it's safe sex." Or any other encouragement of a bad act because "they'll do it anyway"."
Nonsense. Where did this come from? It's goofy. No connection to my position whatsoever.
"We should be pointing to the glory of God."
We do this as well by pulling away from that which is further from it. In politics, it is more often than not all we have, given no candidate is without sin.
"When I said that Christians should vote for someone else, it was a call to shake up our ridiculous two party system, as if there are only 2 types of people in this country."
Good luck with that. More parties don't make it any easier, as more parties means more division. And fewer parties? What will that do for us?
"If Christians actually voted their religious beliefs and not the lesser of two evils, we might actually be able to affect some change in this country."
Doing one is doing the other. This is what the anti-Trumpers in the faith fail to grasp. When I voted for Trump, it was because despite his obvious flaws, he was closer to matching Christian beliefs. Not perfectly, obviously, but based his campaign promises, and the party platform, clearly closer. And this is always how voting works...unless you have an angel of God or an apostle of Christ on the ballot.
"The Republican party of my childhood would see the modern one as Liberal."
To my surprise, and to the surprise of many staunchly conservative voices, Trump has governed far more conservatively than most in the party are in reality. If you can't see this, you need to study harder.
"Christians supporting an immoral leader BECAUSE of their Christianity are admitting that their beliefs only matter up to a point."
There's a word that describes this comment that I can't use and have Stan not delete the comment. I do not support an immoral leader. I support a man who has acted immorally in his personal life, but has governed like a conservative and in doing so has improve the lot of the vast majority of Americans, while doing so according to the Constitution as is his job. I'm supporting a president that has been a good president. Where has his salacious past factored into any of it? Has he pushed for some legislation favoring adultery? Is there anything like that in his work as president? Are you going to keep getting the vapors over his tweets, and his inarticulate manner? That ship past after he won the GOP primary and became the nominee. Now, he's proven himself worthy of another term.
"And that tells the world that those beliefs don't matter at all when it comes down to actual life. Our religion is made moot by our unwillingness to actually live and vote by it."
Again, consider the word I can't use. It applies again. YOU are enabling that false and derogatory opinion of the non-religious against us.
"Ultimately, what happens to this country doesn't matter to me in the face of what happens to the Church. If this country must crumble for the Church to begin to grow again, then let. It. Fall."
If it falls, it will be by your hand because you stood on your sanctimony rather than on what truly matters. It's rather ironic and nonsensical to pretend the Church will suffer from a flawed president who works to uphold religious liberty.
OK, you two. I'm done now.
Sorry. I'm not done because something occurred to me a bit later.
It seems clear that each of us...and by that I mean, YOU TWO guys...have our ideas about what pushes us closer to God as a nation. But waiting around until that perfect candidate shows up doesn't seem to truly get us there, especially since we have to put some degree of faith and trust in whomever it is for whom we cast our votes. Thus, there's really only one way to make sure we get there according to our individual notions of a nation reflecting God's glory. Run for office. Yeah...do it yourself. Be the candidate for whom you're waiting. Until then, not voting, voting third party or write-ins who have no hope at all of winning, is to be willing to allow the worst possible candidate win the election and further drive us in the wrong direction, with all the suffering that goes with it. How is that the Christian option?
NOW I'm done...unless you have a response the compels more from me.
Welcome to the strawman fallacy 101. I've never, ever, not once contended for anything approaching "that perfect candidate." You keep suggesting I have and there is nothing farther from the truth. That's what's called a "strawman fallacy." Well done in supplying a perfect example. Further, I have not ever, never once suggested that selecting the right candidate, a better candidate, a good candidate, an acceptable candidate "pushes us closer to God as a nation." In fact my specific point has always been that this is NOT true.
I think the thing that rankles so much is your insistence that to not vote for the same guy you're voting means I'm not a Christian. That some how being involved in the political system is necessary for salvation. Whether or not Trump had been good for the country/world is irrelevant. I've somehow lost my salvation because I failed to agree with you on a non-Scriptural position. You want to vote for him as the lesser of two evils? That's fine. But to say that me not voting for the same candidate as you means I'm not a believer is arrogant and not found in Scripture. I don't even find anything in there saying I should be working toward living in a Christian nation. America hasn't been even remotely close to a Christian nation for at least 40 years. So I would expect to see this country slide further and further from that position, and there is no amount of voting that is going to prevent or even slow that process. I don't agree with you that ours is a nation lead by the consent of the governed. Consent of the majority, sure, but not the governed. Our government does so much I don't consent to (and everyone has something they don't consent to ie masks). But I still obey because I'm told to obey those in authority over me. Whether I put them there or not is irrelevant. Because ultimately, God is the one putting our government officials in place, not us. And many (most?) aren't even elected, their appointed by the elected.
In the end, I'm not going to call you not a Christian because you don't agree with me in politics. You want to deny the authority of Christ, or the sin nature of humanity, or the like, then we'll have that question. But to denounce someone's salvation on the basis of a non-biblical belief, I'd call that sanctimonious.
Stan,
"I've never, ever, not once contended for anything approaching "that perfect candidate."
Not in so many words. However, by "that perfect candidate", I merely suggest that candidate that checks off whatever and how many boxes either of you require in order to vote at all.
It also occurs to me that by voting third party or write in, you're both (whichever of you does such a thing) are still engaging in "lesser of two evils" voting. We all know that there's no such thing as a "perfect" candidate, and should we use the term at all, it certainly isn't used in anything more than as a rhetorical flourish. So I wouldn't waste too much emotion objecting to that. "Perfect enough" is more like it, and we each have our notions as to who such a person might be or is. That is, we know him when we see him.
But in the meantime, we face selections where such a person is not on the ballot and we must then make the best choice. THAT is true and responsible citizens...as well as Christians...cannot abdicate their responsibility to make such a choice for the consequences, both good and bad...or even bad and really bad...are directly tied to our actions or non-actions.
"Further, I have not ever, never once suggested that selecting the right candidate, a better candidate, a good candidate, an acceptable candidate "pushes us closer to God as a nation." In fact my specific point has always been that this is NOT true."
But it IS true. Each thing we do moves us one way or another, and moves others as well, even if ever so slightly. What's more, that push might not even be overtly Christian, but yet be Christian nonetheless in the impact it has. What's even more true is that to allow that the greater evil prevails pushes the nation away from God. (I allow for the fact that often great suffering pushes people to God)
David
"I think the thing that rankles so much is your insistence that to not vote for the same guy you're voting means I'm not a Christian."
The issue is not necessarily voting for the guy I favor, but that you choose not to vote for either of the two most likely to become president. Again, there is no third party, no write in, who will win. It will be one of the two major party candidates...this time around, Trump (GOP) or Biden (Dem...or whomever they run instead at the last minute or allow to be his VP). Also, not voting at all is abdicating responsibility as well. All three of these alternative options are akin to voting for the greater of the two evils, by virtue of not supporting the lesser. You have a choice of mitigating whatever harm you believe either might bring about in choosing the candidate that will be less harmful. They are not identical. Even if they were, the policy proposals of the parties they represent are certainly not and allowing that party which is least favorable to your own desires and beliefs is allowing harm to befall you and yours...indeed, it is to invite that harm. THAT is not a Christian behavior.
"That some how being involved in the political system is necessary for salvation."
A goofy inference on your part given nothing I've said so much as hints at that. I was speaking solely to the consequences of not voting or voting for someone with no chance of beating out the two main candidates (the same as not voting). Good Christians don't knowingly do harm and not voting does harm.
"Whether or not Trump had been good for the country/world is irrelevant."
In a presidential election, that's ALL that's relevant. It's indeed the point. YOU believe that voting for him is bad because he was an adulterer and he tweets. It's absurd.
"But to say that me not voting for the same candidate as you means I'm not a believer is arrogant and not found in Scripture."
So glad I never said that.
"America hasn't been even remotely close to a Christian nation for at least 40 years."
Largely because of how people vote. At least to a great extent. If politics, as Andrew Breitbart said, is downstream from culture, then a corrupt culture votes for the wrong people and exacerbates the problem. Politically speaking, most of the rot in our culture aligns with one party far more than the other...and that's not even debatable.
"So I would expect to see this country slide further and further from that position, and there is no amount of voting that is going to prevent or even slow that process."
A prophesy self-fulfilled by those who won't vote.
"I don't agree with you that ours is a nation lead by the consent of the governed. Consent of the majority, sure, but not the governed."
The majority is the governed as much as the minority is. They just have the greater voice because...I dunno...there's more of 'em! Kinda how it's supposed to work! JEEZ!
"Our government does so much I don't consent to..."
Choose your candidates more wisely...support them openly and encourage others to do the same for the reason you see as justification for doing so. That's how the governed gives it's consent.
"Because ultimately, God is the one putting our government officials in place, not us."
Through us. If good Christians are involved in the process, a more Christian nation results. God working through His people. This is basic stuff.
"And many (most?) aren't even elected, their appointed by the elected."
And those put into elected office by good Christians appoint good people. Again...basic stuff.
"But to denounce someone's salvation on the basis of a non-biblical belief, I'd call that sanctimonious."
To reiterate...I never referenced anyone's salvation and would certainly never do so on a "non-biblical" belief. That doesn't even make sense.
You said that a "real Christian" votes for Trump. Thus, to not vote for Trump is a fake Christian. How is that not denying my salvation? You have also failed to prove that abdication is the same as promoting evil. And, since it is the people that put the leadership in place, the leadership is a representative of the level of corruption of the people. A better government isn't going to make moral people. Moral people make a better government. And there aren't enough of us left to stem the tide. The Right is so far Left now as to no longer be the Right. Your "good" lawmakers placed by your "good" elected officials are still promoting sin and killing the innocent. Even they have caved to the feelings of the Left. The only thing that will turn this country around is an Awakening among the people, not the government.
" I merely suggest that candidate that checks off whatever and how many boxes either of you require in order to vote at all."
Somewhere along the line we got some wires crossed because you keep protesting things I never said. I can't remember the last election in which I failed to vote. What was it ... 20, 30 years ago? I always vote. If you're suggesting that I prefer to find the most qualified candidate to vote for, that's certainly true, but at no time do I think I'm going to find anything at all resembling a "perfect candidate" in any way, shape, or form. I won't vote for a Hillary (or the rest of the Dems) because I think a pro-abortion stand is a disqualifier for someone whose job is to protect life. I won't vote for a socialist or communist because I think their approach ignores basic human nature and will certainly run the country down. That is, my choices for office are not based on moral character, but on their positions that will aid or hinder the country as a whole. Perfect or even nearly perfect is not even in the picture. Nor is not voting.
As for your assertion that the right candidate pushes the nation closer to God, I can only disagree thoroughly. I say, "Don't put your trust in princes" (Psa 118:9; Psa 146:3) and you say, "Make sure you vote for the right prince so we can be closer to God." I say God can actually use bad governments (e.g, Acts 4:26-28) to accomplish His will and you say that "the greater evil prevails pushes the nation away from God." So, clearly, we disagree. We won't be agreeing on this point. And, in fact, this is what I've said already -- you disagree with my post here in its entirety when I urge Christians not to rely on government, but God.
David,
"You said that a "real Christian" votes for Trump. Thus, to not vote for Trump is a fake Christian. How is that not denying my salvation?"
My statement referred to the alternative of NOT voting for Trump, which is to sit back and allow that the greater of two evils might prevail and with it, cause far greater suffering than would be brought about by voting for a guy who cheated on his wife, dug hot babes and speaks like a regular guy. If we as Christians are to care for our fellow man...our neighbor...how is that fulfilled by opening the door to the worse of two possible outcomes?
At the same time, it has no relation to your salvation to do something stupid, as we all do something stupid now and then regardless of how devoted we are to being as "Christian" as possible.
"You have also failed to prove that abdication is the same as promoting evil."
Are you kidding? We're discussing whether or not it is reasonable and rational...and Christian...to choose between the lesser of two evils for president. When you choose not to participate in the vote, you are promoting whatever evil befalls as you played no role in preventing or mitigating it by your abdication when you had the opportunity to do so.
"And, since it is the people that put the leadership in place, the leadership is a representative of the level of corruption of the people."
That's what I said. And by abdicating your duty, you allow for the more corrupt than less corrupt to lead and their position of power influences the moral character of the people. Government can do three things: it can legislate against a behavior, it can legislate to promote a behavior or it can remain neutral. This influences public perception of the behavior. Voting for the most moral (or least corrupt) will also affect public perception. You say so yourself by your adamant refusal to vote for "a guy like Trump", because you believe it will reflect badly on Christians, Christ or the faith. Make up your mind.
"A better government isn't going to make moral people. Moral people make a better government."
So vote against the greater of two evils. It's how you affect government.
"And there aren't enough of us left to stem the tide."
Way to throw in the towel. You're a pip.
"The Right is so far Left now as to no longer be the Right. Your "good" lawmakers placed by your "good" elected officials are still promoting sin and killing the innocent."
You're clearly not paying attention. Trump has been the most conservative president since Reagan (still shocks me). He has defended the right to life and religious liberty. He supports law enforcement and a strong border and military to protect the people. What has he done to legislate in favor of his adulterous past or his questionable tweets?
"The only thing that will turn this country around is an Awakening among the people, not the government."
Awakening of the people comes from God ultimately, and through Him working through His followers. You would prefer to let people sleep by remaining silent when difficult choices are put before you. And really, supporting him even if only to prevent the other from winning is one more person joining the fight which will add to the awakening. Given what the left is doing these days, I again say that allowing them any quarter is unChristian.
Stan,
Really. Stop it. I clearly said that a write in, or third party vote, when neither of them has any chance to win, is akin to not voting. I didn't say it wasn't voting. One could even argue it's worse. But it illustrates just how negatively I regard any of the three, especially when so much is at stake.
I also said I don't believe a perfect candidate exists, but that doesn't preclude me from using the term rhetorically to make a point. Trump certainly wasn't the perfect candidate in 2016. But to suggest he hasn't proven himself closer to that lofty level is nonsense and false. Yet he's still light years away...as is everyone else.
So now you're saying that your choices aren't based on moral character, but with all the great things Trump has done as president so far, one what other basis can your refusal to support him be? Which of his policies are so terrible that, even ignoring his personal character, he hasn't been improving the lot of Americans across the board and in various ways? I'm not getting your opposition at all now.
"As for your assertion that the right candidate pushes the nation closer to God, I can only disagree thoroughly."
Call it a personal criterion. When I choose, the thought that we are moving one direction or the other also coincides with closer or further from God. It's just how it is. It doesn't mean that were the USA to become totally Christian-like in all ways but for a clear rejection of God, I'd be good with it. But at the same time, that is but one more thing the nation would need to have succeeded in moving closer to God.
More specifically, I regard a nation that is closer to God as one wherein the people are believers and that belief is manifested in all each citizen does....just as with individuals. In the meantime, that still does not mean relying on government over God. Yet, we must rely on government for a variety of needs, so there will always be a degree of that which is appropriate and morally neutral.
I totally agree that God can use bad governments for His purposes. But that doesn't mean we must not do all we can to ensure GOOD governments, and voting for Trump this November is a clear step in that direction. Voting for anyone else is not if anyone else has no chance at winning.
Finally, I must reiterate another truth: The primaries are the time for "making a statement". The general election is the time to do what's best for the country over the next four years after that statement is made. You didn't like the statement you felt was made by Trump's winning the primary. I didn't either, but I certainly hated what was sure to take place were he to have lost the general. It was a risk and it paid off handsomely. Now, that he's proven, he's deserving of another four years and given what's been going on, we need him to win. If you really want to make a statement, get involved in politics yourself in between elections. Run for office yourself or find someone as close to your idea of a "perfect" candidate as possible and work on his behalf.
Post a Comment