how does devout christians justify voting Democrat?

[RDKirk]

An interesting verse. Many Anabaptists base their refusal to participate in government on this verse, at least in part. They also cite 2 Corinthians 6:14: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"

But on the flip side, there is Jesus' parable of the talents (Matthew 24:14-28).

So, should we, or should we not vote? Should we, or should we not seek/serve in public office?

My response to that is in another thread here.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-should-christians-vote.7937455/page-2#post-69395212

 

[Caretaker]

My response to that is in another thread here.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-should-christians-vote.7937455/page-2#post-69395212

Hmmmm... the only explicit thing I see there is a reference to Daniel. Am I to then understand that you feel that voting and seeking/serving in public office is OK for a Christian, i.e., Daniel served the king in government, so it's OK for Christians also? Of course Daniel was appointed, not elected. But, of course, elected office did not exist then ....

Also, I notice you reference service in the military. Are you still OK with that, or was that service prior to your conversion?

You also cite Jesus' words that those who live by the sword die by the sword, and in that citation the association you make is with nations - as opposed to associating Jesus' words with individuals. I think we can agree that Jesus is not a liar. But might the death Jesus spoke of be spiritual death - a death that will be suffered by all who refuse to obey Jesus' commandments, and in this case Jesus commandment to love and do good to one's enemies? Or is the entire Sermon on the Mount not intended to bind disciples of Jesus in this current "fallen" world?

 

[Kersh]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Voltaire

On a different note, I'm curious regarding your opinion of Ayn Rand.

Not a fan. She seems to operate (or more accurately, to have operated) on the belief that people SHOULD behave selfishly as a moral ideal. As a Christian, I believe that selflessness is a keystone to living righteously. But, I don't believe that the government can or should try to impose morality on others. Morality comes from transformation by Jesus Christ, not by obedience to law. And, I think that the gospel thrives best where people are free to accept it or reject it. Politically, I come to similar concluded as Ayn Rand, but morally we're worlds, if not universes, apart.

 

[High Fidelity]

Since dems are ok with several things that are against bible

We're human. We're depraved. Depravity and sin hold no political affiliations; it's a scourge that finds its way in to every office.

 

[RDKirk]

Hmmmm... the only explicit thing I see there is a reference to Daniel. Am I to then understand that you feel that voting and seeking/serving in public office is OK for a Christian, i.e., Daniel served the king in government, so it's OK for Christians also? Of course Daniel was appointed, not elected. But, of course, elected office did not exist then ....

Also, I notice you reference service in the military. Are you still OK with that, or was that service prior to your conversion?

You also cite Jesus' words that those who live by the sword die by the sword, and in that citation the association you make is with nations - as opposed to associating Jesus' words with individuals. I think we can agree that Jesus is not a liar. But might the death Jesus spoke of be spiritual death - a death that will be suffered by all who refuse to obey Jesus' commandments, and in this case Jesus commandment to love and do good to one's enemies? Or is the entire Sermon on the Mount not intended to bind disciples of Jesus in this current "fallen" world?

All that direct quotation I did from 1 Peter, and all you saw "explicit" was the reference to Daniel?

Do you understand how an embassy operates in a host country? That's what 1 Peter is talking about. That's my answer.

 

[Caretaker]

Not a fan. She seems to operate (or more accurately, to have operated) on the belief that people SHOULD behave selfishly as a moral ideal. As a Christian, I believe that selflessness is a keystone to living righteously. But, I don't believe that the government can or should try to impose morality on others. Morality comes from transformation by Jesus Christ, not by obedience to law. And, I think that the gospel thrives best where people are free to accept it or reject it. Politically, I come to similar concluded as Ayn Rand, but morally we're worlds, if not universes, apart.

Thanks for the background. I think I'm at least somewhat in agreement.

But what of theocracies? Would God rather we establish a democracy or a theocracy to govern ourselves?

 

[Caretaker]

All that direct quotation I did from 1 Peter, and all you saw "explicit" was the reference to Daniel?

Do you understand how an embassy operates in a host country? That's what 1 Peter is talking about. That's my answer.

Sorry. I just don't see the connection between your quotes from 1 Peter and serving in public office, elected or appointed. I think I understand the parallels you're drawing, but those parallels are your creation. I'm still thinking the passage you site from 2 Timothy at the bottom of your posts is much clearer, albeit as a proscription against public service as opposed to an endorsement.

With regard to the Sermon on the Mount (which you did not address), my uncle was raised Anabaptist but as an adult became an Assembly of God minister. While it is my understanding that some in the Assembly of God understand the Sermon on the Mount, including Jesus' commandment to love and do good to our enemies, to be binding upon disciples of Christ, my uncle was part of another group that argued (as I suspect you might) that Jesus did not intend the Sermon on the Mount to be followed in a "fallen" world. I'm still curious about your thoughts in that regard.

 

[Kersh]

Thanks for the background. I think I'm at least somewhat in agreement.

But what of theocracies? Would God rather we establish a democracy or a theocracy to govern ourselves?

I don't know what God would prefer. But, the only real theocracy that has ever existed based on the one true God turned out to be a disaster. I think the fact that God sent the Assyrians and the Babylonians to destroy it is a good sign that God saw that theocracy doesn't work well with sinful man.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know what God would prefer. But, the only real theocracy that has ever existed based on the one true God turned out to be a disaster. I think the fact that God sent the Assyrians and the Babylonians to destroy it is a good sign that God saw that theocracy doesn't work well with sinful man.

The Israelites had rejected theocracy long before that. They rejected theocracy when they insisted on a king like the other nations.

And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king." -- 1 Samuel 8

 

[Kersh]

The Israelites had rejected theocracy long before that. They rejected theocracy when they insisted on a king like the other nations.

And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king." -- 1 Samuel 8

I thought about that after I'd written my last post. But, I think that that goes to my point about the problems with theocracy. Sinful humans will never completely submit to a god that they cannot see. I'd argue that the period of the kings was still theocratic as God was picking each of the kings and each king was supposed to advancing God's kingdom. The problem is that the Israelites and the Judeans kept getting distracted by other nations' gods.

 

[RDKirk]

I thought about that after I'd written my last post. But, I think that that goes to my point about the problems with theocracy. Sinful humans will never completely submit to a god that they cannot see. I'd argue that the period of the kings was still theocratic as God was picking each of the kings and each king was supposed to advancing God's kingdom. The problem is that the Israelites and the Judeans kept getting distracted by other nations' gods.

Notably, though, every king ultimately erred or failed greatly. David, for instance, through his own arrogance and over the judgment of all his generals insulted God and brought about the greatest calamity that ever struck Israel, next to the Captivity. Solomon's heavy taxation led to the tax revolt of the northern tribes and the division of the kingdom. Even Josiah and Hezekiah committed errors that led directly to the Captivity.

And that's something that should make us take pause. God told them a king would be bad for them, and even though God chose their kings, kings were still bad for them. The lesson: Men make errors, incredibly horrendous, calamitous errors, even the men chosen by God.

 

[greenguzzi]

Except conservatives aren't for small government any more than liberals. The difference, by and large, is that one side wants big government to impose their moral standards on the populace, while the other wants big government to "care" for the poor on the dime of the "rich". Both are misguided imho.

You sir are right. 95% true. Except for one tiny thing that you missed. To care for the poor is just a moral an issue as any other standard.
So the big question is which (if any, maybe all) of these moral issues should we as Christians address first?
I'd say care for the poor comes first.

I'm a Christian social anarchist, so not all us Christians are for large governments.

 

[RDKirk]

You sir are right. 95% true. Except for one tiny thing that you missed. To care for the poor is just a moral an issue as any other standard.
So the big question is which (if any, maybe all) of these moral issues should we as Christians address first?
I'd say care for the poor comes first.

"He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' -- Matthew 25

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. -- Janes 1

However, this is for the Body of Christ. The question is really this: What evidence is there that the Body of Christ ever had mission to fix the Roman Empire at all? Where is scripture for that? Did Jesus ever say, "Go out and fix world?" Paul and Peter had a lot to say about how Christians are to operate within the Roman Empire. When did either of them say we had a mission to fix it?

What if we were Christians in China? Would our mission be to make disciples, or would it be to fix the Chinese government? Currently Christians in China are making disciples at the rate of 1,000 a week, but they're not doing anything to change the government...are they disobeying Christ? Christians in North Korea have increased their numbers from 5,000 in 1995 to 50,000 today, but they haven't changed the government--have they disobeyed Christ? Have they done better or worse than Christians in America?

 

[revanneosl]

This is how scripture says Jesus will judge the nations of the world. I tend to vote for Democratic party lawmakers because they strike me as more likely than Republicans to lead the U.S. in a sheepward rather than a goatward direction.

 

[tulc]

I never said you should be concerned with who I like. I did that we should be concerned with how God feels about our vote and which candidates line up with biblical values. Most Demcrats support abortion and gay marriage, two things the Bible is in strict opposition against.

the thing I was addressing would be the part where you said: "I can't see God being too happy about that." (emph. added).
tulc(sorry it wasn't more clear)

 

[Caretaker]

I don't know what God would prefer. But, the only real theocracy that has ever existed based on the one true God turned out to be a disaster. I think the fact that God sent the Assyrians and the Babylonians to destroy it is a good sign that God saw that theocracy doesn't work well with sinful man.

Well, God didn't want Israel to have kings, but he went along with the popular demand. After they had a monarchy, that's when things went to pot. I kind of thought the idea of a theocracy might intrigue someone with a libertarian mindset ....

 

[Kersh]

Well, God didn't want Israel to have kings, but he went along with the popular demand. After they had a monarchy, that's when things went to pot. I kind of thought the idea of a theocracy might intrigue someone with a libertarian mindset ....

But, when you look at the judges (many of whom were as bad as the kings) and the fact that the people demanded a king, it's hard to argue that theocracy was a rousing success during the judges period. I'm a bit confused as to why you would think any libertarian would support theocracy. They seem pretty contrary to me.

 

[Caretaker]

"He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' -- Matthew 25

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. -- Janes 1

However, this is for the Body of Christ. The question is really this: What evidence is there that the Body of Christ ever had mission to fix the Roman Empire at all? Where is scripture for that? Did Jesus ever say, "Go out and fix world?" Paul and Peter had a lot to say about how Christians are to operate within the Roman Empire. When did either of them say we had a mission to fix it?

What if we were Christians in China? Would our mission be to make disciples, or would it be to fix the Chinese government? Currently Christians in China are making disciples at the rate of 1,000 a week, but they're not doing anything to change the government...are they disobeying Christ? Christians in North Korea have increased their numbers from 5,000 in 1995 to 50,000 today, but they haven't changed the government--have they disobeyed Christ? Have they done better or worse than Christians in America?

"Where is the scripture for that?" -- RDKirk

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." -- Matthew 28:18-20a

 

[Caretaker]

But, when you look at the judges (many of whom were as bad as the kings) and the fact that the people demanded a king, it's hard to argue that theocracy was a rousing success during the judges period. I'm a bit confused as to why you would think any libertarian would support theocracy. They seem pretty contrary to me.

There existed no formal government. Isn't that pretty close to the Libertarian ideal? No taxes, no laws (other than God's), etc. At least the ideal for a Christian Libertarian ...

 

[Kersh]

There existed no formal government. Isn't that pretty close to the Libertarian ideal? No taxes, no laws (other than God's), etc. At least the ideal for a Christian Libertarian ...

I guess that's not what I think of when I think of a theocracy. What your describing sounds like more of an anarchist type of position. Not all libertarians are anarchists, and I am certainly not an anarchist. I believe that government does have an important role to serve in providing basic infrastructure and in protecting life, liberty, and property. A situation in which there is not government, I believe, would inevitably become a power struggle, which would result in the powerful oppressing the weak, and would eventually become tyrannical. In other words, we would have exactly the opposite of the problem that Randians are concerned about (a government which robs from the powerful to give to the less powerful). As much as it would be nice to see God's laws prevailing without a human government, I think that that is unreasonable until God restores all things. Until then, we have to settle for minimal human government, which provides basic infrastructure, sets basic ground rules for how we treat each other, and enforces laws necessary to ensure that we are not depriving one another of life, liberty, and the enjoyment of our property. In the meantime, citizens (Christian citizens, anyway) have a responsibility (not one to be enforced by government) to live compassionately, civilly, and generously. This is what separates my view of libertarianism from the Randians.