How should Christians Vote?

[SummerMadness]

How should Christians vote? The same way everybody votes, pick who you think will do the best job. And please don't attempt to use the Bible as a club against people who disagree with you. Better watch it or I'll make some people my slaves and use the Bible to justify their subservience.

 

[Kersh]

I would contend that many Christians are using the wrong criteria in choosing their candidate. We're not voting for a pastor or elder or even a Christian. We're electing someone to carry out God's purposes for government laid out in Romans 13 and elsewhere.

Will the candidate you're supporting minister to its citizens by punishing evil doers? Will your candidate be good at this? Or will he be passive and incompetent?

If you study the origins of government you find out, it pre-exists Abraham. It's a gentile institution for all peoples. There should be no faith litmus test at all.

For me, soteriological stances are the last place I'd look in making my choice. Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian and was a disaster at carrying out God's purposes for government. And I don't know if Reagan was a Christian, but he was excellent at carrying out God's purposes. He ministered to the nation by showing strength.

Here's an article to support my thesis.

How Should Christians Vote? A Question Of Origins?

So far I'm a Trump supporter. He seems to meet every requirement I'm looking for. I could be wrong, but wanted to disclose my leanings.

But I think most Christians are looking at the wrong criteria. When you appoint a doctor, or lawyer, or mechanic do you check his theology? Do you check his marriage record? Or do you look at their competence? If you don't pick the most qualified, you're certainly not glorifying God, nor protecting your family. Same is true in appointing a governing authority. If you just fall into identity politics or pick the guy you think is most decent (like Max Lucado recommends), you're simply ignoring what God has said about the purposes of government. You're making it about your own criteria, rather than God's.

It has to be about policy. Policy expresses the candidate's purposes. Only then can we compare his purposes with God's purposes. Barack Obama is believed my many to be a "decent" man. Lucado has never criticized him. But does he have decent policies?

Just a challenge. Read the article linked above, if possible, before posting.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Integrity has to be THE most important characteristic that believers are looking for in ANY leader, whether pastor, employer, mayor, or President. I'd encourage you to take some time to read through the Historical books of the Old Testament, especially 1 and 2 Kings. There God tells us what makes for a good leader. And moral uprightness is the defining factor. Now being a secular republic, I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect that our leader will fit the same mold as the good kings in Jerusalem. But, we cannot compromise moral integrity for personality or even political positions.

As for your examples, I think you would be foolish to hire a competent doctor, lawyer, or mechanic who was not trustworthy. I would much rather hire a mediocre member of any of these professions who I can trust than an excellent one who I cannot trust.

As for Trump, I think your own post makes clear that he does fit the criteria. You seem to be justifying your choice to vote for the most morally bankrupt candidate available (albeit HRC is a close second), rather than arguing that he isn't so. That should cause you to question your choice.

 

[Kersh]

I believe God has removed His protection and blessings from our country. Look for calamity to increase.

I believe that we in for a period of course correction. God did this with His people throughout the Old Testament, and I don't see any reason to believe that He will not continue to do the same when the church loses its focus. I pray that the Church is able to embrace this and that we will get things right in short order.

 

[RDKirk]

I believe that we in for a period of course correction. God did this with His people throughout the Old Testament, and I don't see any reason to believe that He will not continue to do the same when the church loses its focus. I pray that the Church is able to embrace this and that we will get things right in short order.

America is not God's nation nor are Americans per se God's people.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. -- 1 Peter 2

This is not about the United States, this is about the Body of Christ.

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood. -- 1 Peter 1

The USA is nothing but a place--like Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, or Bithynia, places once known but now forgotten-- where some of us are currently deployed. While here, we have a mission of limited duration: To "declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."

When we're done here, we're going home to be with our fellow countrymen who had been deployed to Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia before us.

 

[Kersh]

America is not God's nation nor are Americans per se God's people.

But, the Church is God's people. And the Church is the part of the world is experiencing some major course correction, as did the nations of Israel and Judah on many occasions.

The USA is nothing but a place--like Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, or Bithynia, places once known but now forgotten-- where some of us are currently deployed. While here, we have a mission of limited duration: To "declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." When we're done, we're going home.

The mission is what is important, at least for now, not the escape. We have to get things right now, and frankly, we're dropping the ball. Yes, we are not citizens of this nation or this world, but only ambassadors, who will one day return home. But, while we're here, we need to represent our king.

That said, I'm not even sure if you and I are disagreeing or just saying things in different language.

 

[Hank77]

Reagan was a Lone Ranger Christian. He did not attend church, did not give to a church, he accepted instructions from his wife who consulted an astrologer. Yep he carried out Gods purposes. But God will have His purposes attended to by whom ever He so desires. Even Jimmy Carter carried out gods purposes. President Obama God has allowed to him to give the people just what they are asking for and want. That being said expect calamity to increase more and more. Yes God has permitted our Highest Court to make killing babies legal. God has permitted the Highest Court to say homosexuality unions to be called equal to a man and a woman union called marriage. God has said marriage is only between a man and a woman. But our Highest Court has stated the Laws of God will not rule our country.

I believe God has removed His protection and blessings from our country. Look for calamity to increase.

My question to you would be, is the US God's nation or is His nation made up of His people? I would say God's nation is His people, not secular nations and governments.

 

[Calminian]

I couldn't disagree with you more. Integrity has to be THE most important characteristic that believers are looking for in ANY leader, whether pastor, employer, mayor, or President. I'd encourage you to take some time to read through the Historical books of the Old Testament, especially 1 and 2 Kings. There God tells us what makes for a good leader. And moral uprightness is the defining factor. Now being a secular republic, I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect that our leader will fit the same mold as the good kings in Jerusalem. But, we cannot compromise moral integrity for personality or even political positions.

As for your examples, I think you would be foolish to hire a competent doctor, lawyer, or mechanic who was not trustworthy. I would much rather hire a mediocre member of any of these professions who I can trust than an excellent one who I cannot trust.

As for Trump, I think your own post makes clear that he does fit the criteria. You seem to be justifying your choice to vote for the most morally bankrupt candidate available (albeit HRC is a close second), rather than arguing that he isn't so. That should cause you to question your choice.

What I'm arguing is that Trump is not qualified to be a Pastor, and doesn't have great theology. But I think he has great integrity as a businessman. Look at his philanthropic giving over the years. Look at his dedication to vets. Look at his dedication to stoping Christian persecution. Look at this kids and even his ex wife who is endorsing him. These are all decent attributes. These are good things that need to be weighed against his shortcomings.

Trump is by no means a soft spoken guy, and that offends some. When he's hit, he hits back. But that's no different than what goes on in these forums. I think much if it is refreshing and genuine.

But I do see Trump as trustworthy, because I believe he has the guts to say exactly what he believes. Most politicians lie about what they really believe.

 

[Calminian]

I agree, but, for reasons set out in a longer post above, I believe that while God does not want chaos, He would prefer a government that follows "Kingdom of God" principles (i.e. rejection of the use of force) to one that uses the sword. But, granted, one that uses the sword is better than anarchy.

Yeah, but like it or not, God has ordained the sword in the hands of governing authorities. When you call the police, do you want them to show up with guns? Don't you want them to have the sword in case they need it to protect you and your family?

Think about it. Paul said these were ministers of God. Governments are an act of mercy when compared to what the world would be like without them. Law and order are our only protection from the utter wickedness man is capable of.

This is why law and order is the first thing I look for in a president. Will he protect the innocent? Will he protect the unborn, for that matter? Or will he be a pacifist that puts the citizens in danger? Pacifism is perhaps the most wicked stance any man in authority can take. That is, the view that violence is never necessary. In a fallen world, it is often necessary.

 

[Calminian]

So what did the our fellow Christian countrymen in Nigeria, North Korea, China, and Pakistan do that was so wrong to have earned "God's wrath" that their life sucks so much more than that of Christians in America?

But in a way, our fellow countrymen in North Korea have been victorious. Kim Jong Un appears to have realized that after more than two generations of brutal oppression that has failed to wipe them out, it's a better strategy to co-opt them with a North Korean Orthodox Church that he can monitor and control.

Oh I don't think all suffering is earned wrath. The Fall put all of this in motion, and evil can happen to good people. That said, when nations behave badly, God can, and has in the past, punished them. Just read the 1 and 2 Kings. And when nations do not behave correctly, their citizens, the innocent citizens, suffer. In that case, they are going against God's purpose for the nations to minister to their citizens.

My only point is that Reagan was a much smarter choice for Christians to make than Carter was. Even though Carter seems to be a more devoted Christian, Reagan had a better philosophy to protect America from its enemies. He was more in line with God's purposes for nations than Carter, the born-again Christian, was.

The point is, that Christians should not always be preferred over non-Christians in presidential races. It's all about policy. Trump, IMO, is a much better choice than his rivals who may have better theology. He has the better policies IMO. He seems to understand what's needed for our safety more than they do. And that's, essentially, the function of government. I as a Christian have an obligation to support that kind of candidate (assuming I'm correct in my assessment).

 

[rambot]

What I'm arguing is that Trump is not qualified to be a Pastor, and doesn't have great theology. But I think he has great integrity as a businessman.

A businessman with integrity leaves his creditors and investors high and dry after declaring bankruptcy 4 times?

Look at his philanthropic giving over the years.

He's roundly considered the LEAST charitable "billionaire". From 1990-2009...he gave 3.7 MILLION (other people have given MORE money to his OWN charities than him).
If dude has a net value of 8 billion as he suggests, that means he tithes:
.04%.
What IS interesting is that all those studies that said that Conservatives donate more than liberals: The oft overlooked fact from that study is that secular/nonreligious conservatives were FAR and away the least charitable people in the study. I guess Trump bears that out too.

My concern Calminian, is that you heard this fact stated SOMEWHERE and you believed it. IT requires 12 seconds of time to ROUNDLY undermine this statement yet you spend no time doing so.

I would say that Christians should vote through a stringent vetting process where we learn about candidates, fact check, and make decisions based on sound data. Christians will NEVER all vote for the same candidate but I think we need to come by our decisions using the brains God gave us.

Look at his dedication to vets.

I looked at it. It's disappointing. There are grass roots groups who contribute MORE to vets in a day than Trump has in 4 years. Pray, HOW is that supposed to impress me?
"To whom much has been given, much is to be expected". Meh....

Look at his dedication to stoping Christian persecution.

I hope you're not talking about in America. Because as a Christian outside of America, I find that highly offensive.

Look at this kids and even his ex wife who is endorsing him.

Why would I base MY opinion on the guy being a good president because his ex wife and kids endorse him? They want their money money too. You think that if ANY of them withdrew Trump support that they would EVER see money from him again? Pffffft.

These are good things that need to be weighed against his shortcomings.

Are you serious? I mean, I don't even know what his shortcomings are.

Trump is by no means a soft spoken guy, and that offends some. When he's hit, he hits back. But that's no different than what goes on in these forums. I think much if it is refreshing and genuine.

Yes! I've seen in a great quote: "Trump is the personification of an internet comment message board."
Under NO circumstances is that a good thing. The internet (and specifically message boards) don't have a good reputation as a representation of humanity.

But I do see Trump as trustworthy, because I believe he has the guts to say exactly what he believes. Most politicians lie about what they really believe.

Of COURSe you see him as trustworthy. You see him as trustworthy because 1) He says he's trustworthy; 2) He's a very good manipulator 3)He hasn't had to prove himself..in any MEANINGFUL way yet (even in the less meaningful way, I don't think he does a good job).

I have a quick question:
What is MORE important:
1) Saying exactly what you think all the time
or
2) Saying what you believe will move people closer to solutions and resolutions

 

[Kersh]

What I'm arguing is that Trump is not qualified to be a Pastor, and doesn't have great theology. But I think he has great integrity as a businessman.

I don't think the facts bear this out. He relies heavily on H2B workers to save money, even while bragging about creating jobs for Americans, and he has even hired undocumented immigrants. He has famously used used eminent domain to accomplish his business goals, even to the point of trying to displace a widow from her home.

Look at his philanthropic giving over the years.

It would appear his philanthropy consists of giving the crumbs off his plate and not much else.

Look at his dedication to vets.

Like this? Or this?

Look at his dedication to stoping Christian persecution.

I can't find any evidence one way or the other on this claim. But, hey, at least I can't say that he's actively persecuting Christians. I assume you mean that he has made the "persecution" of American Christians a campaign issue. If that's the case, this is an insult to Christians who truly are persecuted.

Look at this kids and even his ex wife who is endorsing him.

Of course. I am pretty sure that Chelsea Clinton is endorsing her mother as well, but that doesn't make Hillary a person of integrity.

These are all decent attributes. These are good things that need to be weighed against his shortcomings.

Trump is by no means a soft spoken guy, and that offends some. When he's hit, he hits back. But that's no different than what goes on in these forums. I think much if it is refreshing and genuine.


But I do see Trump as trustworthy, because I believe he has the guts to say exactly what he believes. Most politicians lie about what they really believe.

He is a loose cannon with no filter. Some (apparently many) Americans find this refreshing. But, for President this is dangerous. If he were applying for the job of WWE MC, then this would be a great qualification. But, we need a President who knows when its appropriate to say what's on his mind.

Let's not forget that this is a man who has arguably called for riots if he doesn't win the primary, who has suggested that his followers should batter his opponents, and who has bragged about committing adultery with numerous women. All this, and he says he has no need to repent, because he's really a morally good guy.

So, with all due respect, I'm not seeing a whole lot of integrity in the man.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

I would contend that many Christians are using the wrong criteria in choosing their candidate. We're not voting for a pastor or elder or even a Christian. We're electing someone to carry out God's purposes for government laid out in Romans 13 and elsewhere.


The thing is we got to remember we are not the only people in this country. There are other faiths living here with us. To only elect someone cause they say they are a Christian can cost us deeply.


Will the candidate you're supporting minister to its citizens by punishing evil doers? Will your candidate be good at this? Or will he be passive and incompetent?

Will I am for Sanders. I think he will be the best thing for our country.



If you study the origins of government you find out, it pre-exists Abraham. It's a gentile institution for all peoples. There should be no faith litmus test at all.

For me, soteriological stances are the last place I'd look in making my choice. Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian and was a disaster at carrying out God's purposes for government. And I don't know if Reagan was a Christian, but he was excellent at carrying out God's purposes. He ministered to the nation by showing strength.

Here's an article to support my thesis.

How Should Christians Vote? A Question Of Origins?

So far I'm a Trump supporter. He seems to meet every requirement I'm looking for. I could be wrong, but wanted to disclose my leanings.

But I think most Christians are looking at the wrong criteria. When you appoint a doctor, or lawyer, or mechanic do you check his theology? Do you check his marriage record? Or do you look at their competence? If you don't pick the most qualified, you're certainly not glorifying God, nor protecting your family. Same is true in appointing a governing authority. If you just fall into identity politics or pick the guy you think is most decent (like Max Lucado recommends), you're simply ignoring what God has said about the purposes of government. You're making it about your own criteria, rather than God's.

It has to be about policy. Policy expresses the candidate's purposes. Only then can we compare his purposes with God's purposes. Barack Obama is believed my many to be a "decent" man. Lucado has never criticized him. But does he have decent policies?

Just a challenge. Read the article linked above, if possible, before posting.

Trump will lead us into the end of the world. I know some believers are for him but this house hold is not.

 

[Kersh]

Trump will lead us into the end of the world. I know some believers are for him but this house hold is not.

I don't think he's going to lead us to the end of the world. But, I think that God may use him (much as he used Nebuchadnezzar, though I pray not nearly as harshly) to show us how far we have drifted from Him. If Trump is elected, and when we realize that it was the evangelical church who elected him, I am hoping that this will wake us up to how far we, as the church (particularly evangelicals) have drifted.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

I don't think he's going to lead us to the end of the world. But, I think that God may use him (much as he used Nebuchadnezzar, though I pray not nearly as harshly) to show us how far we have drifted from Him. If Trump is elected, and when we realize that it was the evangelical church who elected him, I am hoping that this will wake us up to how far we, as the church (particularly evangelicals) have drifted.

I fear for us if he gets into power

 

[Kersh]

I fear for us if he gets into power

Me too, but take heart that the King is still in control. Jeremiah 29:11.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

Me too, but take heart that yhe King is still in control. Jeremiah 29:11.

I agree. I still vote for Sanders though. I still think he can do good for us.

 

[Kersh]

I agree. I still vote for Sanders though. I still think he can do good for us.

I think Sanders is a decent guy, but I'd have a hard time getting behind a candidate who is openly Socialist and who supports abortion "rights". That said, I would vote for Sanders if he were the only viable alternative to Trump.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

I think Sanders is a decent guy, but I'd have a hard time getting behind a candidate who is openly Socialist and who supports abortion "rights". That said, I would vote for Sanders if he were the only viable alternative to Trump.

All I can say when it comes to topics like abortion I am for the woman's right to decided what to do with her body.

 

[Kersh]

All I can say when it comes to topics like abortion I am for the woman's right to decided what to do with her body.

Unfortunately, in the case of abortion, someone else's body is also involved. But, since it's off topic maybe we should agree to disagree.

 

[super animator]

You do realize that you voting for a president and not a priest right?