Serving Christ in your voting

[Suomipoika]

Sorry, didn't mean to post it twice in a bit diferent kindof form!!

 

[Suomipoika]

Sorry, didn't mean to post it twice in a bit diferent kind of form!! Why you little computer . . .

 

[FreezBee]

The Christian democrats of Finland don't win big elections, they are really a minority party. They are strong advocates of the welfare state, support entrepreunership but yet object to bigger income differences, seeing that also here the rich have been getting richer and the poor getting poorer lately. And, they are the strongest voices in politics against things like gay marriage and free abortion.

Sounds pretty much like the Danish Christian democrats! But I would guess it's much the same in all the Nordic countries. The Germans are more conservative I think, but I'm not too familiar with them either


- FreezBee

 

[FreezBee]

Sorry, didn't mean to post it twice in a bit diferent kind of form!! Why you little computer . . .

You seem to have your problems with the computer - hopefully you'll get it solved


- FreezBee

 

[Suomipoika]

You seem to have your problems with the computer - hopefully you'll get it solved


- FreezBee

Yep, that's true. Quick, everybody pray for my computer!!

 

[GCapp]

My political party is the Christian Heritage Party. We don't claim to be perfect. But we do acknowledge that God is the highest authority, and our laws must yield to His.

We don't aim to impose our values on the nation, other than the policies we have adopted and which would be presumed to be accepted if people voted our party into power. But we do ask the people to hold us accountable according to God's holy word, the Bible.

We have a process called "integrity analysis". The forms used actually say, in regards to those unable to successfully complete them, "We recognize that the truth of Romans 3:23 applies to us all - 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'". The process enables people to put on the record behaviours and activities in their past that would harm the reputation of the party and bring the name of Jesus Christ into disrepute. It is then the judgement of the interviewers if the person seems to have sufficiently repented and is a worthy candidate for a party office (party official or electoral candidate).

The interview remains confidential. If some person in the community or the news media, dredging up dirt, tries to call the person's reputation into question with "un-Christian behaviour - he cheated on his wife!" sort of thing, the party can point to it - "it was 10 years ago, he's been faithful since then, he confessed to us on seeking this position". If the person covered it up, then they have lied to the party and harmed themselves, because we gave them the chance to admit it.

I myself have undergone this process at least five or six times over the last 13 years, each time I aspired to represent the party in a position of leadership at some level, including electoral candidate. My first was the worst, but I admitted my sin which was just over a year prior, and prior to my accepting salvation. I was even more candid the second time I was interviewed, four years later and five years after the sin. It is not an issue for the party anymore, I having seem to have suitably demonstrated my repentance and my current marital faithfulness.

Even on a secular basis, other parties could use such a process. We have a territorial government which was sworn in with two ministers, who had not been paying for years on their government loans. One finally started paying, the other just resigned after refusing to start paying. Neither should have been admitted to cabinet without making expeditious arrangements to clear the debts. An integrity analysis interview would have disqualified them from cabinet and administering public affairs.

The CHP members do not purport themselves to be better than others, but acknowledge they are as sinful as anyone else. What differs us from other parties is our willingness to yield our human wills to God to seek guidance, and our willingness to have our conduct as government measured by God's yardstick and rule book.

 

[FreezBee]

My political party is the Christian Heritage Party. We don't claim to be perfect. But we do acknowledge that God is the highest authority, and our laws must yield to His.

We don't aim to impose our values on the nation, other than the policies we have adopted and which would be presumed to be accepted if people voted our party into power. But we do ask the people to hold us accountable according to God's holy word, the Bible.

Ok, this sounds fair enough to me.

We have a process called "integrity analysis". The forms used actually say, in regards to those unable to successfully complete them, "We recognize that the truth of Romans 3:23 applies to us all - 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'". The process enables people to put on the record behaviours and activities in their past that would harm the reputation of the party and bring the name of Jesus Christ into disrepute. It is then the judgement of the interviewers if the person seems to have sufficiently repented and is a worthy candidate for a party office (party official or electoral candidate).

Ok, this is a fair Christian way of doung it - accepting repentance and admitting that we all have sinned. No "eternal torment".

The interview remains confidential. If some person in the community or the news media, dredging up dirt, tries to call the person's reputation into question with "un-Christian behaviour - he cheated on his wife!" sort of thing, the party can point to it - "it was 10 years ago, he's been faithful since then, he confessed to us on seeking this position". If the person covered it up, then they have lied to the party and harmed themselves, because we gave them the chance to admit it.

I myself have undergone this process at least five or six times over the last 13 years, each time I aspired to represent the party in a position of leadership at some level, including electoral candidate. My first was the worst, but I admitted my sin which was just over a year prior, and prior to my accepting salvation. I was even more candid the second time I was interviewed, four years later and five years after the sin. It is not an issue for the party anymore, I having seem to have suitably demonstrated my repentance and my current marital faithfulness.

Ok, so the process may even have helped you to overcome the incident and strenthened you. We are always our own worst judges, which is something that is often forgotten.

Even on a secular basis, other parties could use such a process. We have a territorial government which was sworn in with two ministers, who had not been paying for years on their government loans. One finally started paying, the other just resigned after refusing to start paying. Neither should have been admitted to cabinet without making expeditious arrangements to clear the debts. An integrity analysis interview would have disqualified them from cabinet and administering public affairs.

Yes, you might be right. Here in Denmark our prime-minister actually after a couple of incidences with ministers who had some economic deficiencies decided to have all ministers publish there economical data on the Internet, which I find is wrong. It should be kept internally as it is with your party.

The CHP members do not purport themselves to be better than others, but acknowledge they are as sinful as anyone else. What differs us from other parties is our willingness to yield our human wills to God to seek guidance, and our willingness to have our conduct as government measured by God's yardstick and rule book.

Again, this sounds ok to me and recommendable. The problem though here in Denmark, and perhaps also in Finland and the other Nordic countries is that some members of the Christian parties do claim that they are the last bastion of hope. Of course they are addressing and reflecting the sentiments of a specific audience, so they are not to blame. For me it's just to unfamiliar. I've grown up in a Christian family, but we did not talk about being Christians, we simply were Christians.


Thanks for the read, it's been very interesting


- FreezBee

 

[pjalford]

Admittedly, I'm strongly tied to the Republican party. That said, I will state that I don't vote for the party but rather for the person. Most of the time the person I choose is Republican, but there are times when I cross party lines and vote for candidates from other parties.

Case in point:

The Secretary of State of Mississippi - I voted for him and he's a Democrat - but he's also a Christian - yes, there are some of those around.

 

[GCapp]

In the United States, party discipline is not as firm when it comes to votes in the legislative body. There isn't a "whip" expecting every member to vote the party line. I can see why you feel able to vote for an individual regardless of party.

Unfortunately, in Canada, there is a strong tendency for members to vote with their parties. Our own MP, Mr. Bagnell, knew Yukoners oppose the federal gun registry, but he voted consistently for more money into that boondoggle, because he is a Liberal and the Liberals hold it as a holy grail of their policies. For that reason, even if the candidate has beliefs that I can support, I am compelled to oppose him if his party does not hold those beliefs within its policy.

So, if a candidate asks for my support, promising to be, for example, pro-life, if their party hasn't adopted policies to that effect, I will not give my support to the candidate; "go to your party and persuade them to adopt those policies at their next convention; if they do, I can seriously consider supporting its candidate".