Why do Christians favor republican candidates?

[pshreve]

I was curious what everyone thought of the following post? While I appreciate the complexity of the issues I'm just not convinced voting on a single issue, helping the sick/poor or gay marriage encompasses the political ideology associated with each. Though I don't really think Christians can be libertarian since that is basically blithe contrarian nihilism:

Generally speaking, Republicans/conservatives prefer smaller government and more individual freedom, while Democrats/liberals/progressives prefer more governmental oversight of society and the economy. Conservatives argue for capitalism, that is free, for the most part, from governmental control, while liberals/progressives have more socialistictendencies in regards to the government’s role. The Bible does not explicitly endorse either capitalism or socialism. God has given governments the freedom to have as much authority as is needed to fulfill their God-given roles of enforcing justice and building order in society (Romans 13:1-7). So, in regards to the size and scope of government, Christians can be libertarian, conservative, liberal, or progressive. None of those persuasions are inherently evil or ungodly. The argument should be over which system best enables the government to fulfill its God-given role.

Politically conservative Christians will argue that as governments get bigger and more powerful, personal freedom decreases, and if left unchecked, government will bloat itself into a controlling, authoritarian, and oppressive dictatorship. Historically speaking, there is much evidence to support this argument. Liberals/progressives will argue that the government should be greatly involved in providing social services, caring for the poor, sick, orphans, widows, unemployed, etc., pointing to Scriptures such as James 1:27. If these social services result in more governmental control, liberals/progressives are willing to make that sacrifice. Conservatives argue that the more freedom a society/economy has, the more prosperous it becomes. Liberals/progressives argue that some prosperity should be sacrificed for the “greater good.” So, while one economic/societal/political system may be “better,” neither is inherently evil/immoral/sinful. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses, and, historically speaking, both systems have proven themselves capable of fulfilling the basic biblical responsibility of government.

While issues such as the size/scope of government and economic systems are not explicitly addressed in Scripture, there definitely are some political issues the Bible does address, such as abortion (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; Exodus 21:22-25; Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5) and gay marriage(Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). For the Bible-believing Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image. Endorsing gay marriage is giving approval to a lifestyle choice the Bible condemns as immoral and unnatural. Therefore, Bible-believing Christians should support issues/candidates that are pro-life and should support issues/candidates that oppose gay marriage and uphold the biblical/traditional understanding of marriage. Whether these two issues should trump all other issues is a matter of personal conviction.

The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). This should apply to political leaders as well. If politicians are going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, they must have a basic morality and worldview on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, as Christians, we should choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates.

No matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not, the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them, but we do have to honor and respect them. Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party—monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16).

Discuss!

 

[tulc]

I was curious what everyone thought of the following post? While I appreciate the complexity of the issues I'm just not convinced voting on a single issue, helping the sick/poor or gay marriage encompasses the political ideology associated with each. Though I don't really think Christians can be libertarian since that is basically blithe contrarian nihilism:

Generally speaking, Republicans/conservatives prefer smaller government and more individual freedom, while Democrats/liberals/progressives prefer more governmental oversight of society and the economy. Conservatives argue for capitalism, that is free, for the most part, from governmental control, while liberals/progressives have more socialistictendencies in regards to the government’s role. The Bible does not explicitly endorse either capitalism or socialism. God has given governments the freedom to have as much authority as is needed to fulfill their God-given roles of enforcing justice and building order in society (Romans 13:1-7). So, in regards to the size and scope of government, Christians can be libertarian, conservative, liberal, or progressive. None of those persuasions are inherently evil or ungodly. The argument should be over which system best enables the government to fulfill its God-given role.

Politically conservative Christians will argue that as governments get bigger and more powerful, personal freedom decreases, and if left unchecked, government will bloat itself into a controlling, authoritarian, and oppressive dictatorship. Historically speaking, there is much evidence to support this argument. Liberals/progressives will argue that the government should be greatly involved in providing social services, caring for the poor, sick, orphans, widows, unemployed, etc., pointing to Scriptures such as James 1:27. If these social services result in more governmental control, liberals/progressives are willing to make that sacrifice. Conservatives argue that the more freedom a society/economy has, the more prosperous it becomes. Liberals/progressives argue that some prosperity should be sacrificed for the “greater good.” So, while one economic/societal/political system may be “better,” neither is inherently evil/immoral/sinful. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses, and, historically speaking, both systems have proven themselves capable of fulfilling the basic biblical responsibility of government.

While issues such as the size/scope of government and economic systems are not explicitly addressed in Scripture, there definitely are some political issues the Bible does address, such as abortion (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; Exodus 21:22-25; Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5) and gay marriage(Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). For the Bible-believing Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image. Endorsing gay marriage is giving approval to a lifestyle choice the Bible condemns as immoral and unnatural. Therefore, Bible-believing Christians should support issues/candidates that are pro-life and should support issues/candidates that oppose gay marriage and uphold the biblical/traditional understanding of marriage. Whether these two issues should trump all other issues is a matter of personal conviction.

The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). This should apply to political leaders as well. If politicians are going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, they must have a basic morality and worldview on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, as Christians, we should choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates.

No matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not, the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them, but we do have to honor and respect them. Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party—monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16).

Discuss!

2 things: 1: welcome to CF! I hope you're blessed by your time on here!
and 2 There are already several threads started about this very subject so don't get discouraged if not a lot of people post here, you might want to find one of the other threads and start posting in them, just remember: things can get pretty...feisty sometimes, try not to take it personal!
tulc(again welcome to CF!)

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Pshreve, I'm with TULC, so first off, WELCOME TO CF ..

And secondly, yep, things can get "pretty feisty" when religion and politics are discussed, even on Christian only boards, and your post is focused on both of them

I agree with most of what you've written, though I'm bett'n you are going to receive some replies based upon this statement alone:

For the Bible-believing Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image.​

There are a number of people here who will vehemently disagree with you about that and who will not hesitate to let you know how much they disagree with you (I am Pro-Life, so I won't disagree ).

And it will probably seem odd to you (it always does to me), but you may get a bit of play out of this statement as well:

Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2).​

Anyway, it's good to have you among us and as TULC said, try not to take it personally around here when you find yourself in complete disagreement with other Christians on certain subjects.

God bless you! (Jude 1:24-25)

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - unless it really IS a "personal attack", of course The mods should intervene if ad hominems begin to crop up, but you are always welcome to report them as well. Debate is welcome, personal attacks are not.

 

[BlessedHeart]

I'm not a member of any political party, though I tend to identify more strongly with Democrats in terms of economics and human rights issues. I tend to vote the individual candidate, not the party, because I see a great deal of difference between individual members of the same parties, while also seeing overlap between the two. I have never voted Republican, but it isn't out of the question for me. Therefore, I can't speak from personal experience, but I do have an opinion on why some Christians may favor Republicans.

I think it's difficult for many people of faith to consider voting for Democratic candidates these days, because often-times Democrats are viewed as a secular party while Republicans are considered more Christian, or at least Christian-friendly. Republicans reference the Bible and discuss Biblical values when campaigning or speaking, but Democrats usually don't. This can be very alienating for a lot of Christians. Also, while the Democratic economic ethos of helping the poor is sound and Biblical, it's the Republicans who tend to uphold what are now called traditional values, such as heterosexual marriage. When forced to choose between a Christian economic stance and a Christian social values stance, I believe many will choose the latter. I wish the parties weren't set up this way. I wish there was a party that embraced Biblical contempt for riches and the desire to share with the needy as well as being soundly pro-life and affirming religious freedoms and the importance of religious life. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury right now.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi BH, I think the #1 reason that many/most Catholics and Evangelicals are Republican has to do with abortion, not because a politician talks about the Bible or says he/she is Christian. I think this seems plain enough (at least this election year) because of how much of the "Evangelical" primary voting has favored Trump instead of Cruz or Rubio (which I have been stunned by).

In fact, it is the single issue of abortion (and the hope that someone will come along and at least slow it down at bit) that stops most Christian Republicans I know from even considering a vote for the Dems.

Beyond that, my two greatest concerns are 1) National Security and 2) Fiscal Responsibility as far as the office of the President goes. When you consider what a Trillion $$$$$ is, a "million millions", that means that paying off just 1 Trillion of our National Debt at a million $$ per day, 7 days per week and 365 days per year, would take 2,740 years (and that's w/o paying any interest at all over those 2,740 years). So as our debt stands now, it would take more 50,000 years to pay it back as long as we stopped adding to the debt this very second, and as long as none of the people, businesses, and countries we owe all these Trillions to charged us any interest on the money we owe them (Bernie, BTW, said he intends on doubling our debt in his first four years in office ) Personally, I really like Bernie. In fact, if you take away the fiscal issues and get him to change sides where abortion is concerned, he would be the best and most honest candidate running in either party.

You mentioned the Democrat method of helping the poor as being Biblical? I know that income distribution and welfare were absolutely NOT the way that God made sure the poor were taken care of in the OT (and they, the poor, were shown to be one of His greatest concerns), so how do you see income distribution and welfare as "Biblical"? Of course, I don't see anything that even remotely resembles forced income distribution and welfare in the NT either (but I may have missed something, so please let me know if I did ).

The fact is, the poorest of the poor on welfare in this country would literally be considered wealthy by most of the rest of the world

The other thing we need to look at is this, with 95+ million out of work in this country today, are the lives of the poor (and/or of most of us) better or worse than they were 7 years ago

And if our lives aren't better, maybe we need to try to do things differently? .. perhaps "Biblically", for once

When you consider that the combined debt that ALL the former administrations left us with has nearly DOUBLED in the last seven years, what, exactly, are we getting for all this overspending we are doing? To me, it doesn't look like very much. Does it to you

I guess the big question to ask is, does it matter? I know it will to our kids when the entire GNP of the United States is no longer enough to even pay the interest on what we owe. Actually, the country will collapse long before that happens and everyone here will be as bad off as those in the 3rd world. Do you believe that continuing down such a path is what God would really want us do

Yours and His,
David

 

[tulc]

actually in the Old Testament the Law God gave them had several forms of "wealth redistribution" everything from no gleaning or harvesting of the corners of the fields to the redistributing of the lands every 50 years. I know most people tend to skip over those portions of the Old and New Testaments that conflict with modern Americans economic beliefs but if you actually read the Scriptures it's pretty interesting what God says about people accumulating wealth while the people around them suffer. I know the next thing that will be said is "Well tulc, that was only under the old covenant!" to which I'd reply: "True, but when God set up the Nation He wanted with the Laws He wanted, these are the Laws He set up. It kind of says something about the heart of God that He put these things in His Laws."
tulc(is just pointing out something others may have missed)

 

[St_Worm2]

actually in the Old Testament the Law God gave them had several forms of "wealth redistribution" everything from no gleaning or harvesting of the corners of the fields to the redistributing of the lands every 50 years. I know most people tend to skip over those portions of the Old and New Testaments that conflict with modern Americans economic beliefs but if you actually read the Scriptures it's pretty interesting what God says about people accumulating wealth while the people around them suffer. I know the next thing that will be said is "Well tulc, that was only under the old covenant!" to which I'd reply: "True, but when God set up the Nation He wanted with the Laws He wanted, these are the Laws He set up. It kind of says something about the heart of God that He put these things in His Laws."
tulc(is just pointing out something others may have missed)

Hi TULC, I'm very aware of the Biblical mandate in the OT, and neither the Jubilee (which I think was every 40 yrs, wasn't it?), nor the WORKfare that was intended to help the poor in Israel, even remotely resembles our socialist income redistribution and welfare system that is rapidly leading to our ruin.

BTW, the Jubilee didn't help the poor, nor was it established by God as a means of doing so.

What we do today doesn't work, and the lives of most are proof of that fact, even though we've managed to OVERspend our budget to the tune of nearly 10 Trillion dollars in the last 7 years.

Something has to be done, or we'll be "done"

Yours and His,
David

 

[tulc]

Hi TULC, I'm very aware of the Biblical mandate in the OT, and neither the Jubilee (which I think was every 40 yrs, wasn't it?), nor the WORKfare that was intended to help the poor in Israel, even remotely resembles our socialist income redistribution and welfare system that is rapidly leading to our ruin.

BTW, the Jubilee didn't help the poor, nor was it established by God as a means of doing so.

What we do today doesn't work, and the lives of most are proof of that fact, even though we've managed to OVERspend our budget to the tune of nearly 10 Trillion dollars in the last 7 years.

Something has to be done, or we'll be "done"

Yours and His,
David

actually it was ether every 49 years (7 cycles of 7 years) or the year following (the 50th year) and it basically gave the original families their land back. Which means in Gods economy no one person owns any of the land. I wasn't saying modern America and Israel were the same, my point was God did indeed take from the haves (the people who had the land use and were raising the crops) and gave some of its crops to people who didn't have use of the fields.
tulc(thinks that sounds pretty socialist to him)

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi again TULC, you know, you're right. Thanks I'm not sure why I thought the Jubilee was every 40 years

As for the land, it belonged to the tribes and the families of that tribe forever. The Jubilee made sure that each tribe's land remained the possession of that tribe (so in a very real sense, it was "leased" rather than "sold" between families because of the Jubilee). Plus debts were forgiven in the Jubilee year, and the people sold as bond-slaves were set free. You know what, what the Jubilee did for the people of Israel sounds a lot like the same kind of things that Jesus does for us

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - we'll have to agree to disagree about modern socialism being anything like the system that the people of Israel lived under in the OT, because to me, it seems utterly opposed to it.

 

[tulc]

Hi again TULC, you know, you're right. Thanks I'm not sure why I thought the Jubilee was every 40 years

No biggie, things tend to get confused sometimes!

As for the land, it belonged to the tribes and the families of that tribe forever. The Jubilee made sure that each tribe's land remained the possession of that tribe (so in a very real sense, it was "leased" rather than "sold" between families because of the Jubilee). Plus debts were forgiven in the Jubilee year, and the people sold as bond-slaves were set free. You know what, what the Jubilee did for the people of Israel sounds a lot like the same kind of things that Jesus does for us

On that we can agree bro!

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - we'll have to agree to disagree about modern socialism being anything like the system that the people of Israel lived under in the OT, because to me, it seems utterly opposed to it.

While I agree socialism isn't like ancient Israel I really can't see modern capitalism being any closer to it either.
tulc(hopes your day tomorrow is blessed!)

 

[St_Worm2]

No biggie, things tend to get confused sometimes!

The closer I get to 60 (Sept 2nd this year, Lord willing, of course) the more often "sometimes" seems to happen I hate the fact that I need to check my facts so much more often now than I used to PTL for computers BTW, I truly appreciate your kind response

While I agree socialism isn't like ancient Israel I really can't see modern capitalism being any closer to it either.

And I absolutely agree with you about that. It would be great if we could come up with something that actually worked, but in the end, no matter what we came up with, we'd have the same problem we've always had with every socioeconomic system we've ever tried to make work .. PEOPLE

tulc(hopes your day tomorrow is blessed!)

Yours as well Brother.

God bless you! (Numbers 6:24-26)

--David

 

[Albion]

tulc said: ↑

While I agree socialism isn't like ancient Israel I really can't see modern capitalism being any closer to it either.

David said:

And I absolutely agree with you about that. It would be great if we could come up with something that actually worked, but in the end, no matter what we came up with, we'd have the same problem we've always had with every socioeconomic system we've ever tried to make work .. PEOPLE

Part of the problem is that people use terminology that mixes social with economic systems and then make a blanket statement. In the post to which you're replying, it was said that socialism isn't__, but capitalism isn't either. That's the way advocates of Socialism always word it. In fact, though, Socialism is an authoritarian political system that redistributes economic resources while Capitalism isn't a political system at all. It's an economic system in which private investment drives production, employment, and buying.

 

[graceandpeace]

I would say that it is typically conservative, evangelical white Christians who tend to support the Republican Party, whereas progressive white Christians, black Protestant Christians, & others who tend to support the Democrat Party.

Christians disagree about what the Bible says on a number of topics, or on what the modern day application of certain Scriptures should be. Proof-texting on various pet-topics is not a convincing approach to either engaging the Scriptures or drawing conclusions for informing the voter's conscience. Each of us must make our own choices.

 

[pshreve]

I'm not a member of any political party, though I tend to identify more strongly with Democrats in terms of economics and human rights issues. I tend to vote the individual candidate, not the party, because I see a great deal of difference between individual members of the same parties, while also seeing overlap between the two. I have never voted Republican, but it isn't out of the question for me. Therefore, I can't speak from personal experience, but I do have an opinion on why some Christians may favor Republicans.

I think it's difficult for many people of faith to consider voting for Democratic candidates these days, because often-times Democrats are viewed as a secular party while Republicans are considered more Christian, or at least Christian-friendly. Republicans reference the Bible and discuss Biblical values when campaigning or speaking, but Democrats usually don't. This can be very alienating for a lot of Christians. Also, while the Democratic economic ethos of helping the poor is sound and Biblical, it's the Republicans who tend to uphold what are now called traditional values, such as heterosexual marriage. When forced to choose between a Christian economic stance and a Christian social values stance, I believe many will choose the latter. I wish the parties weren't set up this way. I wish there was a party that embraced Biblical contempt for riches and the desire to share with the needy as well as being soundly pro-life and affirming religious freedoms and the importance of religious life. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury right now.

I think that makes a ton of sense. I've been struggling with that. I detest abortion as much as I would hope the people who are in such a desperate situation that they get one are. I also don't want to give up on the people that are already living. I tend toward democratic economic policy having watched supply side economics fail to achieve anything resembling equality. Not a big globalization fan from watching multi nationals exploit the poor in third world countries and dismantle the manufacturing sector in the US. Just really hard to find a balance with such a polarized two party system. Feel like we ought to move toward a coalition government.

 

[pshreve]

I would say that it is typically conservative, evangelical white Christians who tend to support the Republican Party, whereas progressive white Christians, black Protestant Christians, & others who tend to support the Democrat Party.

Christians disagree about what the Bible says on a number of topics, or on what the modern day application of certain Scriptures should be. Proof-texting on various pet-topics is not a convincing approach to either engaging the Scriptures or drawing conclusions for informing the voter's conscience. Each of us must make our own choices.

That's a great point, Its really hard to find a wholistic approach to politics and scripture. I'm just trying to find one online to read and it seems like everyone is plugging a pet policy. A lot of the CF boards have been very helpful though! Appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Cos-play]

Most people who self-identify and Christian also self-identify as either independent or Democrat.

I don't know where you got the "fact" that most are Republican

 

[Albion]

Most people who self-identify and Christian also self-identify as either independent or Democrat.

I don't know where you got the "fact" that most are Republican

I doubt that most Christians are Republicans, but maybe it's by adding the independents to Republicans to make it a majority--as you seemingly did with the Democrats. Or else what was meant was that they represent a plurality among the three.

 

[Cos-play]

I doubt that most Christians are Republicans, but maybe it's by adding the independents to Republicans to make it a majority--as you seemingly did with the Democrats. Or else what was meant was that they represent a plurality among the three.

Well if you're going to be that way about it more Christians self-identify as independents that either Dem or GOP

 

[Albion]

Well if you're going to be that way about it more Christians self-identify as independents that either Dem or GOP

Do they? But it still may be the case that more vote Republican than Democrat, and that this what the OP was getting at.

 

[Cos-play]

Do they? But it still may be the case that more vote Republican than Democrat, and that this what the OP was getting at.

We could argue this all day. But ok, I'll play with him on this.

Politically conservative Christians will argue that as governments get bigger and more powerful, personal freedom decreases, and if left unchecked, government will bloat itself into a controlling, authoritarian, and oppressive dictatorship.

The political correctness of the conservatives (at least in America)

...And btw conservative (at least in America) don't admit there is such a thing a political correctness on their side ...

fails to mention that conservative (at least in America) are in fact for big government as pertains to personal behavior.

Especially in the area's for women's health care, sexuality, gender and the ability of various people to run their own lives.

and as you say:

if left unchecked, government will bloat itself into a controlling, authoritarian, and oppressive dictatorship