Post by M.R. Hagerty on Feb 1, 2023 11:06:35 GMT -7
Is Christian Nationalism of the Spirit?
Al Mohler exhorts Christians that it may be unfaithful to God if one neglects the exercise of the vote, (here) – that it’s a divine gift few people in history have had. It is certainly taken for granted that we have opportunities to affect government via our vote. Similar to voting, treating it nonchalant will also give us what we deserve. It’s especially important to use our voting power to elect officials, including the President, who promise to protect Christian values. We would be exceedingly foolish to let such an opportunity pass into the hands of the opposition. But that also would include voting for unbelievers who defend religious freedom. Should the Christian conflate politics with the gospel?
But aren’t we equally responsible to not lend our vote to a candidate whose personal life is contrary if not demeaning of traditional Christian values? There are some Christians who believe that voting for such a person, despite the anticipation that they will be a friend of the church, wrongly endorses contradictory behavior. Is voting for a man of unchristian behavior one step away from endorsing that behavior? Do we shipwreck our public witness by doing so? Regardless of how they characterize it or rationalize it, some Christians may vote, without a second thought, for a person who is overtly immoral.
Some feel former President Trump is such a man, and to vote for him is to look the other way regarding his gross behind-doors profanity, his misogynist world view, his ridicule of Christian leaders, his loose association with the truth, and his egocentric motives in governing. Is it a case that the ends can justify less-than-honorable means?
So, the two sides of the question are these:
A) Christians can and should vote for a candidate irrespective of his/her faults in character if the candidate has a strong likelihood of protecting the believer's right to worship, the freedom of the church and religious organizations, and of endorsing the church's mission as a benefit to society.
B) While true that a non-Christian can work to maintain government's favorable stance toward religious institutions, Christians have a further obligation before the Lord to not lend their vote to a candidate whose public or private character evidences a denunciation or a disrespect of Christian values; that such a vote indirectly endorses behavior displeasing to God and indulges the rationale that "the ends justify the means."
Are these views proper statements of the issues involved? Which if any would represent a more faithful obedience to Christ and the Christian walk?
Your comments . . .
Al Mohler exhorts Christians that it may be unfaithful to God if one neglects the exercise of the vote, (here) – that it’s a divine gift few people in history have had. It is certainly taken for granted that we have opportunities to affect government via our vote. Similar to voting, treating it nonchalant will also give us what we deserve. It’s especially important to use our voting power to elect officials, including the President, who promise to protect Christian values. We would be exceedingly foolish to let such an opportunity pass into the hands of the opposition. But that also would include voting for unbelievers who defend religious freedom. Should the Christian conflate politics with the gospel?
But aren’t we equally responsible to not lend our vote to a candidate whose personal life is contrary if not demeaning of traditional Christian values? There are some Christians who believe that voting for such a person, despite the anticipation that they will be a friend of the church, wrongly endorses contradictory behavior. Is voting for a man of unchristian behavior one step away from endorsing that behavior? Do we shipwreck our public witness by doing so? Regardless of how they characterize it or rationalize it, some Christians may vote, without a second thought, for a person who is overtly immoral.
Some feel former President Trump is such a man, and to vote for him is to look the other way regarding his gross behind-doors profanity, his misogynist world view, his ridicule of Christian leaders, his loose association with the truth, and his egocentric motives in governing. Is it a case that the ends can justify less-than-honorable means?
So, the two sides of the question are these:
A) Christians can and should vote for a candidate irrespective of his/her faults in character if the candidate has a strong likelihood of protecting the believer's right to worship, the freedom of the church and religious organizations, and of endorsing the church's mission as a benefit to society.
B) While true that a non-Christian can work to maintain government's favorable stance toward religious institutions, Christians have a further obligation before the Lord to not lend their vote to a candidate whose public or private character evidences a denunciation or a disrespect of Christian values; that such a vote indirectly endorses behavior displeasing to God and indulges the rationale that "the ends justify the means."
Are these views proper statements of the issues involved? Which if any would represent a more faithful obedience to Christ and the Christian walk?
Your comments . . .