Dumb Question regarding American Politics

I have a dumb question. I am not trying to start a huge fight so no stone throwing.

Why do Christians insist that the President of the US be Christian?

If I need a dr very badly, I would not choose a Christian dr over a far more qualified Jewish dr. The same would go for choosing someone to repair my car, paint my house, etc.

So why do Christians make being an evangelical Christian a main requirement when they vote for president, or why do they choose to sit out when no evangelicals are running?

Is it just barely possible that the most qualified candidate might not be evangelical?

Now, I understand that there are issues like abortion that drive some of this, but taking that issue out why do Christians feel they have to have an evangelical or nothing?

If it helps, I wouldn't even vote for an evangelical. In fact I don't see how you can be elected to much more than dog catcher and be a Christian.

I'd happily vote for an evangelical if I thought he was qualified.

There has been a lot of talk on social media about "the lesser of two evils."

Many Christians, if faced with such a choice, say they would refuse to vote and thereby potentially let the greater of the two evils in. That may have happened in the last election.

I don't understand that line of reasoning. I think there may be a lot of situations in life where we may have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we may HAVE to make such a choice and not be able to simply abstain.

Uhh.. Don't think they had voting back then.

Which is better- a system where you become ruler because your dad was; or because you are the most brutal; or where people actually have a say in who will lead?

God is not against governments.

To me. the biggest mistake the Republican Party EVER made was allowing the evangelicals to take it over.

Being any one religion should be secondary to their qualifications. my 2 cents!!! :)

TMK asks, "Why do Christians insist that the President of the US be Christian?"

As Christians we desire that all nations(not only the US) have leaders/rulers who love, obey and fear God. Why would we want anything less!

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. Proverbs 29:2

You are to choose capable men from among the people, men who fear God, men of truth who hate dishonest gain. You are to set these men over them as rulers over thousands, hundreds,fifties, and tens. Exodus 18:21

The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and his word was on my tongue.
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 2 Samuel 23:2,3

And you, Ezra, in accordance with the wisdom given to you by your God, are to appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice to all the people beyond the Euphratesm River. All of them are to know the laws of your God, and you are to instruct those who do not know them. Whoever refuses to practice the law of your God and the law of the king is to see judgment executed quickly, whether to death, banishment, confiscation of goods, or imprisonment. Ezra 7:25,26

God's Word above is reason enough to desire that the government of a nation be led by men who follow these principles and reflect such character.

No government is lawful or innocent that does not recognize the moral law as the only universal law, and God as the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge, to whom nations in their national capacity, as well as individuals, are amenable. (Charles Finney)

No man can possibly be benevolent or religious, to the full extent of his obligations, without concerning himself, to a greater or less extent, with the affairs of human government.
Author: Charles Finney

I believe that it is a cop out, irresponsible,
and a lack of stewardship to not vote for
the candidate in any election that is most
in line with God's righteousness and justice
in the affairs of this life.

So mike, is it better to vote for someone who can't beat the greater evil, like some fringe 3rd party candidate, or not voting at all better than allowing the greater evil to win?

As Spock would say, that is not logical.

John Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

(Quotes from John Adams) :
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia ”“ what a Paradise would this region be!

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.

Mike, I respectfully object.

The early church was explicitly and intentionally apolitical, even anti-political. It is no rejoinder that democracy did not exist. Men did influence government. The most telling feature of the early disciples' unwillingness to compromise the true faith to political involvement is shown in such writings as, say, Tertullian's statement that nothing was more foreign to Christians than the affairs of state, Lactantius who said it was better to be governed than to govern because to govern would lead Christians to despise the commandments of God in favor of the luxuries of ruling, the "Testament of our Lord", a 4th c. writing wherein soldiers and magistrates could not be baptized without quitting their offices, and many others. Men in the ancient Roman army who converted to Christ were executed as martyrs when they refused to serve any longer. These are hardly cop outs or poor stewards, but they also were criticized as such by compromisers like Celsus who wanted Christians to jump into political involvement. So, yours is not the first criticism and it won't be the last. But, understand that the earliest witness of Christ in the church before it entered the dark ages and was co-opted by civil government and greed and the lust for power overtook it was the very thing you now condemn.

Tim- question.

In light of what you wrote, would you say it is impossible for a true believer to be led by the HS to enter the political arena?

I think it is possible for a true believer to truly believe the Holy Spirit leads him into the political arena. I truly do not believe the Holy Spirit will do so.

I'll accept the burden of producing biblical reasons for my belief. I'll also accept the fact that these reasons may not be persuasive to anyone in particular.

A. The only government Jesus preached was His kingdom and the kingdom He would bring to Earth in the final eschaton.

B. Jesus explicitly de-linked His kingdom from the orders of this world.

C. Only in vanquishing and eliminating the power of the kingdoms of this world and in fully displacing the entire order of this world does Scripture tell us that "the kingdoms of this world have now become the kingdom of our God and His Christ" (Rev. 11:15), and that His entry into that exclusive reign is "destroying those who destroyed the earth" (v. 18). The inescapable implication is that everything about the order of this present age is destruction of the creation. When read with Romans 8:20 and Paul's reasoning there, it is clear that the powers of this age are part of the destructive futility to which all creation is subjected and from which our redemption awaits. Our redemption from futility is impossible to find in that very same destructive futility (which civil government/politics embodies). The suggestion that we can somehow "redeem" society or government or anything of it by our involvement is facially absurd (not instinctively so, but logically absurd and self-defeating).

D. When tempted by Satan, Jesus was offered earthly power. He rejected it. In keeping with this refusal of the Christ to embrace the powers of this age -- explicitly rejecting earthly power on more than one occasion -- Jesus set a model for His followers. Lest anyone say, "Well, He only did that because it was offered to Him by Satan," remember that Jesus was confronted by Pilate about His lack of earthly power as a supposed king, to which Jesus replied that He could (had He wanted) summon an army of angels to come to His aid. Jesus not only refused earthly power (and modeled that refusal for His church), but He refused even legitimate power that was rightly His in order to submit Himself to the Father. Revelation 12 says of faithful followers of Jesus that "they loved not their lives even unto death" and that by their deaths (through all ages) and their rejection and refusal to bow to the powers of this age, Christians overcome it by the word of their testimony and the fact that Jesus had shed His blood and had not loved His life unto death.

So the picture of Scripture in this final point is that all power which we might avail ourselves of is illegitimate except the power to die that He may be glorified. What will kill us? The very powers that Jesus rejected time and again, the very powers that will put His people to death (and already do), and that we are clamoring over to get a seat at the table. So, no, I don't see how the Holy Spirit will lead anyone to that.

Now, does that prove to anyone here or anywhere that Christians should shun politics and voting and political office? I seriously doubt it. But, the authority of the Bible is clear. The witness of Scripture is sufficient and without need of supplement by philosophy. What we get in the last 300 years or so is a heavy dose of philosophy by men that, let's assume, meant well enough. There is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is death. Moreover, I don't bear the responsibility of persuasion. Everyone must be convinced in his own heart of these things, and let us walk in as much peace with one another as we can.

In reference to point B, would that not apply to many occupations- in your case law, in mine, insurance?

Not yours. :). That is unless you work for State Farm or Blue Cross in Alabama. :) "Don't ask, don't tell!"

Mine? Very possibly. I rage at the existence of the machine from within and am a little bitty spring in it.

It might well apply to big business power brokers, judges, majors, and not a few bishops.

"If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, then error will be. If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendency. If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will. If the power of the gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of this land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.”
”• Daniel Webster

"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”
”• Daniel Webster

There is no remedy for earthly power except the gospel of Christ which eschews it altogether.