Here is an article on the role of “conservative” media in the current disaster,. My favorite part is where he says that the absurdity of Trump’s campaign worked to his advantage because no one thought Republicans would be stupid enough to actually nominate him so the other candidates did not attack him in the early months.
media bias: last night I was listening to ABC news on the radio, and one of the reporters said of Kasich after he won Ohio something along the lines of Kasich is the next hope for the anti-Trump crowd. Yeah, right. Did someone forget about Ted Cruz getting more delegates than Kasich and being the only hope for the anti-Trump crowd?
And Missouri is still too close to call, with both Trump and Cruz getting 41% with 98% of the precincts reporting. There are around 2,000 votes separating them. Usually, in this kind of instance, St. Louis decides the outcome. I think they go to the cemeteries and create eligible voters a là Chicago.
Let’s be honest, NO one took Trump seriously or thought he’d last beyond a novelty candidacy in the summer. No one thought Bernie would last, either.
And since so many of the primaries Trump won were “open,” I still think he ran as well as he did because of independent and even some disaffected Democratic votes. Now the party appears to be stuck with him. Great.
It looks like Trump could actually successfully “hijack” the entire party. But he played by the rules and got the most delegates.
I think after last night it’s Clinton versus Trump. … I think Republicans are practically handing Hillary the presidency. …
Nurse Ratched comes to the asylum. That’s my take on last night’s proceedings. Hillary Clinton is Nurse Ratched. Has there ever been a more joyless or minatory victory speech in American politics?
Nurse Ratched will be administering the meds come January 2017. Short of an intervention by the FBI, on election day Clinton has a dose of humiliation in store for the mania afflicting Trump true believers. She will administer a shellacking in November. …
________________________________
Browsed through yesterday’s Politics thread. Isn’t it clear? We–us Christians–got us here by voting for bad candidates! We could have held out as a bloc and insisted only on godly people to run, but we didn’t; we embraced the slide left, and a deep entrenchment of socialism into American government and politics. So much so that we don’t even blink at social programs out the wazoo, nor at “conservative” candidates who advocate that stuff. Unbelievable.
30 million of us could have curbed all this long ago, but we exacerbated it. God isn’t pleased with us for voting for, say, John McCain–a guy who wouldn’t have even disqualified an SC nominee if that nominee was pro-abortion. How could we conceive God would approve of that? Mind-boggling. Put it a different way: say John McCain would have said he wouldn’t mind an SC nominee who supported a law to kill blondes? Christians should never consider voting for such a man. Who cares if a 3rd party vote would–to our way of thinking, at least–accommodate a democrat winning an election? The results and consequences are in God’s hands, not ours. But now, as RickyWeaver said yesterday, we’re at a place where scores of evangelicals (and other professing conservatives) are supporting Trump–a practical democrat (and weirdo). Boo hiss.
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, multiple congressional sources tell CNN, setting up a dramatic political fight with Senate Republicans who have vowed to block any replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been considered in the past for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been considered in the past for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Garland, 63, the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has been on short lists before. An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Garland is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School. As a Justice Department lawyer, he supervised investigations in the Unabomber case as well as the Oklahoma City bombing. …
Ah, Solar, the causes for this run so much deeper culturally and are way more nuanced. And we don’t (can’t) know the half of it.
I suspect a more important fact for Christians to focus on now is that God is sovereign in all of this and is clearly *doing* something. We don’t like it, but it is all to his praise and glory. And for our good. Perhaps this is a good time to withdraw and mediate on that for a season.
I am not against a split in the Republican Party. It has happened before in our history and we have survived. I am coming around to the thought that it will be a good thing to happen. Separate the wheat from the chaff.
I cannot believe that Christians wouldn’t vote for Romney 4 years ago because he was a Mormon, and now they are supporting this charlatan who really can’t even be called a “Country Club Christian”.
They’re calling Garland a “moderate”….. from the second most liberal appeals court in the nation. He’s a moderate if you’re far left, but to everyone else, he’s another liberal.
On another note….
Trump says he’s not even bothering to attend Thursday’s Fox debate, he’ll be speaking to AIPAC instead. So you know Megyn and the gang will spend the night bashing Trump. Which, if past history is an indicator, will only help Trump. 😦
Sorry folks. The only way a split party is a good thing, is if you’re a Democrat. If it splits into two, an establishment party and a conservative one, neither will ever have the votes to beat a Dem nominee. They’ll simply help the Dems own the presidency for decades. Reality sucks, but it’s true. 😦
Anon is right, a split — especially now — is disastrous.
But I suppose that’s when splits typically occur, when everything’s plummeting at break-neck speed toward you-know-where in the proverbial hand basket.
So you want to stick with politics as usual? It’s how we got McCain. It’s how we got Romney. We lost anyway. We are going to lose this round too. Perhaps a phoenix will rise from the ashes. The Christian Right has compromised and compromised. Where has that led?
I certainly am not being argumentative and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. These are only my thoughts. At least you will know if you are dealing with a true conservative and people and people can support that person if they choose or you can continue to deal with RINO’s and not really know what you are getting.
…But you all know me. I have to put on my Pollyanna Face and find something good in any situation.
Donna J, I’m sure there are numerous contributing factors to the nation’s slide, but a *necessary* one is Christian compromise, and one glaring element of that compromise is who Christians support for political leadership. It shouldn’t have taken us *until now,* when things are really in the toilet, to turn to God’s sovereignty to comfort us; we should have trusted in it from the beginning and declared that we will follow the Bible’s direction and support only godly persons running for leadership. We should have trusted him in his sovereignty long ago, insisted on good candidates, and short of that, abstained from voting, remaining politically active in other ways that glorified God. It shouldn’t have taken a Trump to get us to act on principle; it was bad enough before that guy. God is always doing something, and he doesn’t need us to vote for the “lesser of two evils” to accomplish his purposes.
Anonymous, we *can’t know* what a split in the R party, or abstaining from voting, or voting 3rd party would do. But Christians aren’t to think that way, anyway. We are *principled,* are we not? We do not think “ends justify the means.” We do what pleases God and what he has commanded, then we let the consequences come–he has ordained them. It *could be* that God does not turn the nation politically because Christians continue to support *extremely poor* candidates. We can’t be so myopic as to think only as far as the next election.
The Bible is *chock full* of events that did not turn out as expected. It’s like literally ALL OVER the place in that book. ALL OVER it. Walk by faith, not by sight.
Solar: “God isn’t pleased with us for voting for, say, John McCain”
You have some kind of divine personal knowledge about this?
We all vote our convictions and conscience (or we choose not to vote if ‘none of the above’ fits our views closely enough). But we should not impose our own personal constraints on these matters on our brothers and sisters.
Maybe solar can write in Jesus’ name. Because, frankly, that’s the only way you’re not voting for the lesser of two evils.
I vote for the lesser of two evils, essentially, in every election. There is none righteous. (In this case, it appears the 2 evils are “too” evil so I will likely abstain. That’s my conscience, I would attempt to say every Christian should follow that).
I’m sure the church as a whole has much to answer for in terms of straying from the faith and, possibly, becoming to dependent on and embroiled in the political system under which we live. But how you have some divine insight into specific votes and candidates, I really don’t understand.
Donna J, as I mentioned in an earlier post, John McCain didn’t have a “litmus test” for an SC nominee (that’s one item of others objectionable ones). There is no conceivable way God would be pleased with lending support to a man who would appoint a pro-abortion judge to the highest court in the land. Yes, I have personal knowledge, via the 6th commandment as given in the Bible, that God is displeased with supporting murder. I don’t intend to impose anything on anyone. I’m stating what Scripture has said on the topic–as distinct from surmising what would happen if we do or don’t vote for this or that guy.
We don’t need to write in Jesus’ name–just as we don’t need to abandon having elders and deacons in churches because the Bible calls for godly men to fill those positions, as well. As with all Biblical commands, we endeavor to discern and follow what God has said. What we *don’t* do, is keep Scripture at a distance and try to determine the best course based on what we imagine the consequences would be.
I will very well sit this one out. If you remember, 4 years ago when Christians couldn’t with good conscious vote for Romney I berated them for sitting out and handing the election to Obama, now I have to eat those word. Happens to me on a regular basis when I say “I will never….” I end up doing it. You would think I would learn.
I cannot bring myself to vote for Trump and I cannot bring myself to vote for Hillary. I will say this….at least with her we know what we will be getting, With Trump who knows? He only tells us how great he is.
Swallowing my pride I will say that if a good 3rd party candidate made a good run for the Presidency I would likely vote for them. If not? I will sit this one out. Did those words just come out of my fingers?
I appreciate that input, KimH, and I’m happy to eat my words, too, if I can be corrected from Scripture. God is *far* from silent on what makes good political leadership. Doesn’t seem to make sense to me that Christians don’t use *that* stuff to decide voting strategy.
The “eat my words” thing calls to mind how James Dobson once declared he would never again support a candidate who in any way advocated or facilitated abortion, even if that candidate’s opponent was a more extreme pro-abortion advocate. Within 4 years, he had abandoned that pledge and lent his support to a wishy-washy candidate because “this election is too important!” Totally squandered the message.
Abortion is a line in the sand for many of us. There are others and I’d suggest most (if not all) of us appeal to Scripture in coming to those decisions. It is a matter of conscience for each of us.
I may choose to abstain from voting this time. Or I may vote for a 3rd party candidate should a decent one emerge (but that also is, in a way, abstaining from voting in the main contest). I would not impose that decision on fellow believers.
The math to a delegate majority is still challenging for Trump, but he demonstrated he’s capable of growing his support even in the face of growing resistance from rank-and-file members in his own party. Between 30 and 40 percent of Republican voters said they’d consider voting for a third-party candidate if Trump is the nominee, according to exit polls. But unless Cruz or Kasich can tally some actual victories in the coming month, the Trump train is looking harder to stop.
_______________________________
donna j: “I think either Cruz or Trump will get trounced in November at this point.”
Why so pessimistic about the general election? Republican voters have been far more energetic than the Democrats during this cycle. If the polls are correct, then Cruz defeats Hillary; Trump loses to her, but he is certainly capable of making up that difference (for she is quite vulnerable).
media bias: Cruz has little to complain about. He is the second most talked about Republican candidate. Trump is way ahead of Cruz in free media but the coverage isn’t always positive for Trump. Kasich btw has far less free media than any major candidate. On the Democratic side Clinton is far ahead of Sanders not to mention Clinton has NYT in her corner. Any Sanders can spend hours reciting the litany of complaints they have against NYT.
Garland: Not sure if Republicans want to press their luck on this. Those running for reelection in swing states or seats may not want the heat. Furthermore, as the Republican presidential race threatens to implode the Republican Congress may want to take Garland over somebody Clinton (or even Sanders) may favor.
Abortion: Both the pro-life and pro-choice have won the debate. Its not unusual to hear young people say I would never have an abortion but I won’t take away a women’s right to choose (ironically the latter is derived as much from a right wing libertarian viewpoint as well as a liberal viewpoint). The statement appears ridiculous to many in the pro-life movement but it is the norm. And the statistics reflect this attitude — abortion rates are now at the lowest level since Roe v Wade. Some of this has to do with the piecemeal state by state approach to restrict abortions but most has to do with the information campaigns launched by the pro-life movement.
electorally, Kasich is by far the most winnable candidate but Cruz could beat Clinton especially if Sanders supporters take their ball and go home. Sanders has shown Clinton to be vulnerable. However, I do think Sanders will do the classy thing and ask his supporters to show up and vote for Clinton (and down ticket also). And if Clinton has a leftist running mate, say Warren, Sander’s supporters will show up. Trump will be a disaster, Clinton can beat her and his negatives will motivate the left to actually show up.
That could be, Guess Who, and I’m only stating a position. Disagreement is just disagreement. I’m not demanding it here, but I do wish somewhere or other I would see some Biblical rationale for the “lesser of two evils” strategy, and along with it, some argument why Scriptures describing Biblical leadership have no application in the voting booth. But I’m not trying to stir the pot.
There’s animosity toward me (or, less egotistically, toward what I’m saying) because I put some blame on a particular voting strategy. Where is the “agree to disagree” sentiment when people blame Christians who abstain from voting or who vote 3rd party? It gives the appearance of “striking a nerve.”
Solar, one observation on what God wants in government and what Christians should support (this isn’t my political fight, so I won’t get into current specifics): Paul wrote in Romans 13:1-7, “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” God sets up rulers and countries for His own plans. Some of those rulers may be bad – Jeroboam, whom God chose to discipline Rehoboam, turned out to be terrible, as were the kings of Israel who came after to discipline Jeroboam and his successors – the Assyrians and Babylonians and Persians were all cruel hearted pagans which God used and then disciplined in His turn. See also the succession of disciplining nations in the book of Judges. As we know from the books of Job and Habbakuk, God doesn’t always tell us why He does things, He simply reminds us who He is: http://thecripplegate.com/whos-in-charge-of-the-presidentcall-election-year/
Obadiah was never reproved for serving King Ahab; on the contrary, his position allowed him to protect the prophets of the Lord (I Kings 18:3-4). Elisha worked closely with Ahab’s son, sometimes reproving him, sometimes aiding him as God saw fit (II Kings 3, 6, 7, 8). A whole host of prophets from Samuel on anointed kings who turned bad. Jonadab the Rechabite, whose descendants were later blessed by Jeremiah (35) for their obedience to Jonadab’s teaching, helped Jehu wipe out the house of Ahab; yet Jehu later became an idolater (II Kings 10:15-16, 29-31). Was Jonadab wrong to have helped Jehu? Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century A.D. recorded that Festus, the Roman governor of Judea before whom Paul appeared (Acts 25), was appointed by the Roman emperor Nero. When Paul appealed to Caesar, he appealed to Nero. Nero, the Roman Emperor of whom the Roman historian Tacitus records as ordering the slaughter of the Christians of Rome, which probably included both Paul and Peter; and of whom Tacitus and another Roman historian record that Nero castrated a man and used him as a wife. That Nero is the one under whom Peter in his first Epistle wrote to “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake… Fear God. Honour the king” (I Peter 2:13-17) and to whose household Paul had the opportunity to witness (Philippians 1:12). One could say that Peter and Paul were supporting an evil man by telling Christians to submit to him and by not speaking against his evil doing; but they were not. They were simply applying what Christ said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, so that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36)
… unfortunately for the anti-Trumpist cause, is that my analysis from eight days ago predicting a contested convention (and a not-Trump outcome) looks weaker than it did.
The reason is straightforward: A week ago Trump was still averaging, as he’d averaged from the earliest contests onward, about 34 percent of the primary vote. But last night Trump won at least 39 percent of the vote in every state except Ohio, and even there, in his loss to John Kasich, he still came away with more than 35 percent. That five point boost is why he beat Ted Cruz in both Missouri and North Carolina: Cruz reached 40 percent in the former and the high 30s in the latter, which would have been enough to beat Trump in a lot of prior contests, from Michigan to Arkansas to Kentucky … but wasn’t enough to win this time around. And if that boost holds, if Trump’s new average is 40 percent, in a three-way race that could certainly open him a path to 1,237 delegates; it’s still a path without a huge margin for error, but it makes his nomination much more likely than when he appeared to be stuck five points lower.
The question is why he came unstuck. Up until now Trump hadn’t gained much when other candidates dropped out, and nobody dropped out in the last ten days, so something other than simple consolidation seems to have been at work. Perhaps the Ben Carson endorsement helped him, though that seems doubtful. I think two other explanations are more likely. First, the decision by the other candidates (especially Rubio) to ease up on Trump in the last debate starkly undercut their prior (if tardy) efforts to brand him as beyond the pale, a con man, etc.
Those efforts weren’t “working” in the sense of defeating Trump outright, but I suspect they were keeping a lid on his support, discouraging bandwagoners and so forth. So by mostly letting them drop in what was probably the cycle’s last debate, the other candidates made Trump seem like a (slightly more) normal frontrunner, the kind of figure that voters would usually rally around after a run of primary wins — and some voters may have reacted accordingly.
Second, the Chicago protest-cum-riot over the weekend almost certainly played into Trump’s hands. …
______________________________________
He ends the piece with this observation: “He can still be stopped. He may well still be stopped. But the remarkable good fortune that he’s depended on so far came through for him last week, and I fear that he’ll need less of it hereafter.”
Roscuro, I appreciate the appeal to Scripture, but I don’t see application in this context in much of what you cited. You refer to Romans 13 and God’s setting up rulers. How would that negate the idea that we should only support godly rulers? You cited verses 1-7, but posted only a portion. Also contained within those verses are descriptions of the ruler being “God’s servant for your good” and a “servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (none of which describes Nero, so work needs to be done in parsing the full intent of that passage; it certainly doesn’t prescribe unquestioned obedience to all rulers, nor does the citation in 1 Pet).
The Bible tells us God brings about many events by ordaining the sinful actions of men (e.g., Pharaoh; Jews and Romans who crucified Christ). But his doing so didn’t absolve those who participated from sin.
I agree God doesn’t tell us why he does things. That’s precisely in line with the call to obey him *despite* not knowing. Yet we talk as though voting (or not) for this guy or that *will lead to* some result or other. Maybe; but maybe not. In either case, the duty is ours; consequences are God’s. But who in history *has* known God’s plans directly from him, at least in part? Prophets. We aren’t prophets in that OT sense, at least not in that we hear directly from God how to act. But we do have Scripture, which does tell us how to model our thinking.
“Abortion: Both the pro-life and pro-choice have won the debate. Its not unusual to hear young people say I would never have an abortion but I won’t take away a women’s right to choose (ironically the latter is derived as much from a right wing libertarian viewpoint as well as a liberal viewpoint). The statement appears ridiculous to many in the pro-life movement but it is the norm. And the statistics reflect this attitude — abortion rates are now at the lowest level since Roe v Wade. Some of this has to do with the piecemeal state by state approach to restrict abortions but most has to do with the information campaigns launched by the pro-life movement.”
I think the more we learn and the more medicine advances we will see fewer and fewer abortions. Babies born before full term have a better chance at life than ever before. I think as people, especially young people, see this the more they will see it as a baby human and not choose abortion. I also think there is so much less stigma attached to having a baby as an un-wed mother and as a teenage mother. More and more people realize that it isn’t the baby’s fault, it was the two people who decided to have sex. You never hear the term “bastard child” anymore. I have lost count of the girls who attend my child’s high school who have had and kept their babies.
Solar, Paul appealed to Nero and since Paul showed respect to Festus, and Agrippa, and also to Felix, Festus’ predecessor, who was notoriously corrupt, he would have shown the same respect to Nero. Consider how he apologized to the High Priest for his disrespectful reaction after the High Priest ordered (in violation of the Mosaic Law) Paul to be struck across the mouth (Acts 23:1-5). Under Nero, the laws of the empire were still operated, as may be seen by Festus hearing Paul’s case, so Nero did function as an executer of justice according to Romans 13, however flawed he was at it. To ignore the significance of the context in which Paul and Peter wrote those words, and to say that Nero was an exception to Paul’s statement is to whittle away the veracity of Scripture. When Paul said every authority is ordained by God, he meant every authority, including Nero. To show that the early church understood that this was what Paul was saying, and Christ before him, consider what Justin Martyr wrote in 130 A.D in his First Apology – the context of this appeal was that to be a Christian was illegal at this point in the Roman Empire and Justin is pleading to the Emperor, Antoninus Pius, that Christians be tried according to their actions, not their religion:
And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, “Tell me, whose image does this coin bear?” And they said, “Cæsar’s;” And again He answered them, “Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, “To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required.”
Link to online copy: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Christian_Library/The_First_Apology_of_Justin_Martyr
Roscuro, I’m confused as to exactly how you’re addressing the gist of what I’ve suggested. Paul appealed to Roman authorities as a matter of protocol. This need not be taken to suggest any kind of support for Nero or Nero types, and even if it does (debatable), I’m not following how that might permit Christians to vote for god-hating candidates, especially when the Scriptures define for us what constitutes *good* leadership. In other words, the fact that Paul appealed to Roman authorities wouldn’t have meant it’s advisable or permissible to have voted for a Nero.
So how devoutly Christian does a candidate have to be in your mind for us to vote for him or her, solar? Our pastor made the comment a while back that probably none of the candidates he’s voted for in his lifetime (professing Christians most of them) would qualify as an elder in our church.
Godly leadership is always desirable, of course. But must we agree on everything a candidate stands for? I don’t think so. Again, it comes down to a matter of personal conscience.
Character is an issue that is worthy of concern — which is mostly why Trump perhaps poses a “bridge too far” for some of us right now.
But all men and women are sinners.
This election is obviously going to cause some wrestling, both with one another and within our own hearts and minds.
As for political parties: They are coalitions of interests. That is just the way they operate so, by necessity, compromise comes into the picture.
A full-on, narrow Christian “right” party would simply have no chance of ever getting anyone elected.
Guess who: Stipulated: All men are sinners. Does that mean the Bible has nothing to say about godly government and rulers? All men are sinners, so the Psalm 2 command for all rulers of earth to kiss the Son is negated? Help me follow here.
“Have no chance” should rarely be a part of the Christian’s decision making process.
Guess who: Lest you think I’m dodging your question, I alluded above to elders and deacons, and that we “endeavor to discern and do what God has said.” This is true of all aspects of sanctification, is it not?
Have no chance is a logical statement. All things are, of course, possible with God. But I am not using it in the sense that it is “part of my decision-making” process. Just a statement of logic.
So I don’t have time to go back over earlier comments I probably missed, but did you say that candidates should fit the standards of elders or deacons?
Again, you clearly have an exceptionally high bar personally in deciding whom to vote for, but that should not be used to try to bind other believers who also are using Scripture to inform their consciences in the voting booth (often with differing results).
I may not vote this time, but I would not suggest that no other Christians should vote, either.
Hey Guess who. That’s cool. If our primary objective is to win elections, or the starting point in our logic is to figure out how to get there, then whether we have a chance is relevant. I’m sure you see where I’m going with this. Our first concern is to be whether we glorify God by what we do. If Scripture has set certain limits around how we vote and act politically, then we glorify God by obeying those Scriptures. I’m arguing that we Christians have neglected that approach for a more pragmatic one (from our point of view–I would even argue that pragmatically, we’re messing up by voting for unbelievers, but that may be a different discussion).
My reference to elders and deacons had to do with the assertion from another commenter that since we don’t have a perfect candidate, we’re left only with writing in Jesus’ name on the ballot. But we still examine and appoint elders and deacons, even though their requirements would similarly seem to lead us to expect perfection. But we know we can only discern so much; same with candidates.
I’ve voted 3rd party a few times, and vote on other local candidates, as well as vote on ballot initiatives and such. I don’t just “stay at home” and sulk, as is often suggested of those who abstain from voting on certain races.
I’d like to point out that God is no respecter of persons or nations.
A read of the Old Testament shows how he treated his own chosen people when they consistently turned their back on him. See the run up to Ezra and Nehemiah, not to mention the situation while Hezekiah was king. Why would anyone think our nation should be treated any different given the anti-God choices so many have made in the last several generations?
And to your comment about elders, again, how godly does a candidate have to be — for you — to cast a vote? And how do you possibly make that kind of judgment?
Solar Pancake, God has declared what is required of elders; no man can be appointed to office who does not fit those standards. (And no woman can be an elder, because it is against God’s standards.) Yet I know of no such requirements of choosing employees for the civil sphere. (Does anyone on the ballot have to be a Christian? Can we vote for just unbelievers for sheriff? for dog catcher?)
You accuse others of ignoring scriptural proofs when I don’t think you’ve actually given any. Saying what makes a good ruler is no proof that we can only elect a Christian as president . . . any more than telling what makes a good boss means we can only work for a Christian!
There are certain required standards that a ruler must have. He must value justice, and he must be trustworthy. Those don’t require that he be a Christian. In my mind, a person who supports abortion is disqualified, and Trump is disqualified because he isn’t reliably pro-life and he doesn’t honor anything honorable (definitely including marriage).
But honestly, I just don’t get why you say that Christians refusing to vote for anyone who isn’t a solid Christian would have brought us better candidates by now. By your standards, I should never have voted for a single candidate in my life–which would make me completely irrelevant to the electoral process. Nobody appeals to the Amish vote because they don’t vote. If Christians determine only to vote on the minute chance that a like-minded believer is running for office, then our vote becomes totally irrelevant, not decisive!
With Marco Rubio dropping out of the Republican presidential race Tuesday, the Florida senator leaves a large cache of delegates behind. So what happens to them, and the delegates of other former candidates, at the convention in Cleveland?
The short answer is: It varies from state to state, but the Republican Party leaves enough wiggle room that the delegates of former candidates could end up being a factor in July. …
Rubio, in suspending his campaign after his home-state Florida loss, leaves 169 delegates behind. Ben Carson accrued eight delegates before he dropped out of the race, while Jeb Bush picked up four. Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul each picked up one in Iowa.
And if either Ted Cruz or John Kasich drop out in the weeks ahead — and Donald Trump still has not clinched the nomination with the necessary 1,237 delegates — additional zombie delegates could be in play in Cleveland.
And they could hold sway. …
__________________________________________
Cheryl, there are other Scriptures, but I’ve already alluded to the one that may sum it up best: Psalm 2 commands all rulers of all nations to kiss the Son. That’s not a mark of an unbeliever. Failure to kiss the Son arouses God’s anger, as the Psalm says. Does that sound familiar? I don’t say it definitively, but it is very possible God is angry with our nation.
As I have stated I am not going to vote for Hillary or Trump. However, the choices are so bad that I would not criticize anyone for any decision they might make in November.
The argument for voting for Trump: Maybe, just maybe, he doesn’t nominate his pro-abortion sister to the Supreme Court and maybe his judges might be slightly to the right of Hillary’s. Maybe he won’t push a single payer health care plan.
The argument for voting for Hillary: The two agree on most issues, but Trump is insane. Trump could start a war by accident or while throwing a tantrum. Trump could start a trade war. Trump would make the U.S. a pariah state.
The argument for voting for no one or a third party: Hillary and Trump are so bad that you can’t tell who is worse. Maybe Trump is a little more conservative on policy issues, but that is far from certain. Probably Hillary is a little better on character/sanity/ trust issues and how bizarre is that?
So let us be patient with one another because we have a bad choice to make and the outcome could well be worse than Obama. After all he got bored when the Rs took the House in 2010 and became a golfer.
power line blog thoughts on the general election when asked if a lot of Republicans will sit it out with Trump as the nominee.
He has a little different take on things (he thinks Trump would beat Clinton — or, if he lost, it would be close). It’s an interesting read. How good his predictions are remain to be seen. 🙂
Some Republicans would disavow Trump. Others—like me, for example—would vote for him, but otherwise not lend him any support (e.g., by contributing to his campaign or promoting him on my web site). But hardly any Republicans would vote for Hillary Clinton, so these defections probably won’t be too important. Bear in mind that quite a few potential voters always stay home because they don’t much like the candidate. A lot of conservatives didn’t turn out to vote for John McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney in 2012. Will the number who refuse to vote for Trump be any greater if he is the nominee? I don’t know; it could quite possibly be smaller. Plus, of course, Trump will draw a lot of votes from Democrats and independents. His appeal is basically non-partisan. …
… I see zero chance of a permanent or long-term split in the Republican Party. The two-party system is deeply embedded in American politics, and third parties don’t last. Bear in mind, too, that the GOP is on the ascendancy. It is the Democrats who are in trouble long-term. Currently, two-thirds of all state legislative bodies are in Republican hands, 60% of governors are Republicans, and Republicans control both the House and the Senate. The Trump phenomenon results in part from the expansion of the GOP to its strongest position since the 1920s.
What could happen is an independent candidacy in 2016. If Trump doesn’t get the nomination, he may run as an independent. He would draw quite a few votes and maybe even win some states, but independent or third-party candidacies have zero history of actual success in the U.S. …
…. I think a Trump presidency would not be as dramatic as most people suppose. He has little in the way of fixed policy positions, and not much knowledge of how the federal government operates. He would be forced to rely heavily on advisers, whom he would probably pick from the middle of the road, as Trump is basically a centrist (albeit not a very well-informed one). I think we would see a sort of compromise administration that, in the end, would be about 2/3 Democrat and 1/3 Republican. That’s what happened here in Minnesota when we elected a former professional wrestler and actor, Jesse Ventura, as governor. In policy terms Trump would be a severe disappointment to his followers—the ones who care about policy, anyway.
Psalm 2 doesn’t answer my question; I already addressed that in my comment. If Psalm 2, a command to leaders, affects the people (not the leaders), then any command to supervisors to honor God says, likewise, that I cannot work for a boss who isn’t a Christian. Logically it doesn’t follow. Must a businessman only hire Christians, too? All people are called to honor God, and thus no one should do business with anyone who isn’t a Christian–right?
I think that somehow you have a position and you are looking for proof to back it. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Scripture that backs up your position. A ruler must be just, and thus it makes sense to choose rulers who know what that means and agree. Given the choice between a godly ruler and one who is not, I would choose the godly one. But there is no list like that of elders, telling voters the mandatory minimum qualification.
Cheryl: If a=b and b=c, a=c. If God commands rulers to kiss the Son, we as Christians should not advocate for anyone who would *not* kiss the Son. We don’t *have to* support anyone. If no one is qualified according to the standards of Scripture, we ought not support them, but remain politically active elsewhere.
You’re analysis of my motivations is fine, but irrelevant.
Your mention of the possibility of the Christian vote is telling. Our primary concern should not be just winning an election. We should act as God has commanded. If that means some Republican doesn’t become president, big deal–that’s God’s decision. I don’t claim the Christian vote is necessarily decisive; but I don’t suggest we vote on that principle! Still, candidates would be foolish to ignore 30 million potential voters. But if they do, big deal. You may have noticed we’re in a pretty bad way already. Our strategy hasn’t helped much; I think it has hurt. We continue to slide left; we continue to send a message that slide is OK; apparently, we have sent a message to our “evangelical” brothers and sisters that a man like Donald Trump is an acceptable Christian candidate.
“Your mention of the possibility of the Christian vote is telling. Our primary concern should not be just winning an election. We should act as God has commanded. If that means some Republican doesn’t become president, big deal–that’s God’s decision.” I don’t disagree with any of this, except that my comment is “telling.” My comment is only in response to your comment that we are the reason the political state is in the mess it’s in. I pointed out that Christians refusing to vote wouldn’t bring us better candidates, it would only make our opinions seem irrelevant. (Or do you mean that we’d be in a better position because God would honor Christians’ “obedience” in this matter? If so, I suspect that you are confusing God’s covenant with Israel with a nonexistent covenant with America.)
But twice now I have asked you the same question, and you have ignored it: You say that a call to government officials to “kiss the Son” is also a call to Christians only to vote for Christians. If that is so, then why are calls to employers to honor God, and other calls to other segments of the population to honor God, likewise not calls that Christians must insist that these people be Christians or we won’t deal with them? Can a Christian work for a person who is not a believer, can he hire a person who is not a believer to work for him, can he hire a lawyer (or landscape artist) who is not a believer?
I do not think that your argument holds water. It is far too indirect to be any sort of evidence for God’s view on the subject, and thus is a conscience issue for each individual. But clearly you believe that your view is biblical. How, then, do you deal with the fact that each segment of society is also commanded to honor God, and we often choose to interact with people in these other spheres who are not Christians? Can a Christian insist that other believers only do business with fellow believers?
We are “in the world” at this point in history. And like it or not, that means that we are going to be interacting with unbelievers. Personally, I think it is often a privilege to do so, and I’m not looking for excuses to avoid it. But if you would choose to engage with unbelievers in these other spheres, then I believe you are being inconsistent. Consistency in all these realms would mean pulling aside like the Amish or other sects do. The rest of us necessarily engage with the world every day, and I believe God has called us to do so. And yes, sometimes that means hiring a lawyer or a chimney sweep who is not a Christian. And sometimes it means voting for an unbeliever, as long as he is fundamentally a person of integrity.
Any nation that honors God enjoys his blessing. That need not, and doesn’t, only apply to Israel. All nations should openly covenant with God.
I haven’t ignored your question. I didn’t understand it because it is not well-formulated. First, there is a difference between *supporting* a person and merely “dealing” with someone. Secondly, God calls rulers to honor him *specifically in and by* their roles as rulers. The laws they enact, the decisions they make, the policies they advocate, the relationships they pursue–those things are to be done explicitly as God has declared. He tells the plumber to be godly, yes, but not how to fix a sink in a godly way. But he most certainly tells rulers how to rule. Isn’t that interesting, though? What other occupations does God write job descriptions for? If a person doesn’t meet the requirements, we do wrong to support him.
I’m surprised this seems like a new thought to people. Many prominent believers over the centuries have said much the same as I am.
Your last paragraph goes way afield. You’ve now concluded I oppose interacting with unbelievers and all that stuff. A few times now, I’ve even stated the opposite.
I haven’t tried to ignore your questions. If I haven’t answered, just ask for clarification. But I’d be interested to know how you think Psalm 2 applies to rulers. I’m not even sure you’ve checked the reference. The whole brief chapter is worth reading, but here’s some of it, below. I don’t know how else to read it than the way I have:
10Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
12Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Solar Pancake, I’m assuming you are a Theonomist, and I am not, so we aren’t likely to come to agreement on this. (Right?) What I’d say is that no nation today can covenant with God, because God works through the church, not through nations. God chose to covenant with Israel, not Israel with God, because they were going to play a part in bringing Christ to earth as our Savior. That has been fulfilled. A president today can’t just sacrifice an animal and announce a new covenant with Yahweh–he’d actually be in disobedience if he did!
You are right in reading that text (which I did, in fact, look up yesterday, though I was familiar with it) to say that leaders are commanded to respect God. But you’re wrong if you’re saying that this is a thorough job description or that it is the only occupation for which God gives some sort of job description. The New Testament gives many principles for how leaders of government should act . . . but it also gives many principles for masters (bosses), slaves (employees), judges, fathers, etc. I don’t think it’s at all far-fetched to say that if a command to rulers is also a command to those who would take part in hiring them, that a command to bosses also is a command to those who would choose to work for them, and a command to employees is a command to those who would hire them. They, too, are supposed to honor and obey God. If I have this level of responsibility for voting only for strong Christians when I’m one of millions of voters (and when there is no Christian running), then how can I not have the responsibility to choose only to work for Christians or only to employ Christians? Remember, if I am interviewing someone (or being interviewed), I have one-on-one time with them, and can actually question them about their faith. When someone is running for governor, it may not even be possible to determine whether he is a Christian, because those questions might not be asked, or the media may not report the answers. I don’t have the responsibility to do behind-the-scenes research for everyone on the ballot!
I could remind you that under our system of government, a president isn’t supposed to be “king” anyway! His role is equally shared by three branches of government (meaning that congressmen must get equal scrutiny), and his role is less important than your own state government.
So, yes, there is a difference between supporting a person and only dealing with him . . . which is why my question dealt with “supporting”–hiring or choosing to work for a person who is not a Christian, and thus is disobeying God in his role as an employer or employee.
Cheryl, I can only pop in here right now to make this one statement: I’m not talking about the kind of covenant that existed between OT Israel and God, nor the one between Christ and his church. I’m only speaking in the more “pedestrian” sense of making an open vow or promise, similar to those made in church membership or marriage. Simply, that a nation include in its establishing documents an open allegiance to God. That kind of language is all over in Scripture, even in Psalm 2!
I could remind you that under our system of government, a president isn’t supposed to be “king” anyway!
That’s really straining at a gnat! Can you show me commentators who consider Psalm 2 only to be speaking about “kings,” and not generally about political rulers (as fleshed out by the addition of the term “rulers” only a sentence later in the Psalm)?
If I have this level of responsibility for voting only for strong Christians when I’m one of millions of voters (and when there is no Christian running), then how can I not have the responsibility to choose only to work for Christians or only to employ Christians?
I answered this above. God gives no instruction for how storm door salesmen are to do their work *as storm door salesmen.* There’s nothing wrong with starting with the assumption that we will interact will believers and unbelievers alike in this world, but for those roles where God has *specifically* ascribed certain duties, we should only support those who fulfill them accordingly.
It would be straining at a gnat if I weren’t making a very different point than the one you’re replying to. I’m not saying “He isn’t a king, so this doesn’t apply,” but “Narrowly looking at the president is missing the point, since our president is not really an equivalent of the king.” Officially under a republic, we do not have one leader, and the president is not the most important man in the nation.
You still haven’t interacted with my point that the same principle must be applied to all such “hiring” decisions, if you are to be consistent. I do not think we need that kind of consistency simply because this command is not directed at me in the first place. To take a psalm (poetry) written to a king as a command about how to vote is to do real violence to Scripture. But by your method of interpretation, most certainly the epistles (which in fact often do issue commands) should tell us how to choose a boss or an employee.
And you haven’t told me whether you identify with (accept) the term “theonomist” for your belief system.
OK, that’s fine. I’m referring to political rulers and leaders, just as the Scripture does. Do you believe Psalm 2 has any application at all to American politicians? How do you see it applying, if at all, to anything regarding “rulers”?
I don’t know enough about theonomy to know for certain if I am one, nor if an “avowed” theonomist would like me to do so (!), but I do know that we modern American Christians rely on Scripture WAY less than our forebears of the past did in trying to discern and formulate good laws and leaders. I can provide copious quotes to support that, if you’d like. Here’s a good write-up about CH Spurgeon’s views:
Within that article is a link to one on Calvin, who wrote as part of his Sermons on Deuteronomy (ch 18), “Albeit, for as much as without the fear of God all the virtues in man turn to evil, behold Jethro, who never heard one word of the Holy Scripture, nevertheless perceives full well that it is impossible for a man to perform his duty in governing a people unless he fears God.”
I may just be some hayseed, but I’m not doing any more “real violence” to scripture than those guys are.
it really just isn’t true that God has spoken specifically to government rulers but not to managers or workers.
Aside from the fact that he has said far more about rulers in their roles than he has about managers and workers in their roles, what point of mine would this negate?
Psalm 2 is a prophetic Psalm, fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ (Acts 4:25-28), and ends with a call to all people to come to the Son for salvation. Matthew Henry puts it this way:
We have here the practical application of this gospel doctrine concerning the kingdom of the Messiah, by way of exhortation to the kings and judges of the earth. They hear that it is in vain to oppose Christ’s government; let them therefore be so wise for themselves as to submit to it. He that has power to destroy them shows that he has no pleasure in their destruction, for he puts them into a way to make themselves happy, v. 10. Those that would be wise must be instructed; and those are truly wise that receive instruction from the word of God. Kings and judges stand upon a level with common persons before God; and it is as necessary for them to be religious as for any others. Those that give law and judgment to others must receive law from Christ, and it will be their wisdom to do so. What is said to them is said to all, and is required of every one of us, only it is directed to kings and judges because of the influence which their example will have upon their inferiors, and because they were men of rank and power that opposed the setting up of Christ’s kingdom,
So the phrase “Kiss the son” is an evangelical appeal to unsaved leaders and by extension all people. It is not a directive of who should be a leader.
“Do you believe Psalm 2 has any application at all to American politicians?” Absolutely. They, and every citizen too, are called to honor God.
“Aside from the fact that he has said far more about rulers in their roles than he has about managers and workers in their roles, [I don’t know whether this is true] what point of mine would this negate?” I’m actually not talking about negation at all, but about adding to what you have said. I’m not sure I can be any clearer, actually, but I’ll try. You say (summarizing): “A command to rulers is implicitly a command to those who would elect them, too.” And I say, “If that is true, then a command to employers is implicitly a command to those who would work for them, and a command to employees is certainly a command to those who would hire them.” And the commands to employers and employees also deal with issues of Christian morality. If my role as one voter in a billion is culpable, then certainly my role (if I have one) as being the one person who can make the decision whether to hire, or whether to work for, a person who isn’t a Christian is even more culpable.
Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 3:22; 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9 and more all give direct commands to the employer or employee, and tell them how to treat the person in view of their relationship to Christ. So we can say that an employer or employee who lacks that relationship with Christ, and thus the ability to obey these commands, is not fit to be in that position, and a Christian should therefore not submit to, or hire, a person who cannot or will not obey the explicit commands to them.
But I believe it is otherwise. Let’s say that I have reason to believe that a certain employer will not honor Colossians 4:1 (which tells him to treat those who work for him justly and honorably) because he is not a Christian and he has a reputation for showing some favoritism. And yet he is the only employer in my county offering jobs to people with my skill set, I need a job, and he has offered me one. I may not want to work for him, but I believe this command is a command to him, not to me, and he is the one who is sinning if he doesn’t keep it. I can in good conscience accept the job, though I can also hope a better one comes along. Kim is in this exact same position right now. Her boss is sinning against her, but she is not sinning in remaining in the job until a better one comes around.
Thank you, Roscuro. I almost pointed out that it is in fact a messianic psalm and that it would be ridiculous to believe that only leaders are called to honor Christ, but didn’t want to complicate the discussion further. But that is definitely a valid point.
That seems to flatten the passage into vagueness (and I don’t believe Henry is doing that, either). It would be like saying, “Husbands, you are to love your wives. Heck, you are to love everyone.” Kings and rulers are given particular directive which does apply to all; much the same can be said of directives given to elders and deacons and the application of those directives to all persons, but that doesn’t de-emphasize elders and deacons as a particular audience.
“A command to rulers is implicitly a command to those who would elect them, too.” And I say, “If that is true, then a command to employers is implicitly a command to those who would work for them, and a command to employees is certainly a command to those who would hire them.”
This continues to misapply an analogy, and the logic doesn’t follow. Later in your post, you even posit a scenario in which you “need” a job, and therefore would be right to work for an unbeliever (which I wouldn’t dispute and my argument wouldn’t proscribe anyway).
We do not “need” to vote for any person. We do not “need” to deliberately *support, vote for, or otherwise perpetuate the success of* the campaign of anyone who does not honor God in that person’s role (or desired role) of a political ruler in violation of Psalm 2 and other passages. And I’m not saying we may steal bread if we do “need” it, I’m saying we have the option of *not* participating in the sin of a candidate who opposes God rather than kisses the Son as he is commanded to do.
Well, Solar Pancake, you’ve beaten the same drum here for I don’t know how many election cycles, and you haven’t come even close to presenting a convincing case. So I guess all I can say is that if your conscience won’t let you vote at all, then don’t vote at all. But don’t think your choice is “the” Christian answer, because it isn’t, and you haven’t given us the least hint of a biblical support for it. As you confessed in your 1:16 post, the logic does not follow. And nobody “needs” to vote, but we have the freedom to do so, both politically and biblically.
Anyhoo, still seems weird to me that with all the history of the view I’ve discussed here, there seems to be so much ignorance about it. As with other demonstrations of ignorance, I think a lot of the blame rests with the rise of dispensationalism (which, thankfully, is declining, so there’s that).
Good luck with that unsuccessful pragmatism! Just don’t be surprised at the continuing dearth of good candidates.
Solar, two comments to reply to your 4:56, because I think you are insulting not just me but the other people who have asked me to respond to you or e-mailed me to thank me for responding, etc. You accuse us of “ignorance,” and it is poor form to argue that way just because someone disagrees with you. You have not made a case; the fact that you have not convinced us does not point to our ignorance, but to (1) there is no case to be made; (2) there is a good case, but you have not made it. It could also be (3) we disagree with the case that has been made, whether or not it has been made well . . . but in this case, I think 1 or 2 will cover it.
But as to ignorance, I suspect (though I cannot prove) that I am better versed in church history than you are. At any rate, we do not suffer from ignorance, nor do we agree with dispensationalism; we disagree with you, and do not believe you have made a good case.
It also is very insulting to say that my / our disagreement proves that I am a pragmatist, willing to compromise truth and thus (by implication) not as holy as you are. The only one arguing pragmatism on this thread has actually been you! (You have repeatedly given refrains of “see how well this is working for you.”) We will not see a perfect government (or a perfect church, family, workplace, etc.) until Christ returns, but we are called to be faithful in the meantime and not just throw up our hands and give up. That is what we are choosing to do, with God as our judge and our own consciences, as well. None of us is telling you that your conscience is in error or that you must vote even if you do not believe there is a good enough candidate, and we would appreciate you likewise respecting our own Christian liberty. (And as I have said, I do not plan to vote for any of the three front runners of the two parties, and I think others have said the same thing, should any of them be a nominee, so at the moment the argument is moot.)
See you in four years, unless in the meantime you decide you have better things to do with your time . . . which would be my own recommendation.
Cheryl, your words to me became insulting very early on and I didn’t exceed any of the style you employed in addressing me. I’ve regularly seen on these pages the insinuations–make that direct statements–that those who abstained from voting were responsible for Obama’s being elected. Et cetera. Take that up with John Calvin and Charles Spurgeon and the Westminster divines and plenty of other folks who aren’t as stupid as you’ve indicated I am. The reason there has been some pique going on here with yourself and others is because someone has voiced a viewpoint that *differs* from the general groupthink here. I’m no more holier-than-thou than you or the others.
You may know way more church history than I, but you certainly didn’t demonstrate any awareness that prominent Christians in the past centuries have said very much the same as I have.
Wandering Views 
Here is an article on the role of “conservative” media in the current disaster,. My favorite part is where he says that the absurdity of Trump’s campaign worked to his advantage because no one thought Republicans would be stupid enough to actually nominate him so the other candidates did not attack him in the early months.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/how-and-why-the-conservative-media-sold-its-soul-to-facilitate-trumps-nomination/
LikeLiked by 1 person
media bias: last night I was listening to ABC news on the radio, and one of the reporters said of Kasich after he won Ohio something along the lines of Kasich is the next hope for the anti-Trump crowd. Yeah, right. Did someone forget about Ted Cruz getting more delegates than Kasich and being the only hope for the anti-Trump crowd?
And Missouri is still too close to call, with both Trump and Cruz getting 41% with 98% of the precincts reporting. There are around 2,000 votes separating them. Usually, in this kind of instance, St. Louis decides the outcome. I think they go to the cemeteries and create eligible voters a là Chicago.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Let’s be honest, NO one took Trump seriously or thought he’d last beyond a novelty candidacy in the summer. No one thought Bernie would last, either.
And since so many of the primaries Trump won were “open,” I still think he ran as well as he did because of independent and even some disaffected Democratic votes. Now the party appears to be stuck with him. Great.
It looks like Trump could actually successfully “hijack” the entire party. But he played by the rules and got the most delegates.
It’s been a crazy, unpredictable year.
Now what??
LikeLike
A thoroughly depressing assessment of where we stand now:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/after-last-night-17.php
_______________________________
I think after last night it’s Clinton versus Trump. … I think Republicans are practically handing Hillary the presidency. …
Nurse Ratched comes to the asylum. That’s my take on last night’s proceedings. Hillary Clinton is Nurse Ratched. Has there ever been a more joyless or minatory victory speech in American politics?
Nurse Ratched will be administering the meds come January 2017. Short of an intervention by the FBI, on election day Clinton has a dose of humiliation in store for the mania afflicting Trump true believers. She will administer a shellacking in November. …
________________________________
LikeLike
Browsed through yesterday’s Politics thread. Isn’t it clear? We–us Christians–got us here by voting for bad candidates! We could have held out as a bloc and insisted only on godly people to run, but we didn’t; we embraced the slide left, and a deep entrenchment of socialism into American government and politics. So much so that we don’t even blink at social programs out the wazoo, nor at “conservative” candidates who advocate that stuff. Unbelievable.
30 million of us could have curbed all this long ago, but we exacerbated it. God isn’t pleased with us for voting for, say, John McCain–a guy who wouldn’t have even disqualified an SC nominee if that nominee was pro-abortion. How could we conceive God would approve of that? Mind-boggling. Put it a different way: say John McCain would have said he wouldn’t mind an SC nominee who supported a law to kill blondes? Christians should never consider voting for such a man. Who cares if a 3rd party vote would–to our way of thinking, at least–accommodate a democrat winning an election? The results and consequences are in God’s hands, not ours. But now, as RickyWeaver said yesterday, we’re at a place where scores of evangelicals (and other professing conservatives) are supporting Trump–a practical democrat (and weirdo). Boo hiss.
LikeLiked by 4 people
And from CNN:
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, multiple congressional sources tell CNN, setting up a dramatic political fight with Senate Republicans who have vowed to block any replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been considered in the past for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been considered in the past for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Garland, 63, the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has been on short lists before. An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Garland is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School. As a Justice Department lawyer, he supervised investigations in the Unabomber case as well as the Oklahoma City bombing. …
LikeLike
“Now what??”
He’s always been there: Sen. Ted Cruz.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, Solar, the causes for this run so much deeper culturally and are way more nuanced. And we don’t (can’t) know the half of it.
I suspect a more important fact for Christians to focus on now is that God is sovereign in all of this and is clearly *doing* something. We don’t like it, but it is all to his praise and glory. And for our good. Perhaps this is a good time to withdraw and mediate on that for a season.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, right. Cruz. 🙄 He’s been so successful in stopping Trump.
Even if he managed to get the nomination, all the Trump contingent just marches out.
I think either Cruz or Trump will get trounced in November at this point.
LikeLike
I am not against a split in the Republican Party. It has happened before in our history and we have survived. I am coming around to the thought that it will be a good thing to happen. Separate the wheat from the chaff.
I cannot believe that Christians wouldn’t vote for Romney 4 years ago because he was a Mormon, and now they are supporting this charlatan who really can’t even be called a “Country Club Christian”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Yuuuge problem with a split is the damage that will be done for years while a new conservative party emerges (if that even happens). 😦
LikeLike
They’re calling Garland a “moderate”….. from the second most liberal appeals court in the nation. He’s a moderate if you’re far left, but to everyone else, he’s another liberal.
On another note….
Trump says he’s not even bothering to attend Thursday’s Fox debate, he’ll be speaking to AIPAC instead. So you know Megyn and the gang will spend the night bashing Trump. Which, if past history is an indicator, will only help Trump. 😦
LikeLike
Sorry folks. The only way a split party is a good thing, is if you’re a Democrat. If it splits into two, an establishment party and a conservative one, neither will ever have the votes to beat a Dem nominee. They’ll simply help the Dems own the presidency for decades. Reality sucks, but it’s true. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anon is right, a split — especially now — is disastrous.
But I suppose that’s when splits typically occur, when everything’s plummeting at break-neck speed toward you-know-where in the proverbial hand basket.
LikeLike
So you want to stick with politics as usual? It’s how we got McCain. It’s how we got Romney. We lost anyway. We are going to lose this round too. Perhaps a phoenix will rise from the ashes. The Christian Right has compromised and compromised. Where has that led?
I certainly am not being argumentative and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. These are only my thoughts. At least you will know if you are dealing with a true conservative and people and people can support that person if they choose or you can continue to deal with RINO’s and not really know what you are getting.
…But you all know me. I have to put on my Pollyanna Face and find something good in any situation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Donna J, I’m sure there are numerous contributing factors to the nation’s slide, but a *necessary* one is Christian compromise, and one glaring element of that compromise is who Christians support for political leadership. It shouldn’t have taken us *until now,* when things are really in the toilet, to turn to God’s sovereignty to comfort us; we should have trusted in it from the beginning and declared that we will follow the Bible’s direction and support only godly persons running for leadership. We should have trusted him in his sovereignty long ago, insisted on good candidates, and short of that, abstained from voting, remaining politically active in other ways that glorified God. It shouldn’t have taken a Trump to get us to act on principle; it was bad enough before that guy. God is always doing something, and he doesn’t need us to vote for the “lesser of two evils” to accomplish his purposes.
LikeLike
Anonymous, we *can’t know* what a split in the R party, or abstaining from voting, or voting 3rd party would do. But Christians aren’t to think that way, anyway. We are *principled,* are we not? We do not think “ends justify the means.” We do what pleases God and what he has commanded, then we let the consequences come–he has ordained them. It *could be* that God does not turn the nation politically because Christians continue to support *extremely poor* candidates. We can’t be so myopic as to think only as far as the next election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Bible is *chock full* of events that did not turn out as expected. It’s like literally ALL OVER the place in that book. ALL OVER it. Walk by faith, not by sight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solar: “God isn’t pleased with us for voting for, say, John McCain”
You have some kind of divine personal knowledge about this?
We all vote our convictions and conscience (or we choose not to vote if ‘none of the above’ fits our views closely enough). But we should not impose our own personal constraints on these matters on our brothers and sisters.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe solar can write in Jesus’ name. Because, frankly, that’s the only way you’re not voting for the lesser of two evils.
I vote for the lesser of two evils, essentially, in every election. There is none righteous. (In this case, it appears the 2 evils are “too” evil so I will likely abstain. That’s my conscience, I would attempt to say every Christian should follow that).
I’m sure the church as a whole has much to answer for in terms of straying from the faith and, possibly, becoming to dependent on and embroiled in the political system under which we live. But how you have some divine insight into specific votes and candidates, I really don’t understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Donna J, as I mentioned in an earlier post, John McCain didn’t have a “litmus test” for an SC nominee (that’s one item of others objectionable ones). There is no conceivable way God would be pleased with lending support to a man who would appoint a pro-abortion judge to the highest court in the land. Yes, I have personal knowledge, via the 6th commandment as given in the Bible, that God is displeased with supporting murder. I don’t intend to impose anything on anyone. I’m stating what Scripture has said on the topic–as distinct from surmising what would happen if we do or don’t vote for this or that guy.
We don’t need to write in Jesus’ name–just as we don’t need to abandon having elders and deacons in churches because the Bible calls for godly men to fill those positions, as well. As with all Biblical commands, we endeavor to discern and follow what God has said. What we *don’t* do, is keep Scripture at a distance and try to determine the best course based on what we imagine the consequences would be.
LikeLike
Sigh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will very well sit this one out. If you remember, 4 years ago when Christians couldn’t with good conscious vote for Romney I berated them for sitting out and handing the election to Obama, now I have to eat those word. Happens to me on a regular basis when I say “I will never….” I end up doing it. You would think I would learn.
I cannot bring myself to vote for Trump and I cannot bring myself to vote for Hillary. I will say this….at least with her we know what we will be getting, With Trump who knows? He only tells us how great he is.
Swallowing my pride I will say that if a good 3rd party candidate made a good run for the Presidency I would likely vote for them. If not? I will sit this one out. Did those words just come out of my fingers?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, this (political) story isn’t over yet. We’ll see what the summer brings.
The frustrating part is that Clinton is so entirely “beatable.” In a normal year and with a decent opponent.
LikeLike
I appreciate that input, KimH, and I’m happy to eat my words, too, if I can be corrected from Scripture. God is *far* from silent on what makes good political leadership. Doesn’t seem to make sense to me that Christians don’t use *that* stuff to decide voting strategy.
The “eat my words” thing calls to mind how James Dobson once declared he would never again support a candidate who in any way advocated or facilitated abortion, even if that candidate’s opponent was a more extreme pro-abortion advocate. Within 4 years, he had abandoned that pledge and lent his support to a wishy-washy candidate because “this election is too important!” Totally squandered the message.
LikeLike
Abortion is a line in the sand for many of us. There are others and I’d suggest most (if not all) of us appeal to Scripture in coming to those decisions. It is a matter of conscience for each of us.
I may choose to abstain from voting this time. Or I may vote for a 3rd party candidate should a decent one emerge (but that also is, in a way, abstaining from voting in the main contest). I would not impose that decision on fellow believers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From the National Journal:
https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/621147?unlock=69P7DN8VW0P02F6T
______________________________
The math to a delegate majority is still challenging for Trump, but he demonstrated he’s capable of growing his support even in the face of growing resistance from rank-and-file members in his own party. Between 30 and 40 percent of Republican voters said they’d consider voting for a third-party candidate if Trump is the nominee, according to exit polls. But unless Cruz or Kasich can tally some actual victories in the coming month, the Trump train is looking harder to stop.
_______________________________
LikeLike
Again, I can’t “impose” anything on anyone. I’m open to Scriptural reproof and counterarguments, thought.
LikeLike
I mean “though”
LikeLike
donna j: “I think either Cruz or Trump will get trounced in November at this point.”
Why so pessimistic about the general election? Republican voters have been far more energetic than the Democrats during this cycle. If the polls are correct, then Cruz defeats Hillary; Trump loses to her, but he is certainly capable of making up that difference (for she is quite vulnerable).
LikeLike
I’m pessimistic on the morning after. Maybe I’ll cheer up later. 🙂
LikeLike
solar, ok, then consider us duly rebuked.
LikeLike
Sometimes we just need to agree to disagree on application principles. This looks like it’s one of those cases.
LikeLike
media bias: Cruz has little to complain about. He is the second most talked about Republican candidate. Trump is way ahead of Cruz in free media but the coverage isn’t always positive for Trump. Kasich btw has far less free media than any major candidate. On the Democratic side Clinton is far ahead of Sanders not to mention Clinton has NYT in her corner. Any Sanders can spend hours reciting the litany of complaints they have against NYT.
Garland: Not sure if Republicans want to press their luck on this. Those running for reelection in swing states or seats may not want the heat. Furthermore, as the Republican presidential race threatens to implode the Republican Congress may want to take Garland over somebody Clinton (or even Sanders) may favor.
Abortion: Both the pro-life and pro-choice have won the debate. Its not unusual to hear young people say I would never have an abortion but I won’t take away a women’s right to choose (ironically the latter is derived as much from a right wing libertarian viewpoint as well as a liberal viewpoint). The statement appears ridiculous to many in the pro-life movement but it is the norm. And the statistics reflect this attitude — abortion rates are now at the lowest level since Roe v Wade. Some of this has to do with the piecemeal state by state approach to restrict abortions but most has to do with the information campaigns launched by the pro-life movement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
electorally, Kasich is by far the most winnable candidate but Cruz could beat Clinton especially if Sanders supporters take their ball and go home. Sanders has shown Clinton to be vulnerable. However, I do think Sanders will do the classy thing and ask his supporters to show up and vote for Clinton (and down ticket also). And if Clinton has a leftist running mate, say Warren, Sander’s supporters will show up. Trump will be a disaster, Clinton can beat her and his negatives will motivate the left to actually show up.
LikeLike
That could be, Guess Who, and I’m only stating a position. Disagreement is just disagreement. I’m not demanding it here, but I do wish somewhere or other I would see some Biblical rationale for the “lesser of two evils” strategy, and along with it, some argument why Scriptures describing Biblical leadership have no application in the voting booth. But I’m not trying to stir the pot.
LikeLike
There’s animosity toward me (or, less egotistically, toward what I’m saying) because I put some blame on a particular voting strategy. Where is the “agree to disagree” sentiment when people blame Christians who abstain from voting or who vote 3rd party? It gives the appearance of “striking a nerve.”
LikeLike
Solar, one observation on what God wants in government and what Christians should support (this isn’t my political fight, so I won’t get into current specifics): Paul wrote in Romans 13:1-7, “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” God sets up rulers and countries for His own plans. Some of those rulers may be bad – Jeroboam, whom God chose to discipline Rehoboam, turned out to be terrible, as were the kings of Israel who came after to discipline Jeroboam and his successors – the Assyrians and Babylonians and Persians were all cruel hearted pagans which God used and then disciplined in His turn. See also the succession of disciplining nations in the book of Judges. As we know from the books of Job and Habbakuk, God doesn’t always tell us why He does things, He simply reminds us who He is: http://thecripplegate.com/whos-in-charge-of-the-presidentcall-election-year/
Obadiah was never reproved for serving King Ahab; on the contrary, his position allowed him to protect the prophets of the Lord (I Kings 18:3-4). Elisha worked closely with Ahab’s son, sometimes reproving him, sometimes aiding him as God saw fit (II Kings 3, 6, 7, 8). A whole host of prophets from Samuel on anointed kings who turned bad. Jonadab the Rechabite, whose descendants were later blessed by Jeremiah (35) for their obedience to Jonadab’s teaching, helped Jehu wipe out the house of Ahab; yet Jehu later became an idolater (II Kings 10:15-16, 29-31). Was Jonadab wrong to have helped Jehu? Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century A.D. recorded that Festus, the Roman governor of Judea before whom Paul appeared (Acts 25), was appointed by the Roman emperor Nero. When Paul appealed to Caesar, he appealed to Nero. Nero, the Roman Emperor of whom the Roman historian Tacitus records as ordering the slaughter of the Christians of Rome, which probably included both Paul and Peter; and of whom Tacitus and another Roman historian record that Nero castrated a man and used him as a wife. That Nero is the one under whom Peter in his first Epistle wrote to “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake… Fear God. Honour the king” (I Peter 2:13-17) and to whose household Paul had the opportunity to witness (Philippians 1:12). One could say that Peter and Paul were supporting an evil man by telling Christians to submit to him and by not speaking against his evil doing; but they were not. They were simply applying what Christ said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, so that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36)
LikeLike
From Ross Douthat
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/trump-rising/
_______________________________
… unfortunately for the anti-Trumpist cause, is that my analysis from eight days ago predicting a contested convention (and a not-Trump outcome) looks weaker than it did.
The reason is straightforward: A week ago Trump was still averaging, as he’d averaged from the earliest contests onward, about 34 percent of the primary vote. But last night Trump won at least 39 percent of the vote in every state except Ohio, and even there, in his loss to John Kasich, he still came away with more than 35 percent. That five point boost is why he beat Ted Cruz in both Missouri and North Carolina: Cruz reached 40 percent in the former and the high 30s in the latter, which would have been enough to beat Trump in a lot of prior contests, from Michigan to Arkansas to Kentucky … but wasn’t enough to win this time around. And if that boost holds, if Trump’s new average is 40 percent, in a three-way race that could certainly open him a path to 1,237 delegates; it’s still a path without a huge margin for error, but it makes his nomination much more likely than when he appeared to be stuck five points lower.
The question is why he came unstuck. Up until now Trump hadn’t gained much when other candidates dropped out, and nobody dropped out in the last ten days, so something other than simple consolidation seems to have been at work. Perhaps the Ben Carson endorsement helped him, though that seems doubtful. I think two other explanations are more likely. First, the decision by the other candidates (especially Rubio) to ease up on Trump in the last debate starkly undercut their prior (if tardy) efforts to brand him as beyond the pale, a con man, etc.
Those efforts weren’t “working” in the sense of defeating Trump outright, but I suspect they were keeping a lid on his support, discouraging bandwagoners and so forth. So by mostly letting them drop in what was probably the cycle’s last debate, the other candidates made Trump seem like a (slightly more) normal frontrunner, the kind of figure that voters would usually rally around after a run of primary wins — and some voters may have reacted accordingly.
Second, the Chicago protest-cum-riot over the weekend almost certainly played into Trump’s hands. …
______________________________________
LikeLike
He ends the piece with this observation: “He can still be stopped. He may well still be stopped. But the remarkable good fortune that he’s depended on so far came through for him last week, and I fear that he’ll need less of it hereafter.”
LikeLike
Hmm. Someone angling for the VP spot?
From Brit Hume on Twitter:
Kasich, who had consistently refused to criticize Trump, striking an angelic above-it-all pose, backs out of debate because Trump did. Jeez.
LikeLike
Roscuro, I appreciate the appeal to Scripture, but I don’t see application in this context in much of what you cited. You refer to Romans 13 and God’s setting up rulers. How would that negate the idea that we should only support godly rulers? You cited verses 1-7, but posted only a portion. Also contained within those verses are descriptions of the ruler being “God’s servant for your good” and a “servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (none of which describes Nero, so work needs to be done in parsing the full intent of that passage; it certainly doesn’t prescribe unquestioned obedience to all rulers, nor does the citation in 1 Pet).
The Bible tells us God brings about many events by ordaining the sinful actions of men (e.g., Pharaoh; Jews and Romans who crucified Christ). But his doing so didn’t absolve those who participated from sin.
I agree God doesn’t tell us why he does things. That’s precisely in line with the call to obey him *despite* not knowing. Yet we talk as though voting (or not) for this guy or that *will lead to* some result or other. Maybe; but maybe not. In either case, the duty is ours; consequences are God’s. But who in history *has* known God’s plans directly from him, at least in part? Prophets. We aren’t prophets in that OT sense, at least not in that we hear directly from God how to act. But we do have Scripture, which does tell us how to model our thinking.
LikeLike
“Abortion: Both the pro-life and pro-choice have won the debate. Its not unusual to hear young people say I would never have an abortion but I won’t take away a women’s right to choose (ironically the latter is derived as much from a right wing libertarian viewpoint as well as a liberal viewpoint). The statement appears ridiculous to many in the pro-life movement but it is the norm. And the statistics reflect this attitude — abortion rates are now at the lowest level since Roe v Wade. Some of this has to do with the piecemeal state by state approach to restrict abortions but most has to do with the information campaigns launched by the pro-life movement.”
I think the more we learn and the more medicine advances we will see fewer and fewer abortions. Babies born before full term have a better chance at life than ever before. I think as people, especially young people, see this the more they will see it as a baby human and not choose abortion. I also think there is so much less stigma attached to having a baby as an un-wed mother and as a teenage mother. More and more people realize that it isn’t the baby’s fault, it was the two people who decided to have sex. You never hear the term “bastard child” anymore. I have lost count of the girls who attend my child’s high school who have had and kept their babies.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So the debate is canceled. Guess you can’t very well hold a debate with one guy. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Solar, Paul appealed to Nero and since Paul showed respect to Festus, and Agrippa, and also to Felix, Festus’ predecessor, who was notoriously corrupt, he would have shown the same respect to Nero. Consider how he apologized to the High Priest for his disrespectful reaction after the High Priest ordered (in violation of the Mosaic Law) Paul to be struck across the mouth (Acts 23:1-5). Under Nero, the laws of the empire were still operated, as may be seen by Festus hearing Paul’s case, so Nero did function as an executer of justice according to Romans 13, however flawed he was at it. To ignore the significance of the context in which Paul and Peter wrote those words, and to say that Nero was an exception to Paul’s statement is to whittle away the veracity of Scripture. When Paul said every authority is ordained by God, he meant every authority, including Nero. To show that the early church understood that this was what Paul was saying, and Christ before him, consider what Justin Martyr wrote in 130 A.D in his First Apology – the context of this appeal was that to be a Christian was illegal at this point in the Roman Empire and Justin is pleading to the Emperor, Antoninus Pius, that Christians be tried according to their actions, not their religion:
LikeLike
Roscuro, I’m confused as to exactly how you’re addressing the gist of what I’ve suggested. Paul appealed to Roman authorities as a matter of protocol. This need not be taken to suggest any kind of support for Nero or Nero types, and even if it does (debatable), I’m not following how that might permit Christians to vote for god-hating candidates, especially when the Scriptures define for us what constitutes *good* leadership. In other words, the fact that Paul appealed to Roman authorities wouldn’t have meant it’s advisable or permissible to have voted for a Nero.
LikeLike
So how devoutly Christian does a candidate have to be in your mind for us to vote for him or her, solar? Our pastor made the comment a while back that probably none of the candidates he’s voted for in his lifetime (professing Christians most of them) would qualify as an elder in our church.
Godly leadership is always desirable, of course. But must we agree on everything a candidate stands for? I don’t think so. Again, it comes down to a matter of personal conscience.
Character is an issue that is worthy of concern — which is mostly why Trump perhaps poses a “bridge too far” for some of us right now.
But all men and women are sinners.
This election is obviously going to cause some wrestling, both with one another and within our own hearts and minds.
As for political parties: They are coalitions of interests. That is just the way they operate so, by necessity, compromise comes into the picture.
A full-on, narrow Christian “right” party would simply have no chance of ever getting anyone elected.
LikeLike
Guess who: Stipulated: All men are sinners. Does that mean the Bible has nothing to say about godly government and rulers? All men are sinners, so the Psalm 2 command for all rulers of earth to kiss the Son is negated? Help me follow here.
“Have no chance” should rarely be a part of the Christian’s decision making process.
LikeLike
Guess who: Lest you think I’m dodging your question, I alluded above to elders and deacons, and that we “endeavor to discern and do what God has said.” This is true of all aspects of sanctification, is it not?
LikeLike
Have no chance is a logical statement. All things are, of course, possible with God. But I am not using it in the sense that it is “part of my decision-making” process. Just a statement of logic.
So I don’t have time to go back over earlier comments I probably missed, but did you say that candidates should fit the standards of elders or deacons?
I guess you don’t vote very often? 🙂
LikeLike
Again, you clearly have an exceptionally high bar personally in deciding whom to vote for, but that should not be used to try to bind other believers who also are using Scripture to inform their consciences in the voting booth (often with differing results).
I may not vote this time, but I would not suggest that no other Christians should vote, either.
LikeLike
Hey Guess who. That’s cool. If our primary objective is to win elections, or the starting point in our logic is to figure out how to get there, then whether we have a chance is relevant. I’m sure you see where I’m going with this. Our first concern is to be whether we glorify God by what we do. If Scripture has set certain limits around how we vote and act politically, then we glorify God by obeying those Scriptures. I’m arguing that we Christians have neglected that approach for a more pragmatic one (from our point of view–I would even argue that pragmatically, we’re messing up by voting for unbelievers, but that may be a different discussion).
My reference to elders and deacons had to do with the assertion from another commenter that since we don’t have a perfect candidate, we’re left only with writing in Jesus’ name on the ballot. But we still examine and appoint elders and deacons, even though their requirements would similarly seem to lead us to expect perfection. But we know we can only discern so much; same with candidates.
I’ve voted 3rd party a few times, and vote on other local candidates, as well as vote on ballot initiatives and such. I don’t just “stay at home” and sulk, as is often suggested of those who abstain from voting on certain races.
LikeLike
I’d like to point out that God is no respecter of persons or nations.
A read of the Old Testament shows how he treated his own chosen people when they consistently turned their back on him. See the run up to Ezra and Nehemiah, not to mention the situation while Hezekiah was king. Why would anyone think our nation should be treated any different given the anti-God choices so many have made in the last several generations?
LikeLiked by 3 people
And again for a second time, I’m not “binding” anyone.
LikeLike
Electing people means they govern, for better or worse. So yes, there is a goal there that I don’t think is unbiblical
We understand your position, I think. Others have other positions.
LikeLike
And to your comment about elders, again, how godly does a candidate have to be — for you — to cast a vote? And how do you possibly make that kind of judgment?
LikeLike
Solar Pancake, God has declared what is required of elders; no man can be appointed to office who does not fit those standards. (And no woman can be an elder, because it is against God’s standards.) Yet I know of no such requirements of choosing employees for the civil sphere. (Does anyone on the ballot have to be a Christian? Can we vote for just unbelievers for sheriff? for dog catcher?)
You accuse others of ignoring scriptural proofs when I don’t think you’ve actually given any. Saying what makes a good ruler is no proof that we can only elect a Christian as president . . . any more than telling what makes a good boss means we can only work for a Christian!
There are certain required standards that a ruler must have. He must value justice, and he must be trustworthy. Those don’t require that he be a Christian. In my mind, a person who supports abortion is disqualified, and Trump is disqualified because he isn’t reliably pro-life and he doesn’t honor anything honorable (definitely including marriage).
But honestly, I just don’t get why you say that Christians refusing to vote for anyone who isn’t a solid Christian would have brought us better candidates by now. By your standards, I should never have voted for a single candidate in my life–which would make me completely irrelevant to the electoral process. Nobody appeals to the Amish vote because they don’t vote. If Christians determine only to vote on the minute chance that a like-minded believer is running for office, then our vote becomes totally irrelevant, not decisive!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheryl, here’s something on the delegates that you were asking about last night I believe:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/16/what-happens-to-delegates-won-by-rubio-other-ex-candidates.html
_________________________________________
With Marco Rubio dropping out of the Republican presidential race Tuesday, the Florida senator leaves a large cache of delegates behind. So what happens to them, and the delegates of other former candidates, at the convention in Cleveland?
The short answer is: It varies from state to state, but the Republican Party leaves enough wiggle room that the delegates of former candidates could end up being a factor in July. …
Rubio, in suspending his campaign after his home-state Florida loss, leaves 169 delegates behind. Ben Carson accrued eight delegates before he dropped out of the race, while Jeb Bush picked up four. Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul each picked up one in Iowa.
And if either Ted Cruz or John Kasich drop out in the weeks ahead — and Donald Trump still has not clinched the nomination with the necessary 1,237 delegates — additional zombie delegates could be in play in Cleveland.
And they could hold sway. …
__________________________________________
LikeLike
Donnaj, I’ve already addressed all that.
Cheryl, there are other Scriptures, but I’ve already alluded to the one that may sum it up best: Psalm 2 commands all rulers of all nations to kiss the Son. That’s not a mark of an unbeliever. Failure to kiss the Son arouses God’s anger, as the Psalm says. Does that sound familiar? I don’t say it definitively, but it is very possible God is angry with our nation.
LikeLike
As I have stated I am not going to vote for Hillary or Trump. However, the choices are so bad that I would not criticize anyone for any decision they might make in November.
The argument for voting for Trump: Maybe, just maybe, he doesn’t nominate his pro-abortion sister to the Supreme Court and maybe his judges might be slightly to the right of Hillary’s. Maybe he won’t push a single payer health care plan.
The argument for voting for Hillary: The two agree on most issues, but Trump is insane. Trump could start a war by accident or while throwing a tantrum. Trump could start a trade war. Trump would make the U.S. a pariah state.
The argument for voting for no one or a third party: Hillary and Trump are so bad that you can’t tell who is worse. Maybe Trump is a little more conservative on policy issues, but that is far from certain. Probably Hillary is a little better on character/sanity/ trust issues and how bizarre is that?
So let us be patient with one another because we have a bad choice to make and the outcome could well be worse than Obama. After all he got bored when the Rs took the House in 2010 and became a golfer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
power line blog thoughts on the general election when asked if a lot of Republicans will sit it out with Trump as the nominee.
He has a little different take on things (he thinks Trump would beat Clinton — or, if he lost, it would be close). It’s an interesting read. How good his predictions are remain to be seen. 🙂
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/november-and-beyond-my-crystal-ball.php
_____________________________________
Some Republicans would disavow Trump. Others—like me, for example—would vote for him, but otherwise not lend him any support (e.g., by contributing to his campaign or promoting him on my web site). But hardly any Republicans would vote for Hillary Clinton, so these defections probably won’t be too important. Bear in mind that quite a few potential voters always stay home because they don’t much like the candidate. A lot of conservatives didn’t turn out to vote for John McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney in 2012. Will the number who refuse to vote for Trump be any greater if he is the nominee? I don’t know; it could quite possibly be smaller. Plus, of course, Trump will draw a lot of votes from Democrats and independents. His appeal is basically non-partisan. …
… I see zero chance of a permanent or long-term split in the Republican Party. The two-party system is deeply embedded in American politics, and third parties don’t last. Bear in mind, too, that the GOP is on the ascendancy. It is the Democrats who are in trouble long-term. Currently, two-thirds of all state legislative bodies are in Republican hands, 60% of governors are Republicans, and Republicans control both the House and the Senate. The Trump phenomenon results in part from the expansion of the GOP to its strongest position since the 1920s.
What could happen is an independent candidacy in 2016. If Trump doesn’t get the nomination, he may run as an independent. He would draw quite a few votes and maybe even win some states, but independent or third-party candidacies have zero history of actual success in the U.S. …
…. I think a Trump presidency would not be as dramatic as most people suppose. He has little in the way of fixed policy positions, and not much knowledge of how the federal government operates. He would be forced to rely heavily on advisers, whom he would probably pick from the middle of the road, as Trump is basically a centrist (albeit not a very well-informed one). I think we would see a sort of compromise administration that, in the end, would be about 2/3 Democrat and 1/3 Republican. That’s what happened here in Minnesota when we elected a former professional wrestler and actor, Jesse Ventura, as governor. In policy terms Trump would be a severe disappointment to his followers—the ones who care about policy, anyway.
________________________________________
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky, I agree with your call for patience with one another. This is a difficult year, there is no clear or easy choice for any of us.
LikeLike
Psalm 2 doesn’t answer my question; I already addressed that in my comment. If Psalm 2, a command to leaders, affects the people (not the leaders), then any command to supervisors to honor God says, likewise, that I cannot work for a boss who isn’t a Christian. Logically it doesn’t follow. Must a businessman only hire Christians, too? All people are called to honor God, and thus no one should do business with anyone who isn’t a Christian–right?
I think that somehow you have a position and you are looking for proof to back it. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Scripture that backs up your position. A ruler must be just, and thus it makes sense to choose rulers who know what that means and agree. Given the choice between a godly ruler and one who is not, I would choose the godly one. But there is no list like that of elders, telling voters the mandatory minimum qualification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheryl: If a=b and b=c, a=c. If God commands rulers to kiss the Son, we as Christians should not advocate for anyone who would *not* kiss the Son. We don’t *have to* support anyone. If no one is qualified according to the standards of Scripture, we ought not support them, but remain politically active elsewhere.
You’re analysis of my motivations is fine, but irrelevant.
Your mention of the possibility of the Christian vote is telling. Our primary concern should not be just winning an election. We should act as God has commanded. If that means some Republican doesn’t become president, big deal–that’s God’s decision. I don’t claim the Christian vote is necessarily decisive; but I don’t suggest we vote on that principle! Still, candidates would be foolish to ignore 30 million potential voters. But if they do, big deal. You may have noticed we’re in a pretty bad way already. Our strategy hasn’t helped much; I think it has hurt. We continue to slide left; we continue to send a message that slide is OK; apparently, we have sent a message to our “evangelical” brothers and sisters that a man like Donald Trump is an acceptable Christian candidate.
LikeLike
“Your mention of the possibility of the Christian vote is telling. Our primary concern should not be just winning an election. We should act as God has commanded. If that means some Republican doesn’t become president, big deal–that’s God’s decision.” I don’t disagree with any of this, except that my comment is “telling.” My comment is only in response to your comment that we are the reason the political state is in the mess it’s in. I pointed out that Christians refusing to vote wouldn’t bring us better candidates, it would only make our opinions seem irrelevant. (Or do you mean that we’d be in a better position because God would honor Christians’ “obedience” in this matter? If so, I suspect that you are confusing God’s covenant with Israel with a nonexistent covenant with America.)
But twice now I have asked you the same question, and you have ignored it: You say that a call to government officials to “kiss the Son” is also a call to Christians only to vote for Christians. If that is so, then why are calls to employers to honor God, and other calls to other segments of the population to honor God, likewise not calls that Christians must insist that these people be Christians or we won’t deal with them? Can a Christian work for a person who is not a believer, can he hire a person who is not a believer to work for him, can he hire a lawyer (or landscape artist) who is not a believer?
I do not think that your argument holds water. It is far too indirect to be any sort of evidence for God’s view on the subject, and thus is a conscience issue for each individual. But clearly you believe that your view is biblical. How, then, do you deal with the fact that each segment of society is also commanded to honor God, and we often choose to interact with people in these other spheres who are not Christians? Can a Christian insist that other believers only do business with fellow believers?
We are “in the world” at this point in history. And like it or not, that means that we are going to be interacting with unbelievers. Personally, I think it is often a privilege to do so, and I’m not looking for excuses to avoid it. But if you would choose to engage with unbelievers in these other spheres, then I believe you are being inconsistent. Consistency in all these realms would mean pulling aside like the Amish or other sects do. The rest of us necessarily engage with the world every day, and I believe God has called us to do so. And yes, sometimes that means hiring a lawyer or a chimney sweep who is not a Christian. And sometimes it means voting for an unbeliever, as long as he is fundamentally a person of integrity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Any nation that honors God enjoys his blessing. That need not, and doesn’t, only apply to Israel. All nations should openly covenant with God.
I haven’t ignored your question. I didn’t understand it because it is not well-formulated. First, there is a difference between *supporting* a person and merely “dealing” with someone. Secondly, God calls rulers to honor him *specifically in and by* their roles as rulers. The laws they enact, the decisions they make, the policies they advocate, the relationships they pursue–those things are to be done explicitly as God has declared. He tells the plumber to be godly, yes, but not how to fix a sink in a godly way. But he most certainly tells rulers how to rule. Isn’t that interesting, though? What other occupations does God write job descriptions for? If a person doesn’t meet the requirements, we do wrong to support him.
I’m surprised this seems like a new thought to people. Many prominent believers over the centuries have said much the same as I am.
Your last paragraph goes way afield. You’ve now concluded I oppose interacting with unbelievers and all that stuff. A few times now, I’ve even stated the opposite.
I haven’t tried to ignore your questions. If I haven’t answered, just ask for clarification. But I’d be interested to know how you think Psalm 2 applies to rulers. I’m not even sure you’ve checked the reference. The whole brief chapter is worth reading, but here’s some of it, below. I don’t know how else to read it than the way I have:
10Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
12Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
LikeLike
Solar Pancake, I’m assuming you are a Theonomist, and I am not, so we aren’t likely to come to agreement on this. (Right?) What I’d say is that no nation today can covenant with God, because God works through the church, not through nations. God chose to covenant with Israel, not Israel with God, because they were going to play a part in bringing Christ to earth as our Savior. That has been fulfilled. A president today can’t just sacrifice an animal and announce a new covenant with Yahweh–he’d actually be in disobedience if he did!
You are right in reading that text (which I did, in fact, look up yesterday, though I was familiar with it) to say that leaders are commanded to respect God. But you’re wrong if you’re saying that this is a thorough job description or that it is the only occupation for which God gives some sort of job description. The New Testament gives many principles for how leaders of government should act . . . but it also gives many principles for masters (bosses), slaves (employees), judges, fathers, etc. I don’t think it’s at all far-fetched to say that if a command to rulers is also a command to those who would take part in hiring them, that a command to bosses also is a command to those who would choose to work for them, and a command to employees is a command to those who would hire them. They, too, are supposed to honor and obey God. If I have this level of responsibility for voting only for strong Christians when I’m one of millions of voters (and when there is no Christian running), then how can I not have the responsibility to choose only to work for Christians or only to employ Christians? Remember, if I am interviewing someone (or being interviewed), I have one-on-one time with them, and can actually question them about their faith. When someone is running for governor, it may not even be possible to determine whether he is a Christian, because those questions might not be asked, or the media may not report the answers. I don’t have the responsibility to do behind-the-scenes research for everyone on the ballot!
I could remind you that under our system of government, a president isn’t supposed to be “king” anyway! His role is equally shared by three branches of government (meaning that congressmen must get equal scrutiny), and his role is less important than your own state government.
So, yes, there is a difference between supporting a person and only dealing with him . . . which is why my question dealt with “supporting”–hiring or choosing to work for a person who is not a Christian, and thus is disobeying God in his role as an employer or employee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheryl, I can only pop in here right now to make this one statement: I’m not talking about the kind of covenant that existed between OT Israel and God, nor the one between Christ and his church. I’m only speaking in the more “pedestrian” sense of making an open vow or promise, similar to those made in church membership or marriage. Simply, that a nation include in its establishing documents an open allegiance to God. That kind of language is all over in Scripture, even in Psalm 2!
LikeLike
I could remind you that under our system of government, a president isn’t supposed to be “king” anyway!
That’s really straining at a gnat! Can you show me commentators who consider Psalm 2 only to be speaking about “kings,” and not generally about political rulers (as fleshed out by the addition of the term “rulers” only a sentence later in the Psalm)?
LikeLike
If I have this level of responsibility for voting only for strong Christians when I’m one of millions of voters (and when there is no Christian running), then how can I not have the responsibility to choose only to work for Christians or only to employ Christians?
I answered this above. God gives no instruction for how storm door salesmen are to do their work *as storm door salesmen.* There’s nothing wrong with starting with the assumption that we will interact will believers and unbelievers alike in this world, but for those roles where God has *specifically* ascribed certain duties, we should only support those who fulfill them accordingly.
LikeLike
It would be straining at a gnat if I weren’t making a very different point than the one you’re replying to. I’m not saying “He isn’t a king, so this doesn’t apply,” but “Narrowly looking at the president is missing the point, since our president is not really an equivalent of the king.” Officially under a republic, we do not have one leader, and the president is not the most important man in the nation.
You still haven’t interacted with my point that the same principle must be applied to all such “hiring” decisions, if you are to be consistent. I do not think we need that kind of consistency simply because this command is not directed at me in the first place. To take a psalm (poetry) written to a king as a command about how to vote is to do real violence to Scripture. But by your method of interpretation, most certainly the epistles (which in fact often do issue commands) should tell us how to choose a boss or an employee.
And you haven’t told me whether you identify with (accept) the term “theonomist” for your belief system.
LikeLike
We cross-posted. But it really just isn’t true that God has spoken specifically to government rulers but not to managers or workers.
LikeLike
OK, that’s fine. I’m referring to political rulers and leaders, just as the Scripture does. Do you believe Psalm 2 has any application at all to American politicians? How do you see it applying, if at all, to anything regarding “rulers”?
I don’t know enough about theonomy to know for certain if I am one, nor if an “avowed” theonomist would like me to do so (!), but I do know that we modern American Christians rely on Scripture WAY less than our forebears of the past did in trying to discern and formulate good laws and leaders. I can provide copious quotes to support that, if you’d like. Here’s a good write-up about CH Spurgeon’s views:
https://americanvision.org/6532/charles-spurgeon-on-elections-and-voting/
Within that article is a link to one on Calvin, who wrote as part of his Sermons on Deuteronomy (ch 18), “Albeit, for as much as without the fear of God all the virtues in man turn to evil, behold Jethro, who never heard one word of the Holy Scripture, nevertheless perceives full well that it is impossible for a man to perform his duty in governing a people unless he fears God.”
I may just be some hayseed, but I’m not doing any more “real violence” to scripture than those guys are.
LikeLike
it really just isn’t true that God has spoken specifically to government rulers but not to managers or workers.
Aside from the fact that he has said far more about rulers in their roles than he has about managers and workers in their roles, what point of mine would this negate?
LikeLike
Psalm 2 is a prophetic Psalm, fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ (Acts 4:25-28), and ends with a call to all people to come to the Son for salvation. Matthew Henry puts it this way:
So the phrase “Kiss the son” is an evangelical appeal to unsaved leaders and by extension all people. It is not a directive of who should be a leader.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Do you believe Psalm 2 has any application at all to American politicians?” Absolutely. They, and every citizen too, are called to honor God.
“Aside from the fact that he has said far more about rulers in their roles than he has about managers and workers in their roles, [I don’t know whether this is true] what point of mine would this negate?” I’m actually not talking about negation at all, but about adding to what you have said. I’m not sure I can be any clearer, actually, but I’ll try. You say (summarizing): “A command to rulers is implicitly a command to those who would elect them, too.” And I say, “If that is true, then a command to employers is implicitly a command to those who would work for them, and a command to employees is certainly a command to those who would hire them.” And the commands to employers and employees also deal with issues of Christian morality. If my role as one voter in a billion is culpable, then certainly my role (if I have one) as being the one person who can make the decision whether to hire, or whether to work for, a person who isn’t a Christian is even more culpable.
Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 3:22; 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9 and more all give direct commands to the employer or employee, and tell them how to treat the person in view of their relationship to Christ. So we can say that an employer or employee who lacks that relationship with Christ, and thus the ability to obey these commands, is not fit to be in that position, and a Christian should therefore not submit to, or hire, a person who cannot or will not obey the explicit commands to them.
But I believe it is otherwise. Let’s say that I have reason to believe that a certain employer will not honor Colossians 4:1 (which tells him to treat those who work for him justly and honorably) because he is not a Christian and he has a reputation for showing some favoritism. And yet he is the only employer in my county offering jobs to people with my skill set, I need a job, and he has offered me one. I may not want to work for him, but I believe this command is a command to him, not to me, and he is the one who is sinning if he doesn’t keep it. I can in good conscience accept the job, though I can also hope a better one comes along. Kim is in this exact same position right now. Her boss is sinning against her, but she is not sinning in remaining in the job until a better one comes around.
LikeLike
Thank you, Roscuro. I almost pointed out that it is in fact a messianic psalm and that it would be ridiculous to believe that only leaders are called to honor Christ, but didn’t want to complicate the discussion further. But that is definitely a valid point.
LikeLike
It is not a directive of who should be a leader.
That seems to flatten the passage into vagueness (and I don’t believe Henry is doing that, either). It would be like saying, “Husbands, you are to love your wives. Heck, you are to love everyone.” Kings and rulers are given particular directive which does apply to all; much the same can be said of directives given to elders and deacons and the application of those directives to all persons, but that doesn’t de-emphasize elders and deacons as a particular audience.
LikeLike
“A command to rulers is implicitly a command to those who would elect them, too.” And I say, “If that is true, then a command to employers is implicitly a command to those who would work for them, and a command to employees is certainly a command to those who would hire them.”
This continues to misapply an analogy, and the logic doesn’t follow. Later in your post, you even posit a scenario in which you “need” a job, and therefore would be right to work for an unbeliever (which I wouldn’t dispute and my argument wouldn’t proscribe anyway).
We do not “need” to vote for any person. We do not “need” to deliberately *support, vote for, or otherwise perpetuate the success of* the campaign of anyone who does not honor God in that person’s role (or desired role) of a political ruler in violation of Psalm 2 and other passages. And I’m not saying we may steal bread if we do “need” it, I’m saying we have the option of *not* participating in the sin of a candidate who opposes God rather than kisses the Son as he is commanded to do.
LikeLike
Well, Solar Pancake, you’ve beaten the same drum here for I don’t know how many election cycles, and you haven’t come even close to presenting a convincing case. So I guess all I can say is that if your conscience won’t let you vote at all, then don’t vote at all. But don’t think your choice is “the” Christian answer, because it isn’t, and you haven’t given us the least hint of a biblical support for it. As you confessed in your 1:16 post, the logic does not follow. And nobody “needs” to vote, but we have the freedom to do so, both politically and biblically.
I wish you the best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheryl,
Oh huh I have so made a Biblical case.
Anyhoo, still seems weird to me that with all the history of the view I’ve discussed here, there seems to be so much ignorance about it. As with other demonstrations of ignorance, I think a lot of the blame rests with the rise of dispensationalism (which, thankfully, is declining, so there’s that).
Good luck with that unsuccessful pragmatism! Just don’t be surprised at the continuing dearth of good candidates.
LikeLike
Solar, two comments to reply to your 4:56, because I think you are insulting not just me but the other people who have asked me to respond to you or e-mailed me to thank me for responding, etc. You accuse us of “ignorance,” and it is poor form to argue that way just because someone disagrees with you. You have not made a case; the fact that you have not convinced us does not point to our ignorance, but to (1) there is no case to be made; (2) there is a good case, but you have not made it. It could also be (3) we disagree with the case that has been made, whether or not it has been made well . . . but in this case, I think 1 or 2 will cover it.
But as to ignorance, I suspect (though I cannot prove) that I am better versed in church history than you are. At any rate, we do not suffer from ignorance, nor do we agree with dispensationalism; we disagree with you, and do not believe you have made a good case.
It also is very insulting to say that my / our disagreement proves that I am a pragmatist, willing to compromise truth and thus (by implication) not as holy as you are. The only one arguing pragmatism on this thread has actually been you! (You have repeatedly given refrains of “see how well this is working for you.”) We will not see a perfect government (or a perfect church, family, workplace, etc.) until Christ returns, but we are called to be faithful in the meantime and not just throw up our hands and give up. That is what we are choosing to do, with God as our judge and our own consciences, as well. None of us is telling you that your conscience is in error or that you must vote even if you do not believe there is a good enough candidate, and we would appreciate you likewise respecting our own Christian liberty. (And as I have said, I do not plan to vote for any of the three front runners of the two parties, and I think others have said the same thing, should any of them be a nominee, so at the moment the argument is moot.)
See you in four years, unless in the meantime you decide you have better things to do with your time . . . which would be my own recommendation.
LikeLike
Cheryl, your words to me became insulting very early on and I didn’t exceed any of the style you employed in addressing me. I’ve regularly seen on these pages the insinuations–make that direct statements–that those who abstained from voting were responsible for Obama’s being elected. Et cetera. Take that up with John Calvin and Charles Spurgeon and the Westminster divines and plenty of other folks who aren’t as stupid as you’ve indicated I am. The reason there has been some pique going on here with yourself and others is because someone has voiced a viewpoint that *differs* from the general groupthink here. I’m no more holier-than-thou than you or the others.
You may know way more church history than I, but you certainly didn’t demonstrate any awareness that prominent Christians in the past centuries have said very much the same as I have.
LikeLike