Morality, Christianity, Presidential Politics, and Government

Warning...I do understand the nature and complexity of the topics/issues I am writing about. I am going to write about them anyway. (I know..."complex topics and issues have never stopped me from writing before!) The prompt for this blog has been and is the race for the White House. Straight up, I find no fault really in the process. Democracy, American style, has been and continues to be one of the world's greatest social experiments. The jury is still out about its success even after nearly 240 years. Conversely, I find the persons who are IN that process and competing for what is perhaps arguably still the most powerful job in the world absolutely, without exception, despicable and even unconscionable. I find no redeeming value in ANY of the power hungry deceivers who will, as most before them, do anything to win...I repeat, anything. 

I also understand that I am making broad generalizations about those who are still in the race and that my disgust encroaches on character judgment. So be it. I suppose if I could sit down with each person individually over a cup of McCafe coffee (MUCH better than Starbucks, btw!) and talk about the weather, jobs, our kids, our favorite movies, songs, and books...if we even dared venture into the realms of religion and politics; and if there were no cameras or news crews around, there could be some earnest, sincere, and even positive exchanges. By our second or third coffee refills, we may even come to the place where we liked each other. But these conditions do not exist. As it is, every one running for the office of POTUS is bent on doing whatever it takes and saying whatever must be said to sit in the Oval Office. 

I write today to perhaps serve a warning to those who would rally around one candidate or another with false hopes of "their" man or woman fixing what's wrong with America. There is an offense taking place. The worst offenders? People who have some claim to belief in God with a mostly benign knowledge of someone they identify as Jesus who, they think, is just the chief of their 'religion.' It is this desire for some ONE to fix things combined with the push to find the most evangelical candidate that has, as never before, clouded if not cloaked the true message of the biblical Jesus found in Scripture (from Genesis to Revelation), otherwise known as "The Gospel." 

I am sorry that I am into my fourth paragraph and have not stated my thesis. Having a minor in English has not kept me inside the guidelines of a well written piece considering that the thesis needs to appear in the first paragraph of a piece and even more preferably in the first few sentences. I am also sorry that my penchant for self indulgence while at the key board has brought you this far without it...so...at long last...

1. It IS possible to be moral outside of even a hint of Christian thought or active, practical "Christian" application.

2. Christianity must be defined and applied (fleshed out) directly from the Scriptures with, to a large degree, an attachment to orthodoxy.

3. It is highly UNLIKELY if not impossible for anyone seeking the presidency to practice their faith according to all that Jesus Himself demands. 

And, 4. What is the role of secular, temporal government. 

To address the first part of the thesis requires an honest and veritable understanding of the source of morality and subsequently the display of that same morality - 

Humans are born with a sense of right and wrong, which, translates into an inherent moral code or compass. We know this from the story of the creation for starters. I understand that this flies in the face of modern and post - modern thought. I won't take the time to define them here but I am fairly certain that the terms, Tabula Rasa and Innatism have been part of your Western dilemma for some time. The debates that have risen on school, college, and university campuses concerning the opposing ideas of a "blank slate" and "born - with" have at times been intense. The debate has spawned a very necessary and disciplined defense of biblical faith and practice called Apologetics. The Moral Argument builds a case for the existence of God in three parts - 

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values exist, so,

3. God exists.

The moral argument along with the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments for God's existence are, as I said, important for the public arena in a godless, post - modern society. Having listed them, my intent has not been to enter into an apologetic exercise. Discussing this discipline and building a case for inherent moral codes and compasses using solid but philosophical apologetic devises is not my intent and does not serve the theses brought about by the political dilemma that has prompted the post to begin with. 

I will make a simple declaration. Objective moral values are not only based on God's law - The Ten Commandments but also in God's design. All humans are born with at least a partial awareness of God's law in general and those that directly affect life in any society in particular. (Do not lie, steal, covet, do not murder or commit adultery and the respect of parents) provide restraints for what otherwise would be anarchy. Yes, one's conscience can be seared from and by a complete disregard for that which humanity knows is necessary for a healthy society and culture. The six commands I listed necessarily point to the other four. Admittedly however, those four are, or, at least could be arbitrarily interpreted and influenced by social and cultural contexts. Romans 1:18 - 2:15 teaches us that included in a general revelation of God is the knowledge of morality. (General revelation should not be confused with special revelation which is another matter not pertaining to my theses.)

How does this highly philosophical thought process pertain to the 2016 presidential contest? What we as Americans should seek in our next president is a solid and undeniable foundation built on the moral code implanted in us by God. We, for the most part, are mistakenly seeking a candidate who seems to articulate the most Christian set of values. What the candidate espouses however, is morality, NOT Christianity. Here is the judgment. To equate an inherent set of moral values with biblical Christianity is a dangerous misunderstanding of both. The candidates running for president are vagrant, lying, charlatans. Their ONLY motivation for talking about Christianity is to woo unsuspecting voters who would more than likely not be able to define the term they use to describe themselves - evangelicals. I am painfully aware that most if not all of those running for president make the public claim to be Christian. There is however, a great problem with their declarations. 

2. So, what is a Christian? At the risk of over simplification, a Christian is everything the Bible says it is. The Bible, unfortunately for those who use the Bible as a tool to promote their own agendas also tells us what a Christian is not. There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible. For the sake of this part of my "thesis" let me share with you four sets. (All from the NKJV)

a. Matthew 4:19; Then He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.

How presumptuous it would be to contribute any commentary to this short statement from Jesus, except to say that "Follow Me" is not a suggestion. The command is followed by Jesus' intent for all those who respond to His command. (There are no options for alternative mission endeavors.)

Since this is a universal command and an all encompassing agenda for the Christ follower, then every presidential candidate who professes a relationship with Jesus should be directly involved in fulfilling the next set of verses with everyone God has placed in their path. Has there been any news of a presidential candidate sharing the Gospel with their aides, those of the media who travel with them, or, even with those who are also running for office - with the express intent on either winning them to a genuine faith and trust in Christ, or, to disciple them into a deeper walk with God.

Ahhh...you say, "Woody, that is totally and completely unreasonable..." My point exactly.

b. Matthew 28:18-20; And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Again, how much commentary would it take to dilute the purity of the declaration, command, and promise all included in some of Jesus' last words. How many candidates running for president have stated that what they will do their first day in office is to seek wisdom and guidance from THE ONE who has ALL authority in heaven...oh...lest we forget that Jesus also has ALL authority ON EARTH? Is it dangerous for a human to arrogantly declare "If I am elected president, "I" am going to do this and that..." Really? If the respective candidates are in fact Christians, why would not part of their mission as a Christ following president be a passion to make disciples as The One with ALL authority commanded? Could it be that they have no clue what Jesus commands? Is THAT alone the reason they cannot or will not teach others everything that Jesus' commanded. Can one share what one does not have? Can one teach what one does not know?

Ahhh...you say, "But Woody, how can you expect a president of the United States to actually flesh that out?" I say, "You can expect that if you have one set of principles to which a Christ follower would adhere. As it stands, there are TWO sets of principles. One that is biblical and anointed, the other is designed by those who want to use the Gospel for personal gain much like Simon the Magician."

c. 1 John 2:3-6; Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Is commentary necessary? Would questions better serve the identification of a dilemma presented by these words of John in relationship to the presidential candidates who so flippantly and ignorantly profess to know Christ? Do they keep Jesus' commands? Are His commands arbitrary and subjective? Is not love THE qualifier for whether or not one does in fact "...keep His commands...?"

Do the candidates walk as Jesus walked? Would that command from John include studying the sacred texts as Jesus did? Would that not entail praying as Jesus prayed? Would declaring that Jesus is the only way to God not be part of the testimony of a true, born again believer? If the antitheses of any (or all) of those points is the actual reality, is not the "spirit of anti - Christ" in play rather than the Holy Spirit? (And please, PLEASE do not associate my reference to "the spirit of anti - Christ" with a pronouncement of some false end time scenario!)

d. James 3:11; Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening?

Can the accusatory, slanderous speech, and the engagement of willful defamation of character, one against the other be fresh and bitter water flowing from the fountain of the heart? That is a rhetorical question because the answer is unequivocally no! 

***************************

So, to address the third part of my thesis I would say that it is not possible for a BIBLICAL Christ - follower who fleshes out the Word of God, literally, to be president of the United States. But, is that what one would even want? A more appropriate question is this; Is it necessary for the leader of a secular (temporal) country to be "Christian?" Aren't  the most important attributes of the leader of an entire nation simply a well defined sense of morality and the courage to live within the constraints of the moral code given by God?

That brings us to the fourth and final part of my thesis. The role of government. The best place to piece together what the Bible has to say about civil government and our responsibility TO that government is found in Romans 13:1-7. The Bible separates (divides) the role(s) of civil government ruled by secular leaders, who by the way are appointed by God (Acts 17), and HIS government - the Kingdom of God ruled by THE KING! So, technically, (and perhaps even ironically) there IS to be a separation of Church and state. If you do a web search for "the biblical role of government," you will find over 16,000,000 pages of information. I "clicked" on the first five. There are some excellent articles that discuss the subject from a wide range of points of view. I will quote one section from S. Michael Houdmann's site, "Got Questions." 

"Whether the Bible uses the terms “master,” “ruler,” “government,” or any other name for an established authority, the instruction is always the same – obey. We must remember that God created the authorities ruling over us just as He created us. As Paul wrote to the Romans, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-2). Peter wrote, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14). Both Peter and Paul also remind slaves repeatedly to be obedient to their masters for the same reasons (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; 1 Peter 2:18-20; Titus 2:9-11)."

So what does all this mean for us as Christians?

1. We should absolutely vote! For what candidate? I can't tell you that. I can tell you that morality should and MUST be an issue and a contributing factor in our decision.

2. Christianity, as it is defined in and by Scripture and exemplified by Jesus and the First Century Church, should not be THE issue because no one running for office does anything but give lip service to God which is about as close to an abomination as one could get. 

3. It is not only unreasonable but unbiblical to expect civil government, in all it's branches, to assume the role of the church. The government protects our civil and temporal interests. That's it...

4. As for our leaders, we get what we deserve. When we ourselves have adopted a form of religion designed by and for our own lusts and preconceptions, we can't expect our leaders to take us down any road but that of destruction and judgment.

The next time you're tempted to pay homage to "your candidate" because he (or she?) makes a public profession of some sort of faith in God and who flies into a church or two for a photo op; and, who says, "God bless the United States of America," you should pause to figure out what "god" they're talking about. Their "god" is revealed in and by their lust for power.

What is the hope of America? Jesus Christ and His Word. What is the hope FOR America? That we, who say we believe turn to Him, repent, and cry out for deliverance.