Why don't evangelicals care about immoral behavior by elected officials anymore?

5,990 Views | 99 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by 94chem
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DirtDiver said:


Quote:

As followers of Christ, we are always witnesses to Him. We don't get to take that hat off when entering the voting booth. "Lesser of two evils" still results in evil, and as we've seen, damages the witness of the church. I fail to see how "lesser of two evils" is a valid justification to embrace antichrist worldviews. We don't have to choose a lesser evil. We have Christ as our King.


Retired, I don't find myself disagreeing with you often but I'm not following some of these statements.

1. "Lesser of two evils" still results in evil.
  • Not voting still results in evil. However by not voting the opportunity to restrain evil is forfeited.

Take it to the Trolley problem thread.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Retired, I don't find myself disagreeing with you often but I'm not following some of these statements.

1. "Lesser of two evils" still results in evil.
  • Not voting still results in evil. However by not voting the opportunity to restrain evil is forfeited.

I wouldn't say "not voting" results in evil. It is simply choosing to address evil through different means, which is centered on being a Christ-like witness to the world. I'm not saying that you can't do that and vote, but as we see in cases such as this last election, the choices presented are so diametrically opposed to the way of Christ, that I believe the witness of the church to non-believers has been greatly damaged in America by throwing their weight behind either of the candidates.


Quote:

2. "damages the witness of the church"
  • Not if we make our case. Example: DT and HC both have made decisions that I disagree with which causes me to have a difficult time trusting either. However when I consider things like abortion, taxes, wars, honesty, same sex marriage, which of those values does God value most. I'm convinced that human life is more important than taxes. Given the option between two imperfect candidates I'm going to vote for the one that is most in line with what I think God values most. In my opinion Jesus would be the only perfect candidate because He is perfect in power yet humble, a Mighty King yet He serves, Holy, righteous, and just yet gracious and merciful. In this election, Jesus is not on the ballot and I have a free choice to try and make a difference.

But this wasn't an election between George W Bush and Jimmy Carter. Neither of the options were remotely in line w/ what God values. He values a humble, contrite heart. He values caring for the widow, the refugee, the unborn, the marginalized, the oppressed. Neither of the candidates were in line with that. Perhaps in past elections, you could make that argument, but not in 2016.

Also, keep in mind, that the survey wasn't simply about holding one's nose and casting a vote. The perception among certain Christian demographics on the issue of immorality in a candidate underwent a stark shift. "Character counts" was no longer applicable, and was replaced with "we're not electing a pastor". I point back to Robert Jeffress and his comments about wanting a president that looks nothing like Jesus Christ. That's alarming for a Christian to say, especially one who leads a church body.


Quote:

3. The antichrist world view: steal, kill, destroy, lie, cheat, deceive, blind people from placing their faith in Jesus.
  • I believe there's one party that wants to silence Christian teaching, praying, etc more than the other.
  • I believe there's one party that more in favor than killing the innocent than the other.
  • Voting doesn't guarantee that all will be perfect but it gives us a chance to make a difference for the good.

I don't believe either party wants to silence Christian teaching or praying more than the other. Neither party, despite their lip service, will ban abortion. It's become a political football that neither side wants to get rid of. But, I also don't think a law against abortion is the most effective way of addressing it to start with, and it certainly isn't necessary in order for the church to be a force against it. Any minute "good" that may indirectly result from a vote is undercut by the damage to the church's witness, especially w/ regards to the often hateful and angry tone Christians take when it comes to politics.


Quote:

4. If all Christians didn't vote, what view would be guaranteed to flourish?
The early church spread rapidly throughout the most powerful and pagan empire in history, and it happened without casting a vote. The Christian view will flourish if we fight evil with "the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony". No vote is necessary.

Now, I do understand that many Christians were not necessarily being a "champion" for Trump, or Hillary. Many viewed it, as you laid out, as simply a case of holding the nose and voting for the "lesser evil". The problem is that whichever side is the "lesser evil" is often dependent on the already existing political beliefs of the individual. And I'm certainly susceptible to that as well, as a pacifist and voluntaryist. Which brings up an issue that I have w/ voting, in that I believe it only reinforces an inherently violent system of which I cannot, in good conscience, participate as I believe my faith demands I reject all violent ways.

But, please, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying one is sinning by voting. I just think it's an act that we instinctively engage in without thinking through the ramifications, especially when given a choice between two candidates who both hold antichrist worldviews. I think most are very well-intentioned in their vote, so I'm trying to not come across as issuing some judgment against them. This is simply how I look at the issue. I think going over to the politics board and seeing those who claim Christ and how they talk of those on the other side of the political aisle only works to confirm my feelings on the toxic nature of partisan politics. It's inherently divisive and views the "other" as the enemy.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:


Quote:

Retired, I don't find myself disagreeing with you often but I'm not following some of these statements.

1. "Lesser of two evils" still results in evil.
  • Not voting still results in evil. However by not voting the opportunity to restrain evil is forfeited.

I wouldn't say "not voting" results in evil. It is simply choosing to address evil through different means, which is centered on being a Christ-like witness to the world. I'm not saying that you can't do that and vote, but as we see in cases such as this last election, the choices presented are so diametrically opposed to the way of Christ, that I believe the witness of the church to non-believers has been greatly damaged in America by throwing their weight behind either of the candidates.
Can you name an election in the history of the world in which a vote for one of the candidates was "the way of Christ"?
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

RetiredAg said:


Quote:

Retired, I don't find myself disagreeing with you often but I'm not following some of these statements.

1. "Lesser of two evils" still results in evil.
  • Not voting still results in evil. However by not voting the opportunity to restrain evil is forfeited.

I wouldn't say "not voting" results in evil. It is simply choosing to address evil through different means, which is centered on being a Christ-like witness to the world. I'm not saying that you can't do that and vote, but as we see in cases such as this last election, the choices presented are so diametrically opposed to the way of Christ, that I believe the witness of the church to non-believers has been greatly damaged in America by throwing their weight behind either of the candidates.
Can you name an election in the history of the world in which a vote for one of the candidates was "the way of Christ"?
the papal conclave.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

3. The antichrist world view: steal, kill, destroy, lie, cheat, deceive, blind people from placing their faith in Jesus.
  • I believe there's one party that wants to silence Christian teaching, praying, etc more than the other.
  • I believe there's one party that more in favor than killing the innocent than the other.
  • Voting doesn't guarantee that all will be perfect but it gives us a chance to make a difference for the good.

BTW, one more point I wanted to make re: this. Even if one party/candidate wants to silence Christian teaching and praying, what is more a threat to the witness of the church...that, or a party/candidate that claims to defend Christian teaching and praying, yet doesn't actually look anything like Christ? I'd rather face real persecution, which we don't even face in America, than be identified with a party/actions that proclaims Christ with their words while denying Him with their actions.
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I realize the thread has wandered a little bit from the OP, but my wife forwarded me an article this week that immediately came to mind reading the title of this thread
Quote:

Why don't evangelicals care about immoral behavior by elected officials anymore?
Because the majority of evangelicals don't actually hold evangelical beliefs anymore:
Quote:

LifeWay's researchers developed questions meant to get at both the way Americans self-identify religiously and their theological beliefs. What they discovered was that while one-quarter of Americans consider themselves to be "evangelical," less than half of that group actually holds traditional evangelical beliefs.
the above from the article : America's New Religion: Fox Evangelicalism
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

I wouldn't say "not voting" results in evil.


When you say "the lesser of two evils still results in evil" you cannot make the case that "not voting" does not result in evil when there 2 candidates as options and 1 is going to win.

Scenario 1: Vote for candidate 1
Candidate 1 = evil
Candidate 2 = more evil

Scenario 2: Vote for candidate 2
Candidate 1 = evil
Candidate 2 = more evil

Scenario 3: Not voting
Candidate 1 = evil
Candidate 2 = more evil

Not voting does nothing to reduce the amount of evil as it does not add a righteous candidate to the equation. It simply removes the option to try and make a difference.


Quote:


we see in cases such as this last election, the choices presented are so diametrically opposed to the way of Christ, that I believe the witness of the church to non-believers has been greatly damaged in America by throwing their weight behind either of the candidates
What's sad is when us Christians throw our weight behind a candidate without all of the quilifiers that I mentioned in a previous post.


Quote:

But this wasn't an election between George W Bush and Jimmy Carter. Neither of the options were remotely in line w/ what God values. He values a humble, contrite heart. He values caring for the widow, the refugee, the unborn, the marginalized, the oppressed. Neither of the candidates were in line with that. Perhaps in past elections, you could make that argument, but not in 2016.

I'm not familiar with these 2 platforms but if all social issues were in equals then it's I would argue that there's a free judgment call based on the non social issues. Given the character of King David, would you have voted for Him?

Quote:


The early church spread rapidly throughout the most powerful and pagan empire in history, and it happened without casting a vote. The Christian view will flourish if we fight evil with "the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony". No vote is necessary.
This is true. But if there's a lesson from Romans it's that we don't continue to sin so that grace may abound. I think this could apply for choosing a candidate.

Abortion - which candidate/political party is more likely to appoint SC justices that would over turn Roe v Wade vs uphold it?

Quote:

I'd rather face real persecution, which we don't even face in America, than be identified with a party/actions that proclaims Christ with their words while denying Him with their actions.

and

But, please, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying one is sinning by voting.
I hope you can see my confusion. On one hand you say voting does not equal sin but then by voting one is denying Christ.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

When you say "the lesser of two evils still results in evil" you cannot make the case that "not voting" does not result in evil when there 2 candidates as options and 1 is going to win.

Scenario 1: Vote for candidate 1
Candidate 1 = evil
Candidate 2 = more evil

Scenario 2: Vote for candidate 2
Candidate 1 = evil
Candidate 2 = more evil

Scenario 3: Not voting
Candidate 1 = evil
Candidate 2 = more evil

Not voting does nothing to reduce the amount of evil as it does not add a righteous candidate to the equation. It simply removes the option to try and make a difference.
The thing is, though, which one in 2016 was the "lesser evil"? The answer to that depends solely on one's political ideology. I say that both hold worldviews that are incompatible w/ the way of Christ, so I choose a different option of fighting evil. Not at the ballot box, where one could argue that I would be giving tacit endorsement of an antichrist worldview, but by seeking to be a faithful witness to God's Kingdom. That is much more effective, IMO, when one hasn't thrown their support by something that's antithetical to the way of Christ.

Quote:

Quote:

But this wasn't an election between George W Bush and Jimmy Carter. Neither of the options were remotely in line w/ what God values. He values a humble, contrite heart. He values caring for the widow, the refugee, the unborn, the marginalized, the oppressed. Neither of the candidates were in line with that. Perhaps in past elections, you could make that argument, but not in 2016.

I'm not familiar with these 2 platforms but if all social issues were in equals then it's I would argue that there's a free judgment call based on the non social issues. Given the character of King David, would you have voted for Him?
You're not familiar with the 2 major platforms? If that's the case, how can you say one is better for Christians than the other? How can you say one is the "lesser evil" if you aren't familiar with both? As for King David, no, I wouldn't have voted for him. He's a great example of the great danger political power has, even on someone who is a child after God's own heart. I also think we far too often overlook the fact that the existence of the Israelite monarch was an accommodation by God which He viewed as a rejection of His Kingship.

Quote:

Quote:


The early church spread rapidly throughout the most powerful and pagan empire in history, and it happened without casting a vote. The Christian view will flourish if we fight evil with "the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony". No vote is necessary.
This is true. But if there's a lesson from Romans it's that we don't continue to sin so that grace may abound. I think this could apply for choosing a candidate.

Abortion - which candidate/political party is more likely to appoint SC justices that would over turn Roe v Wade vs uphold it?
1) Neither party will overturn it. It's too valuable a political football for both sides.
2) I don't think overturning Roe v Wade is the best means of addressing abortion.
3) I'm pro-life, not just anti-abortion. I believe in a consistent pro-life position, that doesn't just end at birth. I see far too much warmongering from both parties to ever seriously consider either party to be "pro-life".
Quote:

Quote:

I'd rather face real persecution, which we don't even face in America, than be identified with a party/actions that proclaims Christ with their words while denying Him with their actions.

and

But, please, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying one is sinning by voting.
I hope you can see my confusion. On one hand you say voting does not equal sin but then by voting one is denying Christ.
I didn't say voting is denying Christ. I said the parties/candidates proclaim Christ with their lips, but deny Him with their actions. I think most Christian voters are well-intentioned and hold views similar to yours about voting. I choose not to cast my lot with them or their inherently violent system.


************
I'd also like to add that if what I've said comes across as accusing you, or anyone here, of denying Christ, please accept my apologies. These issues are much better discussed face-to-face, as tone can be lost over the anonymity of the internet. That is certainly not my intent, but "internet tone" is something I've long struggled with, so I'm aware I may slip up at times.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
deleted post wrong thread, mulitple windows
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Because they realize liberals are trying to make the national govt a god that guarantees everyone a secure life from womb to tomb. This breeds idleness, extreme self-indulgence and criminality. Republicans, even Republican sinners, don't believe government should be god. They believe God should be God.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bryanisbest said:

Because they realize liberals are trying to make the national govt a god that guarantees everyone a secure life from womb to tomb. This breeds idleness, extreme self-indulgence and criminality. Republicans, even Republican sinners, don't believe government should be god. They believe God should be God.


And we know god has no interest in everyone having a secure life from womb to tomb.
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"God is love." 1 John 4:8. Draw your own conclusions from that about what He wants for everyone
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have. From looking at the world around me throughout human history.
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The devil has control of the world. Love of Christ offers you a way out.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bryanisbest said:

The devil has control of the world.


Interesting theology
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Satan offered to give Jesus control of the kingdoms of the earth in Matt 4. Jesus declined to accept then went on to the cross for you and me. On the day of His death, He said in book of John, "my kingdom is not of this world. If it was my servants would fight. But my servants are not from here." Not my theology. Word of God
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bryanisbest said:

Satan offered to give Jesus control of the kingdoms of the earth in Matt 4. Jesus declined to accept then went on to the cross for you and me. On the day of His death, He said in book of John, "my kingdom is not of this world. If it was my servants would fight. But my servants are not from here." Not my theology. Word of God


So you're a gnostic?
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not that I know of. I just believe what the Bible says as quoted above.
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The whole world lies under the sway of the evil one. 1 John 5:19.
Unknown_handle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Exactly!
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

Bryanisbest said:

Satan offered to give Jesus control of the kingdoms of the earth in Matt 4. Jesus declined to accept then went on to the cross for you and me. On the day of His death, He said in book of John, "my kingdom is not of this world. If it was my servants would fight. But my servants are not from here." Not my theology. Word of God


So you're a gnostic?

I think he is a universalist.
dds08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Marco Esquandolas said:

More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/


Quote:

Compared to 2011, Americans today are more likely to say elected officials can still perform their public duties in an ethical manner even if they have committed immoral personal acts. More than six in ten (61%) Americans say immoral personal behavior does not preclude public officials from carrying out their public or professional duties with honesty and integrity; only 29 percent of the public disagree. In 2011, the public was much more divided over the connection between personal behavior and professional ethics. Forty-four percent of Americans said public officials could still conduct themselves honorably in their professional duties even if they had engaged in immoral behavior in their personal life; an equal number (44%) of Americans disagreed.

Across the political spectrum, Americans today are less likely to believe personal transgressions prevent public officials from performing their duties well. Seven in ten (70%) Republicans and more than six in ten Democrats (61%) and independents (63%) say public officials can behave ethically in their professional roles even if they acted immorally in their personal life. Notably, in 2011 only 36% of Republicans agreed, compared to nearly half of Democrats (49%) and independents (46%).

No group has shifted their position more dramatically than white evangelical Protestants. More than seven in ten (72%) white evangelical Protestants say an elected official can behave ethically even if they have committed transgressions in their personal lifea 42-point jump from 2011, when only 30 % of white evangelical Protestants said the same. Roughly six in ten white mainline Protestants (60%) and Catholics (58%) also believe elected officials can behave honestly and ethically in their public roles regardless of their personal behavior. In 2011, only about four in ten white mainline Protestants (38%) and Catholics (42%) held this view. Notably, religiously unaffiliated Americans have remained constant in their views; six in ten (60%) believe elected officials who behave immorally in their personal lives can still perform their duties with integrity, compared to 63% in 2011.



The data are clear. Why the change?

Psalm 146:3-5 New International Version (NIV)

3 Do not put your trust in princes,
in human beings, who cannot save.
4 When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
on that very day, their plans come to nothing.
5 Blessed are those whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord their God.


One should know better than to put faith in any elected official; after King Saul hunted David (over jealousy), and how King David had Uriah killed and committed adultery with Bathsheba.

Those out there who don't believe in Christianity should not put faith in elected officials either; look at Pharaoh, Stalin, Hiter, Lenin, Nixon, Idi Amin, Erdogan, China, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Quote:

  • BTW, one more point I wanted to make re: this. Even if one party/candidate wants to silence Christian teaching and praying, what is more a threat to the witness of the church...that, or a party/candidate that claims to defend Christian teaching and praying, yet doesn't actually look anything like Christ? I'd rather face real persecution, which we don't even face in America, than be identified with a party/actions that proclaims Christ with their words while denying Him with their actions.


As a non-believer, I think this is a very good point.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frok said:

Why is the last election important? Both candidates were immoral people. Why only focus on one? (In response to RA)


This. I voted Rep, but not for Trump. People close to me voted for Hillary with clenched teeth. Others voted for Trump with the same clenched teeth. There was no "moral" choice. I had no moral authority in my wasted vote. People shoving the charge of equivocation in the face of Christians conveniently forget that our options were limited.

Trump won the nomination by attracting Buchanan voters - nominal church goers, and people scared about immigration and jobs. Sure, he won the election by adding in the educated, devout Evangelical Prots.

The question is why do the devout Evangelical Prots love him now? That's a more complicated question.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
94chem said:

Frok said:

Why is the last election important? Both candidates were immoral people. Why only focus on one? (In response to RA)


This. I voted Rep, but not for Trump. People close to me voted for Hillary with clenched teeth. Others voted for Trump with the same clenched teeth. There was no "moral" choice. I had no moral authority in my wasted vote. People shoving the charge of equivocation in the face of Christians conveniently forget that our options were limited.

Trump won the nomination by attracting Buchanan voters - nominal church goers, and people scared about immigration and jobs. Sure, he won the election by adding in the educated, devout Evangelical Prots.

The question is why do the devout Evangelical Prots love him now? That's a more complicated question.
This is a good post.

While I am very anti Trump, I do know that Hillary was an awful option, as well.

I think your last point is the salient one. Folks like Jeffrees need to use their influence to try and change Trump's behavior however difficult that might be. Or at least encourage him to try and keep his mouth shut when he feels the need to spew his idiocy.
Marco Esquandolas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not sure it's all that complicated.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

The question is why do the devout Evangelical Prots love him now? That's a more complicated question.
This. Despite my personal objections to voting, I do understand why people do engage in this practice and I believe many, on both sides, approach it with good intentions. Because of that, I understand why Christians cast a vote in this last election, although I personally disagree. But why many Christians continue to support Trump so strongly is baffling. It's the same confusing thing I've seen in many Christians on the other end of the political spectrum speak so glowingly of Obama now.

If one feels the need to choose who they perceive to be the lesser evil in the election, I get that. There's no longer a "evil vs lesser evil" choice to be made now, so why continue supporting what you perceive to be "lesser evil" knowing that "lesser evil" is still evil?
“Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion."
--St Isaac the Syrian
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am SBC, but wasn't always. Jeffress follows in the pulpit of WA Criswell, who was pro-abortion for many years after Roe v Wade. Also, remember it's the SOUTHERN Baptist Church for a reason. They have only recently issued statements apologizing for setting back the Civil Rights movement. And, even recently, many of my deluded friends seem to think that Baylor can do no wrong. I guess I'm making 2 points. First, there are a lot of wolves among the sheep, fake leaders drawn by power, money, etc. Second, sometimes it takes a while for even our best people to own up to their mistakes. FBC Houston recently invited Glenn Beck to its pulpit. That was a mistake, and I will never change my mind about that. However, there are a lot of good people at FBC Houston, and maybe they will come to their senses someday. And maybe Republicans will stop being so afraid of the NRA. Anything is possible with God.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

so why continue supporting what you perceive to be "lesser evil" knowing that "lesser evil" is still evil?
Are you saying Trump himself is evil, his policies, rhetoric, or something else?

I support some of his policies, others not, support some of his rhetoric, some not, but don't think he is evil in his being.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dr. Watson said:

Because political power has become more important to them than the means to get it.
The first response was spot on as well. I've noticed an alarming trend of Christians, even pastors that I've discussed this with, who are adhering to an " ends justify the means" mindset. If the ends are "Christians" in places of power to enact what they consider Christian policies, then the means seem to be irrelevant.

Of course, the "ends justify the means" mindset has no place in the Christian faith. The means must look like Christ, regardless of what the ends are.
“Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion."
--St Isaac the Syrian
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Setting aside what is in the best interest of my church, neighborhood, America or the world, politicians are best received when they act on behalf of the naked self-interest of their constituents. Therefore, it is in my best self-interest to:

Not have to bake a cake for someone I don't want to bake for.

Not have to interact with people from Mexico, Syria, etc.

Have lower taxes.

Use as much cheap energy as I want.

Accumulate as much capital as I can without interference.

Lining up the will of God with my self interest is the perfect breed of American synchretism for which we were pre-disposed.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.