I am going to have to go with Mickey Mouse this election, since there aren't any strong pro-life canditates that I am aware of.

Or were we not supposed to discuss this on this blog?????

The WYATT, that is precisely the kind of discussion which I would suggest does not help the Church fulfill its mission. But then I think you knew that.

I agree with your basic assertion, though I would slightly rephrase it thusly: who you vote for speaks volumes to GOD about your core values and principles!  I should not care who you vote for if I've decided to LOVE you!  (and I have...)  ~mike

Mike, this is your BESTEST blog EVER!!! I love it!!! I can't wait to read it again!!! I will too... when I get home tonight. I plan to read all the comments then as well.

I wish I could post a little smiley guy applauding your blog... can't seem to do it from here…

Mike I do kind of agree with Joel (The WYATT) on this one for only one reason.  At a Promise Keepers event that I attend some years back the speaker for one of the sessions warned us as Men of God (Sorry Ladies it was a PK event) we are responsible for who we vote for.  Meaning that if we chose to support a candidate because he might help our pocket book then we will have to answer for that decision on our judgement day.  I find it personally very hard to support an organization whose basic planks reach out to items that are so against scripture just to obtain power. 

You know for me it has become more of an issue of who to vote against, not whom to vote for.  Rather it has become for me a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.  I know that sounds harsh, but so many of our elected officials have changed their tune on important matters that it seems that once they arrive in there perspective capitals (either state or national) the power goes to their heads and forgetting the people that put them into their position in the first place.  I am a fan of term limits myself, but that is a topic for another BLOG I know.

To get back to your original thought though, for me I will never hold anything against anyone for how they vote.  I have enough issues of my own to deal with without judging somebody else.

Humbly,

Randy

I'm home!!! Read your blog again. Still love it!!!

I don't know who I will vote for yet. I think my mom really likes Giuliani. Hey, is Gore really running? I thought that was just a joke.

FRED THOMPSON (I hope he runs!!!)

I can't bring myself to vote for McCain, and I refuse to vote for Guiliani, I could probably vote for Romney, but I'm really hoping Thompson steps in there. There's not much to choose from on the Republican side and I will never again in my life vote for a Democrat (even if it's for mayor).

I agree with your basic assertion, though I would slightly rephrase it thusly: who you vote for speaks volumes to GOD about your core values and principles!  I should not care who you vote for if I've decided to LOVE you!  (and I have...)

God loves me too, so why would He care unless it does make a difference? :)

There is indeed a danger in becoming too caught in the world.  However what does it say about the body if we did not speak out against the killing of babies.  What would it say about the body if we do not speak out against sex before marriage.  What would it say about the body if it does not stand for the Truth?

Let us not risk driving folks away from Truth and Love simply because our conscience has brought us to a conviction on certain issues!

What issues are not taboo?  What items stand as universal truth?  The easy answer of course is Jesus, but what part of the Word can everyone agree on?  For instance, I've heard christians doubt the virgin birth. There is something to be said for tact, however the Truth will offend people.  There's no getting around it.

BTW, the very things that become the social issues that you speak of are the basis for much of the discussion on this site.

Mickey for President!

Voice your given away your age, I guess that I am too as I remember Pat for President.  Didn't he run against Nixon the first time?

Personally I am kind of becoming a fan of Mike Huckabee, the former Govenor of Arkansas.  I know it's early in the campaign, but so far I have liked what he has to say better than any other.  As I said earlier, it's a shame that we end up voting for the lesser of two evils instead of for the best man for the job.  Where is a President Regan when we need him?

This is your best blog ever!!  You are so correct - it is our place to make people aware of the Lord and for God to convict their heart on whatever the issue is.  Unity Unity Unity of the Spirit in the Spirit - Great work!!!!!  I think I will frame this...  

"I for one feel that political discussions do more damage in (or to) the church than good. Let us not risk driving folks away from Truth and Love simply because our conscience has brought us to a conviction on certain issues! I’m not saying these issues aren’t important, but that it is God’s place to convict each of us, through the Holy Spirit. Another way to say this is, let’s focus on our unity in the Spirit, not on what the Spirit has brought to each one of us (individually)!!"

SSTTR, MaryAnn, Carol, Sue, thanks for your enthusiasm and encouragement!

DC, Joel, Aaron, Randy, Norm, your input is cherished as well!  Aaron, when did you change your name??

Like you (all), I am extremely convicted about many political (social) issues -- am I pro-choice or pro-life? check out my license plates! But I've also been convicted fairly recently to keep my viewpoints to myself around anyone who I'm not 100% sure I won't offend, which means just about everyone outside of my immediate family. I would hope that the only thing that anyone might find offensive about me is the cross of Christ.

Regarding issues that appear to be addressed very clearly in the Bible, it's probably still a very good idea to hold back, be satisfied that God has convicted you, and allow him to convict others in their own time. I'm not sure that Christians standing up publically against any sin have ever brought conviction to an unbelieving population anywhere else in the world at any time in history. In fact, the only thing I see it doing is hardening hearts against the Church!!

I also find it grievous that the Church in this country is so polarized politically. Why do congregations which are mostly African American seem to have so little in common with mainly white churches in the US? I refuse to accept Rush Limbaugh's explanation here. I think we need to accept our share of the responsibility and quit focusing on what divides us -- politics!!

Nevermind what Rush would say. It isn't important. (may I borrow a smiley to put right here?)

In exit polls from the last presidential election, African Americans voted as a nearly homogenous block (>90%) the opposite way that the white evangelical "block" voted. That was what I was referring to.

Did I hear someone say they needed a Smiley???

Sure Mike, you can BORROW him, just be sure to give him back!

Everywhere at all times....Sue

This turns out to be a most timely BLOG today.  I'm sitting here in my home office watching Man of the Year. 

I say write in your local pastor for president and throw the whole thing to the senate to decide to see where it takes us.

Here is the applause I promised earlier Mike.

And the WYP wakes from a long slumber...Mike I usually agree with you but I hesitate here...we do have a responsibility to teach a world who knows neither why they vote or how to vote...especially with the liberalistic views that the church has accepted.  When Clinton coined "it's about the economy" everybody fell in line grinning about the money they expected to get in their pocket...including vast amounts of church members...I apologize but I have a hard time believing that someone truly has accepted the cross and the weight of it while voting for politicians who are grossly immoral...but then the pickings left are slim to none. 

I do believe if we will focus on intructing people in righteousness, "all these things will be added unto you" will be par for the course however.  As a teacher, I make sure I instruct my classes on why we vote and how we are to vote responsibly.  I wonder how many people who have responded to your blog even know which branch is responsible for what...we usually throw everything on the president...but it isn't so.  As some of my students were bashing Bush one day, I made a list of all of the things they accused him of neglecting.  ALL of them (save the war) were congress and judicial responsibilities...that is a shame b/c they are merely quoting their parents.

So we should be instructing our fellow believers in "how" to vote responsibly.

That is my five dollars

Ah, WYP, welcome back!! We have all been deprived of your fellowship for far too long!

In response to your post, I would heartily agree that the Church should build a framework for responsible voting by building the moral capacity to vote through biblical instruction (and I applaud your efforts in this area). But specifically how an individual votes is their personal responsibility, isn't it? As brother Joel said way back in post #2, how you vote speaks volumes about your core values and principles. Amen Joel! HOWEVER, I don't want to learn about your core v's and p's by hearing how you voted, I want to see it in how you live for Christ!!!

Therefore, specifically how we vote on candidates and issues is really a side issue, and one that is terribly distracting and divisive to the Church, IMHO.

I also don't really think it's a wise use of our time trying to teach the world how they should vote, since their reasons for voting a certain way spring directly from their heart on the issues. It would be much wiser to go straight for their heart (again, the central issue) by sharing the Good News with them, both in word and deed. And here again, often as soon as we tell someone how we voted or who we support, they immediately categorize us into a "political camp", and if it isn't their camp then their hearts immediately harden towards us.

Like you, I too have a hard time believing that someone who claims Jesus as Lord can support politicians that stand for immoral positions. But to me, that is as much between them and God as whether or not they choose to tithe. In both cases their actions affect the Church, but also in both cases the problem stems from where their heart is. And we can all agree on Whose responsibility the changing of hearts is, can't we?

Hi Patrick. Missed you...

 I also don't really think it's a wise use of our time trying to teach the world how they should vote, since their reasons for voting a certain way spring directly from their heart on the issues. It would be much wiser to go straight for their heart (again, the central issue) by sharing the Good News with them, both in word and deed.

So were Paul's letters in the New Testament speaking to the heart?  I ask because there are certainly points in there that could be viewed as telling us how to "vote".  My argument is there is not a distinction between Biblical teaching and what we are talking about with issues.  I don't think defending a candidate is our job, but defending the truth of why something is right (and should be voted for) is.

 Bygones are bygones, so who or what we voted for are past.

BTW I read all the comments about not being proud of who we voted for and yet we make a big deal out of who we star (voted for) here? :)

Hi Norm!

First, Paul's letters are to the church, not the world. So I think he would advocate (as I) that we provide our moral training inside the church.

Second, I don't really see Paul address any "social issues" in his letters, except in how the church should treat individuals affected by these issues. By example I mean Paul tells the churches to care for the poor, widows, orphans, etc. Interestingly, Paul addresses slaves but never slavery! That's my whole point, the church should leave the issues alone and deal with the people.

Mike it is good to be back...but am not going to be at full capacity for a while...but I do enjoy the fellership (charlie?).  My little girl gave us another scare...but God is good.  Now to the point at hand...

I think we are pretty much in line but using different diction...seek ye first...then all these things.  I would say we have a responsibility to teach what we know and preach what has been made known to us...but if we preach righteousness and holiness as the standard across the plain with responisibility, people of immoral nature would not bother to run.  Imagine how awesome of a government we would have if every Christian realy prayed for their leadership like we are supposed to.  Anyways, that is 2 more dollars.

 Hi Maryann.

WYP, totally agree with you...I also think it is our responsibility to teach and preach righteousness ad holiness as a standard in personal character.

Good to hear from you again.

I'm thinking.... PEOPLE, STAR THIS BLOG!!!

How about you DC? What are you thinking?

What social issues are you talking about?  I don't remember talking about slavery lately.  I was thinking the current social issues were homosexuality, abortion, whether you can speak your beliefs if you are a Christian and so on.  (See also <a href="http://www.breakpoint.org/generic.asp?ID=6465">Breakpoint</a> for an example.)  Are you not talking about those?

And I thought your comments were about people you interact with (you say neighbor in one spot and christian brother in another).  Those would be people in my church. I don't see going out evangelizing and asking "Who did you vote for?". 

Summing it up for me is the following.  I don't believe the church should be endorsing candidates (including myChurch ones) or parties.  Actually I think legally in the US they can't unless they want to risk their tax free status.  But on moral issues such as abortion they cannot stay silent and not just within the church.

DC, that isn't entirely off topic but is heading that way. Would make a very intriguing blog though!

Norm, sounds like we're on the same page regarding support for specific candidates (and parties), which was the main point of my original blog. No church should visibly step into that arena.

Of course, who one supports is typically based on views held on some combination of issues. The Holy Spirit speaks to our conscience and convicts each of us individually regarding these issues. Thankfully in this country we have the glorious freedom to vote by that conscience, our own conscience! This is why voting booths are only big enough to fit ONE person at a time!  

Yes, unbelievers have a conscience too. And how can we expect them to be convicted by the Holy Spirit and vote like us on these issues? Are they really going to become convicted by our words on issues, spoken with the intent to persuade someone to vote a certain way?? To be honest, I don't care how anyone else votes! I'd rather see them embrace Jesus Christ, and then I'll take satisfaction that once the H.S. indwells them they will vote according to a conscience informed by God.

The major problem this blog addresses is, many Christians mistakenly think that all believers should vote alike if the Holy Spirit were leading them into the voting booth. Therefore we quickly become outspoken, and our voting choices always become a matter of right and wrong, black and white. Thus the Church is divided!!

I wasn't addressing evangelizing (sharing the Gospel with the lost), which most likely includes discussions of sin. We are probably on the same page there! ;-) 

DC!!! How dare you suggest that we as a church stop exepting handouts from the society we are trying to reach and by doing so are bound in chains by what we can or cannot say b/c in the end our hope and well being is not in God's hands but placed within the power of mortal man to make sure we don't have to breathe hard every April 15th!!!  Actually, I think our tax exempt status makes it harder on the finance people...being tax exempt is like going "nill" in spades. 

ps...in case it isn't obvious to all, I TOTALLY agree with DC. 

Norm, your question "Why aren't we talking about slavery?" Was that rhetorical or do you have an answer... cuz I am scratching my head wondering the same thing.

Mike, still LOVE this blog.

mychurch people... you should STAR IT!!!

Why aren't we talking about slavery? Well, we aren't really singling out any particular issue here, that was not the intent. And even if we were, slavery wouldn't be the most relevant to us today. If you want to speak out against worldwide slavery, go right ahead.

One thing to note, slavery was legal in NT times, Paul even addressed one of his letters to a slave owner (Philemon), but not once did Paul criticize the practice of slavery. Yet he did indicate that he had established a personal relationship with Onesimus (the slave), and urged Philemon to receive him back as a brother rather than a slave. The language of relationship, not societal issues!

Mike, I was just curious as to why Norm threw it out there...

I know why you didn't bro. This blog aint about that.

Happy Friday!!! :-) See you tonight in Antsilvania!!!

your sis who LOVES this blog,

Mary Ann

I seem to have lost this one.  But if floated to the top.

Mary Ann regarding

Norm, your question "Why aren't we talking about slavery?"

I didn't type that. if you are referring to this comment:

I don't remember talking about slavery lately.

it was in response to Mike's

Interestingly, Paul addresses slaves but never slavery!