Shortest article in SBCV history…but far from being the most frivolous.
Bill Mac
Not voting is not a sin, since it is nowhere commanded. I could envision voting for a particular candidate being a sin if that candidate is a moral monster.
Donald
Bill Mac said “Not voting is not a sin, since it is nowhere commanded.”
I’m not saying your conclusion is wrong, but that cannot be the whole story. Where there are no direct commands, Biblical principles must be applied.
Bill Mac
Donald: Agreed, but I think one would be hard pressed to gather enough biblical principles to make voting mandatory.
Donald
I agree 100%.
Joe Alain
The last few election cycles I have voted “selectively,” meaning I have only voted for candidates and issues that I could do so with a good conscience. I have skipped presidential elections several times.
This last presidential election I left that part blank. I was told by a few (not many) that not voting for Romney was a de facto vote for Obama.
But, I can’t in good conscience hold to the “lesser of two evils” ideology (maybe “lesser of two weevils”–points for the reference!). So if I have conscience objections to a candidate, (s)he will not receive my vote.
John Wylie
What conscience objections did you have with Romney?
Environmental issues, certain positions on gun rights, and the fact that I’m not sold on him actually being solidly pro-life among a few.
And, no, I’m not going to get into a detailed discussion at the moment on the first two items [other than to say the practical implications of my pro-life position (as it’s much broader to me than abortion) don’t allow me to tow the party lines of most conservatives] as that’s not William’s purpose to the question. 🙂
John Wylie
Fine with me. Since It has to with choosing not to vote, I thought was completely in keeping with William’s post. You were the one who brought Romney up, not me. 🙂
I think it would be extremely hard to argue biblically that there is only one course of action for this topic. If, for example, we ended up with Trump vs. Clinton:
-Some Christians would feel conscience-compelled to not vote
-Some Christians would feel conscience-compelled to vote for some 3rd party candidate destined to lose.
-Some Christians would feel conscience-compelled to vote for Trump, in order to try to prevent Clinton from taking office.
–Some Christians would feel conscience-compelled to vote for Hillary, in order to keep Trump from taking office.
I would be hard-pressed to find a biblical argument against any of them.
Rick Patrick
I vote in favor of this absolutely awesome answer by Andy Williams.
I’ve used the text many times in regard to our duty as citizens; however, we aren’t required by law to vote. Jews were required to pay the tax; hence, Jesus’ pithy command.
It’s clearly a sin not to pay your taxes, then? (I’m stifling my disdain in order to stir myself to write the US Treasury their quarterly check due next week.)
“I am concerned about prayer movements to save our country that do not emphasis repentance. And I am suspect of any repentance that does not acknowledge the sin of Christians being disengaged in the political process (registering to vote, voting, running for office, petitioning the Government with grievances, teaching on moral and social issues).”
Rick Patrick
I might make a distinction between a Christian feeling conscience-compelled not to vote *in a particular election race* versus a Christian who NEVER participates in the political process in any way at all.
Disengaging completely seems to be the abandonment of a freedom and responsibility many died to preserve for us. If applied by Christians universally, it would logically leave the decision-making of our nation totally in the hands of the ungodly—which hardly seems wise or just.
Mike Griffin, the Georgia Baptist staff lobbyist, former pastor and failed (he lost) politician. He once testified before the Georgia legislature that he speaks for 1.4 million Georgia Baptists.
I see you avoid the term “sin” in favor of other descriptions for the non-engaged Christian: unwise, [un]just, by implication irresponsible, etc.
I would say no, not voting is not a sin. But, the folks who are saying neglecting to vote is not a de facto vote for the other person, are just wrong. Simply put, if you don’t vote against Hillary and she wins, you are at least partially responsible for her being elected. There is a such thing as culpable neglect. Further, every one coming on here and talking about not wanting to participate in choosing the lesser of two evils need to simply burn their voter registration, because that has always been the choice before us.
When election day gets here the only two viable choices are GOP or Democrat. And if you neglect to vote for one, or at least against one, you voted for whomever wins. That is just a fact.
Bill Mac, if what you said is true about it being a sin to vote for a moral monster, what would neglecting to vote against him/her be?
“But, the folks who are saying neglecting to vote is not a de facto vote for the other person, are just wrong.”
Mathematically, they are not equal, and it might be closer to being worth about half a vote for the other person…ie:
For simplicity let’s say all republicans vote for trump, and he gets 110 votes. Clinton gets 91 votes. Now let’s say instead that 10 of those people abstain from voting for trump. He still wins by 9 votes. However if they had voted for Clinton, she would win, 101-100.
That’s all. 😉
Jeff
You speak as if the election was determined by popular vote, but it is not. The presidential election is based on the electoral college. I live in Texas, in which Romney beat Obama 57% to 41%. It made no difference to the outcome of the election whether I voted or not. In 2016, the Republican candidate will almost certainly win Texas. The election will be determined in states like Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Nevada. Those are the votes that really count.
Jeff
Living in rural Texas, I can see from this map how little influence I really have. It is all about the big cities on the coasts.
John: I see your point, and I agree that if there is a better option it would be prudent to vote against the moral monster. In this particular case it is my opinion that the choice could well be between two moral monsters and unlike others I cannot decide which is worse, so I would not vote for either of them. I know people think that Trump would be better than Clinton but I don’t agree. The bottom line is that while I do think Clinton is a moral monster, I don’t think she’s unhinged, and I think Trump is.
When election day gets here the only two viable choices are GOP or Democrat. And if you neglect to vote for one, or at least against one, you voted for whomever wins. That is just a fact.
An attitude like that keeps the status quo and nothing ever changes. No reason for one party to actually reinvent itself or for a new party to rise (it’s happened before, we used to have presidents who were Whigs) if the attitude is, “I’m voting the Republican because he’s not the Democrat” or visa versa.
It’s a fallacy, logical and otherwise, to say, “If you didn’t vote for R then your vote was a vote for D even if you voted for X.”
John Wylie
No Sir,
The logical fallacy is to believe that when you do nothing you are not culpabale. You worried about Romney’s commitment to the pro life cause and so you guaranteed that we elected a president with whom there was no doubt about his pro choice position. Asinine
No matter how you cut it “Not A, therefore B” doesn’t work when “Not B.”
Nothing in the Bible speaks directly to voting in a democratic republic. But it does speak directly to violating one’s conscience being sin.
You might think my conscience needs tweaked, that’s one thing; but as I said earlier: to vote for Romney would have been such a violation for me, maybe not as much as for Obama or the Green Party candidate, but a violation nonetheless.
So yeah, I’m not going to do something that I know for me would be sin just to satisfy those who think I should have done the opposite.
John Wylie
And Mike Bergman,
If you would do a little research you would know that a third party candidate is not a viable choice. A number of states do not allow for a third party choice and those votes aren’t even counted. Those states eliminate enough electoral votes that they make it literally an impossibility for a third party candidate to be president of the United States. So the choice currently is R or D, period.
I don’t think that logic flies. Take it out of the realm of politics.
If an intruder broke into your house and said, “Either kill your wife or your only child OR I’ll make the decision for you” and if you chose neither, the guilt is not on you for not choosing one of two evils. The guilt is on the one(s) who have put this choice before you.
John Wylie
Mike,
Your logic is called a straw man, designed to bring hyperbole to the situation. That is not at all the same.
Aye, call it what you will. Though I don’t think straw man is the correct logical fallacy. Perhaps its the logical fallacy where you evoke Hitler to make a point. But I still think my point stands. If someone puts you in a position to choose the lesser of two evils you are not morally culpable if you refuse to choose–the one who put you in that position would be morally culpable.
John Wylie
It’s not the same at all.
Donald
John, if limiting the discussion to having to choose the lesser of two Evils, taking it to the extreme is where clarity begins and Mike’s example is valid. The argument for TLOTEs is bad, and I don’t think you need to argue for that premise in order to make an argument for voting. When is it ever right for a Christian to do Evil in order to avoid sinning?
Debbie Kaufman
John: When it comes to talking about politics, you really get ugly. Think. Not voting makes us responsible for nothing. I could actually think of worse than Obama for President. Trump for example.
Debbie Kaufman
As we have pointed out the last several years, name any Republican President who has stopped abortion? It is still legal isn’t it?
John Wylie
Debbie,
Insofar as my being ugly when it comes to politics, I have regularly found your comments offensive. It is obvious that you and I rub each other the wrong way, I see no need in us offending each other further.
Les
Well I don’t want to be ugly here. But as far as abortion, yes it is still legal. Fact is no one branch of government has unilateral authority (or at least is not supposed to per the constitution).
But, a president committed to truly restricting the killing of babies by any legal means available CAN veto Democratic controlled and passed legislation designed to expand the killing of babies. Through legal EOs he can reduce the killing of babies and he can affect the national conversation which could lead to the reduction of the killing of babies.
On the other hand, we could have a Dem president and a Dem controlled congress and they would have free reign to increase the killing of babies and get us to pay for them.
So there’s that.
Donald
John said “The logical fallacy is to believe that when you do nothing you are not culpable.”
Actually, the fallacy is believing that “not voting” is equal to “doing nothing”.
An historical example would be an Englishman Abjuring the realm. (In England the oath of abjuration is an oath by which an Englishman binds himself not to acknowledge any right in the Pretender to the throne of England.)
In America, it might mean being very active but being unable to vote “for” a candidate.
I want to add something about only voting for Democrats or Republicans and the “lesser of two evils” discussion. I don’t think we’ve considered all the facts.
Jeff mentions the electoral process. A lot of folks don’t think about this (and I will add that I agree with the concept of electoral college and election by states rather than direct popular vote). I have not voted for the Republican candidate in the last several presidential elections, choosing instead someone in a “third party” that I have a closer agreement with. But in terms of electoral votes, for example, it would not have mattered whether I or 100,000 more folks had voted for the Republican candidate. They got all the electoral votes either way (Disclaimer: every state is not a “winner take all” electoral situation).
In helping elect the winner when you didn’t vote for him or her we should also consider folks offsetting our “wasting our vote” by also “wasting their vote” — for example, a liberal voting for the Green Party candidate instead of the Democrat.
But here is an example on something I think has not been considered. About 35 years ago, while still a young man, my wife and I made the decision to stop voting in the Democratic primary and vote as Republicans instead. This was a decision that including “wasting our votes” for a number of years. How? In this way. Our small voting precinct had about 200 registered voters, of which maybe 5 or 6 voted Republican. Our county was still a traditionally Democrat county. Everyone who was running for county offices was running as a Democrat. So, say, if 5 men were running for sheriff in the Democratic primary, we had no vote, no say, in who would be the sheriff of our county. By the time the general election rolled around, it had already been decided by the Democrats and there was only one candidate left. A lot of people used this as their reason to stay in the Democratic Party — and the reason we should come back to it. BUT, we were not looking at a single election. We were looking at building a county party and platform from the roots up. Today, we are a solid Republican county. Almost none dare to run as Democrats. If we had not determined to “waste our votes” and stayed over the course of a number of years — instead just kept voting Democratic — this could never have been accomplished.
Similarly, if no one chooses to challenge the status quo and always keeps propping up the two well-established parties, things will never change. So I see voting for a third party as a process and a way forward to better political possibilities in the future. If you are comfortable choosing the lesser of two evils, I respect that and even understand. I’ve been there and done that. But don’t tell me I’m wasting my vote. I have a reason for and outlook toward the future in doing what I am doing.
John Quincy Adams said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.”
Roger Simpson
Jeff:
You are right. Most pundits consider FL and OH to really be the heavy hitting swing states to watch. That is because they are believed to be very close in terms of either going to DEM or REP column and at the same time they have a fairly large number of electoral votes.
Most states with a larger number of electoral votes are generally not considered to be “in play”. Absent some radical departure from the norm, they will likely stay in either the REP or DEM column as per the trend in the last several decades. Included in this is NY, CA etc.
If my home state of OK goes democratic it would be a shock of Titanic proportion.
Jeff
No Republican has ever been elected President without winning Ohio. They won it in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, & 2004. They lost it in 1992, 1996, 2008, & 2012.
John Wylie
Electoral votes are determined by the popular votes in each state.
Jeff
But if you look at electoral college maps from recent elections, you will notice that many of the same states keep voting the same ways. The Democrats haven’t won Texas since 1976 and are very unlikely to win it in the future. Romney beat Obama by nearly 1.3 million votes in Texas, but would have won Texas if he beat him by only 50,000. In the general election for President, candidates don’t even come to Texas, except for fundraising purposes. They know that Texas is that solidly Republican (if a Republican was losing in Texas, he would probably be losing badly everywhere else). For all practical purposes, my vote simply is not as important as the vote of somebody living in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or Colorado.
John Wylie
Jeff,
Just because those states keep voting the same way in no way means that your vote doesn’t count. People still have to vote for those electoral votes to be counted.
In current day politics it is more about party than candidate. Today the left is anti-God and pro sin (abortion, gay marriage). If you do not vote to the “right”, I believe you are therefore promoting, or at the very least, allowing these platforms of the “left.
So the left is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. Both decidedly unbiblical ideals. The right is anti-poor and pro-corporate corruption. How is one superior to the other?
Louis
Hogwash!
Some on both sides are both.
We should be accurate.
The left is in favor of abortion rights. But they also pay tribute to those who perform abortions in terms of money, support etc.
The left is in favor or recognizing Gay Marriage.
The right is not anti-poor. Where in the Sam Hill? The right believes in a reduced role of government in poverty relief. One can disagree with whether the poor are better off etc.
Pro-corporate corruption, the right? Are you kidding me.
Politicians of all stripes protect their supporters, corporate and otherwise. Dems are protecting a large non-profit corp and its corruption – Planned Parenthood. And the Dems are the ones who used public money to bailout GM and others from their financial mismanagement, and wasted billions of dollars in “green energy” schemes in the last 7 years alone.
Republicans also protect the corporations that are friendly to them.
But it is patently ridiculous to say that the “right” is in favor of corporate corruption.
Les
Ryan,
“So the left is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. Both decidedly unbiblical ideals. The right is anti-poor and pro-corporate corruption. How is one superior to the other?”
Can you help me out by showing where/how the right is against the poor and is for corporate corruption? Is it in their party platform like the left has for baby killing in their party platform?
Thanks.
Tarheel
Les beat me to that one.
“Pro corporate corruption”?
Who’s “for” that?
“Anti poor”?
Who hates the poor?
Debbie Kaufman
The abortion stance is becoming an excuse. A poor one at that. Donald Trump has said nothing about abortion so we don’t really know his stance do we?
Debbie Kaufman
Donald Trump is pro-life according to his interview with CNN, but he is for exceptions which would allow abortions such as rape etc. So is he pro-life as in line with Southern Baptists? Christians?
Problem is – until he started running for the Republican nomination for president when spoke to the issue of abortion he identified himself as pro-choice.
Ken Sierk
Since we are self governed, I believe we will be held accountable for the moral decline in this country if we don’t do the one thing we all can do to fight the decline and vote. When I read how the kings of Israel “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”, God was not pleased.
In my mind, we the people are the kings of this country so I would be responsible for the resulting sin if I didn’t use the only power I have to stop it even if my only choice is less than perfect.
Yes, if I don’t vote, I believe I am sinning.
Debbie Kaufman
Well then I am going to be sinning, because I will not vote if the choice for Republican is Trump.
Do you all really think he is going to give up his business to be President? Nope. Too much money at stake and don’t forget he is in really hot water with the UK. Many have signed a petition to not let him in.
Ken Sierk
Debbie, I bielieve I already stated what I really believe and I based it on what I believe to be obodience to God. I know there is no clear guidance in scripture on this topic which is why my answer about whether or not it’s sinful was limited to myself. What a bunch of godless socialist buffoons in the UK care about has no bearing on the question or my beliefs. If you can convince me with scripture that I’m wrong, please do so.
Debbie Kaufman
Ken: I believe the burden would fall on you to convince me that I am wrong using scripture.
It’s common sense I think. To vote for someone like Donald Trump is beyond reason in my opinion. I can’t fathom why a Christian would do so. I can understand a non-Christian, but a Christian? I just don’t understand.
Debbie Kaufman
The situation in the UK matters to me because it shows what a ruthless businessman Trump is. I think that’s pretty obvious. I can’t vote for a candidate just because they have an R in front of their name. Being a woman, the way he speaks about women is beyond my conscience. He’s been married a few times with more on the way I am sure. He flaunts how much he’s worth so we won’t forget he has the power.
No matter what evidence shows Trump to be no better than the ones you would vote against, you still stick with your stance. This anything to not get a Democrat in the house is mind boggling to me. Put an R in front of anyone’s name and they get the vote, which is why they do it.
Unfortunately, there is not going to be another Reagan anytime soon.
But failing to be involved in the process of government inasmuch as we are permitted is to miss an opportunity to make it better to share the gospel in the country. That also provides the onus for studying church history diligently and learning what political environments have contributed most to the spread of the gospel.
Louis
Debbie Kaufman:
Martin Luther is supposed to have said that he would vote for a competent Turk (Muslim) over an incompetent Christian.
The point is that one has to weigh the choices we are given.
As a Christian, I could vote for anyone – depending on who is on the other side.
So, before I declare who I will or won’t vote for, I want to know what my choices are, and vote based on the comparison.
It would be neither Christian nor anti-Christian to vote for or not vote for Trump.
Secondly: Trump is not the better candidate. He is not a competent candidate. The lesser of two evils argument has already been shown to be a failure next to scripture.
Louis
Debbie:
I really appreciate the correction and reference.
At least I said, “was reported to have said”. I guess the guy who reported that is a dope.
Martin Luther did not say it.
But I have said it.
So, you may quote me. Or I may quote myself.
Many people disagree with you about Trump. Some believe that Trump is a better candidate than Sanders, than O’Malley, than Hillary, than Bush and so on.
When you say that Trump is not the better candidate – to whom are you referring?
At this point, is it not patently inaccurate to say that Trump is not a competent candidate?
His competency in being a candidate is unmatched. He came into the race as a political novice, has spent very little of his own money, has forced the media to cover him, has dominated the discussion (even the President was addressing Trump last night in the State of the Union), has been attacked by the Press, the Democrats, almost all of the other Republican candidates, and some religious figures such as Dr. Moore.
But he leads in the polls.
Therefore, he is objectively competent at running for President. He is a competent candidate.
I am sure that you what mean is that he has no demonstrated history/competency in many of the issues that the President is expected to address.
I do not disagree with you there.
But the question is whether he can take his known competency (high end, complicated real estate transactions and negotiations) and translate that to political questions.
I am old enough to have voted for Reagan in 1980, and heard some of the same things about him. The same things were said about Clinton and Obama.
But we are admittedly on a different playing field with this guy.
A friend who is not from this country recently said to me that U.S. politics is becoming more and more like the politics in Italy and other countries where people from all professions run (e.g. business people, prostitutes, movie stars).
It seems to me that the U.S. is progressing in that direction.
Didn’t JayZ or somebody like that say they were running in 2020?
I can tell you that if George Clooney or Tom Brady ran, they could be strong candidates.
Still, I cannot agree with you or Dr. Moore that we need to be telling people it is wrong or inconsistent with the Christian faith to vote for Donald Trump.
Again, these are questions of judgment that we all are not going to agree on.
Steve Swett
I agree with you Louis and I assume that D. Kaufman meant that Trump was not qualified or competent to be elected President if he gets the nomination. Surely to question the competency and ability of a candidate who has spent peanuts versus the rest of the field to have gained and maintained the lead this long is just letting emotion trump fact. I do not agree or voted for President Obama but he was a brilliant campaigner and a skilled politician however he is not a competent leader for the nation. So sometimes we all let emotion overrule fact. My opinion is that at least 60 to 70 percent of Southern Baptist laymen will consider to or will vote for Trump. Dr. Moore has influence within the rarified circles he moves in but he average SBC member will not care about Dr. Moore’s opinions when they are so obviously biased, I certainly do not. I agree with Louis that this will ultimately lead to a lost of influence for the SBC leadership if the general SBC membership is even aware of Dr. Moore’s position. So to tie in with this topic the leadership of the SBC should leave the voting decisions up the discernment of the general membership. I believe of the ERLC is getting into a slippery slope of being actively involved. To tie in with the subject of this thread, are we not to vote if Trump is the Republican choice and if I do am I violating my Christian values or should I just not vote.
Not a sin then…but maybe not the best citizenship?
Anecdotal, but I see more among us who have stopped salivating when the religious politicos ring the ‘take back our country’ bell.
Nate
It is not a sin to Not Vote.
However, if you don’t vote and then write a blog about the President that gets elected (or comment about the President that gets elected) there ought to be an Electric Shock that zaps your fingers as you type.
Maybe the question should have been asked, “If I don’t vote can I still complain about the President without sinning?”
The “American Way” gives us the right to complain even if we don’t vote. It’s called freedom of speech.
Biblically, we probably should do more praying and less complaining.
Rick Patrick
Is it a sin for a denominational employee, supported by the tithes and offerings of said denomination’s faithful donors, to use one’s platform in a manner constantly harping and complaining about one party’s immoral candidate without ever writing or speaking a single word of rebuke concerning the ethical failures of the other party’s immoral candidate?
Yes, it is. It not only shows bias and imbalance on the part of the employee, but for all practical purposes, it turns the religious contributions of many of the faithful donors into political donations for the opposite party, since they are financially subsidizing the promotion of a political campaign they oppose.
I think you are highly biased in your opinion here…but not sinful.
Bill Mac
Non-criticism is not promotion.
You may not agree with it, but it is easy to see why the ERLC is criticizing Trump. Trump is the very antithesis of everything Southern Baptists purport to believe, and yet many of them seem enamored of him. Moore is not trying to “promote” Clinton. He’s trying to steer Southern Baptists away from Trump toward someone less odious to oppose Clinton. How much criticism of Clinton do you see on Southern Baptist blogs, including this one? Not a lot, because what is the point? People here are not likely to vote for Clinton (unless, in some cases, Trump is her opponent).
Rick Patrick
I’m just wondering if we’re not getting boxed into a corner here. Suppose it does turn out to be Trump-Clinton.
How exactly does Moore want us to express our opposition to Trump at that juncture? There will be only three options available to us:
A. Vote for Clinton.
B. Vote for a Write-In or Third Party.
C. Don’t Vote.
None of these are any more appealing to me than voting for Trump would be.
I understand your distinction that non-criticism is not the same as promotion, but at some point, Moore will have to do better than, “Just don’t vote for the Donald.” What DOES he think we should do?
Bill Mac
When you see people running towards a cliff, you can’t worry about the other cliffs they might run off in the future. You’ve got to save them from the one in front of you.
Tarheel
Since this is an issue relating to a person’s freedom of conscience and there is no dictate of scripture;
If your conscience allows you to vote for Donald Trump, not vote for Trump, to vote for a third party or not, to not vote at all if he’s the nominee – whatever – hold your head up and follow your conscience.
Neither “side” should judge/condemn the other (and that is hard for all of us) and neither side should compel the other.
Tarheel
Further, on this issue, and the other one in the other thread, It’s also important I think to point out that we likely will have difficulty seeing and understanding the other “sides” conscience freedoms.
We’ve just got to be careful to respect each other’s convictions and not to dictate our conscience convictions upon another. (I wish I did a better job at this.)
I would like to add a question to the good question that William has presented to us. Scripture teaches us to be
subject to the governing authorities, to honor and pray for those in authority. I assume we all agree. However, the nation we live in is very different from the Roman empire and other nations of history. The Constitution begins with “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Here is my question: Do the people of the United States (the citizens) not have the ultimate power and influence? It appears to me that we have the biggest responsibility and, in some sense, the most authority to make changes. Granted, it is difficult to make changes and voting is just one way to influence. But who really has the ultimate authority in the United States of America?
Greg Harvey
To choose not to participate in any form of politics could be very healthy, but it could be a missed opportunity for being salt, light, and evangelistic.
To not vote is in my opinion better than to vote blindly. But the design of our nation requires participation by the citizenry for it to function and choosing not to provide that leadership of one essentially contributes to the kinds of problems we see.
We need men and women of character to both participate and pray for our local (municipal as well as county/parish), state, and federal governments. Asking if it’s a sin distracts from the importance of the opportunity.
I asked because one of our denominational employees said it was sin. Such neither diminishes nor enhances any opportunity to participate in politics. If anything, the sin label in this context diminishes biblical teaching on sin.
Louis
It is not a sin to abstain from voting, though I believe it is unwise in most cases.
There are almost always policy and other differences between candidates that would allow one to make an informed choice between them.
How one votes in usually not an act of sin, though it could be. If one were actually casting a vote for a candidate set upon doing evil, and the vote was a desire to assist in the commission of evil. But be careful. In my view that would have to be extremely obvious and intentional. Not – the candidates policies would lead to evil (e.g. not voting for higher taxes, more open immigration policies etc.) Policy choices and consequences are not evil, in my view, except in very rare circumstances. It would be silly to say, for example, that every person who votes for a person who favors abortion rights or so-called gay marriage is doing evil.
But if a candidate said, “Vote for me, and we will assault the capitol, burn it down, and kill all of the people in Birmingham.” That would be evil.
The other policy differences really have to do with a difference in conscience.
Les
Louis, thanks for your comments. Always thoughtful. You said,
” It would be silly to say, for example, that every person who votes for a person who favors abortion rights or so-called gay marriage is doing evil.”
Respectfully I would have to disagree. If a candidate publicly expresses, for instance, the support for continuing or expanding the killing of babies, then to assist that person to obtain office (and the consequent power) IMO would be assisting the killing of babies…an obvious sin.
I suspect there are those who comment here would argue that a candidate who expresses the support for and intention to implement policies that would restrict the human rights of African Americans in some way would call a vote for said candidate a sin. Same if a candidate said he intends to set policy that would result in infanticide or assisted suicide.
Louis
I have watched all of the angst in come evangelical quarters about Trump.
In my view, the reaction among some is an overreaction.
I have seen some chest thumping in some quarters about how Trump is awful, evil, and Christians should not vote for him.
Trump and Clinton may not be my candidates. But anyone trying to discern a difference between them and their policies should not have much difficulty. Voting for either would not be sinful, nor would abstaining (though I continue to believe that to be unwise).
If those are the final two candidates, I will have no trouble evaluating between the two and making a choice.
Voting is a lot like voir dire in a jury trial.
The lawyers can’t “pick a jury.” The box is filled when you get there. You can eliminate some bad apples, but that’s all. It’s a limited type of selection.
And so it is with voting.
It is wrong headed of us to always expect that we will have at least one candidate who is virtuous and for whom we can enthusiastically vote.
Assuming that there are meaningful policy differences, it is unwise for us to cast away the little influence that we have because neither measure up to some sort of standard we think we have.
Rick Patrick
Cue Larnelle Harris rendition of “A-MEN!”
Nate
“It is wrong headed of us to always expect that we will have at least one candidate who is virtuous and for whom we can enthusiastically vote.”
I’m not sure you can find any president who fits your description. I can’t think of one President who was Virtuous, except perhaps George Washington since he voluntarily only served 2 terms and only reluctantly even took the position.
The rest of the list of Presidents are all flawed. Some more than others, but none I would have considered “virtuous”.
Bill Mac
This is not a case of wanting steak, and settling for a burger. This is a case of wanting steak, being willing to settle for a burger, but ending up with a choice of two different types of roadkill.
Donald
“In my view, the reaction among some is an overreaction.”
Truth! Granted, overreaction is still reacting to something that may be totally valid. It does seem over-done when Trump is called the most evil person to come along in a long time.
Jess
William
I think one cancels out the other. You said it is a sin not to vote, and it’s a sin to vote for the wrong candidate.
Land is right: Why vote for Trump in the PRIMARY season? (Land said nothing about the General Election.)
Jeffress and Cole are right as well.
Moore’s does not appear to be the majority view among Southern Baptists.
Debbie Kaufman
Why am I not surprised that Trump is speaking at Liberty this month? God help us.
As for Moore being in the minority view, I don’t find that to be a problem at all. It was one boy that saw the Emperor had no clothes and a whole crowd swore he did.
Debbie Kaufman
Why am I also not surprised that Falwell’s favorite candidates are Trump, Cruz and Carson?
Debbie Kaufman
And since Robert Jeffress would be comfortable having Trump for President, I stand even stronger in my opinion of voting for Trump. It gives me credence that I am seeing things properly.
Tyler
Debbie…I was thinking the same exact thing. His little rant (during a church service no less!) about refugees and Trump was not the best.
Donald
Why am I not surprised that Debbie bashed Rick’s comment three times in 8 minutes. lol.
SBCVoices would be infinitely less interesting without Debbie Kaufman. Love ya’ Deb!
Tarheel
Lol. In the mean time she bashed the comments of like 4 other men too, lol.
cb scott
“the Emperor had no clothes and a whole crowd swore he did.”
Debbie Kaufman,
I think the story goes that the “whole crowd” said nothing. They ignored the nakedness of the king and refused to deal with the shame among them.
They must have all been Southern Baptist preachers.
Tyler
Who cares if Moore is not the majority of view of Southern Baptist? (Which I don’t think is true. Most, if not all, of my SBC friends I know personally will not vote for Trump even if it comes down to him). If the majority of SBC people voted for Hillary I still would not vote for Hillary. Lets not commit a majority fallacy.
And it doesn’t surprise me about Jeffress support for Trump even before the primary…not one bit.
Bill Mac
“And it doesn’t surprise me about Jeffress support for Trump even before the primary…not one bit.”
Me neither, and just reinforces my decision to have nothing to do with Trump.
Tyler
Exactly. I just hope that people who watch Fox News know he does not represent all of Evangelicalism.
volfan007
What does electing a President have to do with the Gospel? How is this a Gospel issue? How is voting for Trump, or Hillary, or Cruz, or anyone else, who is running for President, a Gospel issue? It’s not. It’s just plain old politics.
Reminds me of Richard Land’s leadership in the ERLC.
I will be voting for Carson in the TN Primary, if he’s still around. If he’s not, I’ll be voting for Cruz. And, if the election does turn into a Trump vs. Hillary, then I’ll be voting for the candidate that’s not pro abortion, pro homosexual, pro big Govt and higher taxes. I’ll be voting for the candidate, whose party didn’t vote God out of their platform. So, while I’m no fan of Trump, I will not be voting for any baby killing, anti gun, higher taxes person.
As a Christian, I will vote for Trump over Hillary for all the above reasons.
David
Donald
“In sum, to affirm something is or is not a gospel issue is not a transparent expression. It is likely to be clearest among those who share a common confession as to what the gospel is. It is useful only when it means something more stringent than that X can be tied in some way to the gospel: one must show that without this X the gospel itself is seriously threatened. And it is always wise to recognize that some topics are hugely important on grounds other than gospel issues and that our choice of topics is generated in part by our perception of the threats and errors of our own age.” – D. A. Carson
I think classifying certain things as “gospel” issues and other things as “not gospel issues” is problematic, subjective and without biblical basis.
It can also be used to manipulate people into accepting an entirely different set of social and cultural issues. The “social” gospel, for example, can be pushed through that opening.
I love the “noun” gospel so much more than the “adjective” gospel.
Tyler
Everything is a gospel issue in that everything should be thought through and responded to IN LIGHT of the of the Gospel. That is what people mean when they say “Gospel Issue.” Everything is effected by the Gospel. How I do the dishes, how I treat my wife, how I vote…The Gospel effects every part of our lives. I’m not sure why this is such a controversial issue.
Lydia
“How I do the dishes, how I treat my wife, how I vote…The Gospel effects every part of our lives. I’m not sure why this is such a controversial issue.”
Is there a way to make Gospel buttermilk buscuits? I have been tasked to bring some to a brunch.
cb scott
When all words mean the same thing, no words mean anything.
When the word “gospel,” which seems to be a favorite word for many people in the American Church Culture to use as an adjective rather than a noun today, means everything, it loses its biblical meaning.
It reminds me of what happened to the term “born-again” back in the 1970’s.
Tyler
Lydia, do you do everything to the glory of God? Eat and drink? Maybe that doesn’t include buttermilk.
“Gospel Preaching” is about the only adjective use of Gospel that I go for.
steve Swett
David , excellent points and where will that leave Dr. Moore and the ERLC board. Will they not vote?
Lydia
“Lydia, do you do everything to the glory of God? Eat and drink? Maybe that doesn’t include buttermilk.”
Maybe if you explain how to do Gospel dishes I will get it. My better half suggested that loading knife handles up might be part of it. :o)
I take it you are referring to 1 Cor 10? I assure you I do not buy flour that has been sacrificed to idols. :o)
Les
Lydia, maybe Adrian Rogers can help you out here:
“Now, verse 16 speaks of worship, but verse 17 is still speaking of worship. That means our worship does not end when we leave these doors and go out there into the world. We take our worship with us. And, when we come to church, we don’t merely come to church to worship; we bring our worship with us to church. We bring our worship to church. Real worship—please listen to this, because if you don’t, you’re going to miss the point of the whole message—real worship involves all of life. Real worship involves all of life—everyday, every place, whatever we do we do in the name of Jesus. Because, what is worship? Worship is doing things in the name of Jesus, doing “all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Colossians 3:17). So, that takes worship, and it adds worship to every area of life.
What is worship? Worship is doing everything in the name of Jesus, and giving God thanks. And, why? Why would I call that worship? Well, let me ask you a question: What is worship? Would you not say that worship is glorifying God? Hmm? Say yes. Okay, worship is glorifying God. Then, your work ought to glorify God; your friendships ought to glorify God; your banking ought to glorify God; your recreation ought to glorify God. And, if those things glorify God, then those things are worship.
Adrian does, everything that you do, ought to glorify God, “that God in all things might be glorified.” Now, if God is being glorified in all things that I do, then all things that I do are worship, because worship is glorifying God. Are you following me?
Now, you might think I’m trivializing worship. I am not trivializing worship. What I am doing is magnifying our daily life, Monday-morning religion. Somebody wrote these words: “They’re praising God on Sunday, but they’ll be all right on Monday. It’s just a little habit they’ve acquired.” No, no, no. You see, we bring our worship to church. We carry our worship with us. And, when we get outside the doors of this church, we’re still worshipping. Let me give you another verse. Listen to this one; it is a key verse in all of the Bible—1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 31—listen to it: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). Now, boy, that’s going to eliminate some things, isn’t it? “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Listen to what he says here: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). That means your dinner is to be an act of worship, and washing the dishes after dinner is to be an act of worship. Somebody told me that Mrs. Billy Graham has a sign over her kitchen sink that says, “Divine services held here three times a day”—washing dishes to the glory of God—whatever you do. Now, listen. This is not Adrian; this is Paul: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). Again, 1 Peter 4:11: “that God in all things may be glorified.””
From a sermon All in the Name of Jesus
So wash those dishes to the glory of God…whatever you do…just like the scriptures say.
Tyler
Amen Les. Amen. Good word from Adrian Rogers.
steve Swett
This discussion is getting into the weeds. As Rick Patrick alluded when we use words routinely and loosely they lose their true relevance and meaning. Any message and interpretation can be carried to the extreme. Are we so legalistic and focused on concepts and minutely defined specifics we will lose people with our obsession to split interpretative hairs. We should glorify God with our lives, so this would encompass all actions we do. However I do not glorify God when I tie my shoes, put on my pants and brush my teeth. I do these things I can go out and live a life that does glorify God and bear a good witness for Christ. Why , does this involve a dictionary lesson on what should be a common sense understanding of glorifying God. The topic at hand is it a sin not to vote and what role should being a witnessing Christian play when we vote. Should we not vote for Trump based on the ERLC criteria of his actions? Would a pro abortion, not strong on religious liberty candidate be the better choice or are we mandated not to vote if we have this choice. I think that is the topic. Again, our lives, our purpose is to worship and glorify God not with routine mundane necessary actions but with purpose, deeds and lives.
Tyler
Steve, no one would disagree with you. But we don’t worship God with mundane actions, but IN mundane actions. With purpose.
I’m actually really surprised people are disagreeing with this concept.
Bill Mac
Should we not vote for Trump based on the ERLC criteria of his actions?
No, we shouldn’t need the ERLC to understand the nightmare candidate that Trump is. Today Trump suggests that part of the weakening of America is because football isn’t as violent as it used to be. A muslim woman was ejected from one of his rallies for, wait for it, standing up.
Tyler
Yep. Don’t need the ERLC to understand that Trumps presidency would be a nightmare.
steve Swett
So we agree we do not need ERLC to tell us who to vote for then the question now is why is the ERLC obsessed with Trump? Why get involved in a primary election when there is a chance that Trump might be the one is on the ballot versus Clinton? If we do not need the ERLC to understand Trump would be a nightmare the distain for Trump. 70 to 80 percent of Southern Baptist will vote for Trump, they just are not aware of the position of the ERLC. Stay out of politics. People of faith will vote their conscience without being told who is the choice of the ERLC.
Steve, I’ll agree that you have no idea what you are talking about. Put some quotes up where Moore or anyone at the ERLC has or is telling us for whom to vote.
steve Swett
When I look at the official blog and twitter account of Russell Moore it is full of anti Trump information, opinions and links to anti Trump information. Has Moore come out and said do not vote for Trump, no he has not but it is pretty clear, at least to me he is opposed to Trump. I have no problem if that is the position of the SBC leadership and they want to help form opinion however Dr. Moore stated very clearly he was opposed the moral majority foray into politics. I do not think anyone who has followed the President of the ERLC would doubt he is firmly opposed to Trump which is his personal right however he does speak for the SBC and is trying to influence events. Is the SBC in or out of politics? I am concerned as previous post have mentioned, what will be the position if Trump is the GOP pick, should we vote for Clinton, vote for Trump or as the discussion started with not vote at all. I just see a problem when SBC leadership tip toes into politics. No quotes I can give off the top of my head but I believe the support in the ERLC is for Rubio. Do you think Moore in neutral in his opinions of the GOP field? I am new to this and appreciate the postings, good insight and polite exchange of opinions with a sprinkle of humor thrown in. I do appreciate having to rethink my own opinions and thoughts due to many of the postings here. It is a learning experience that I am grateful for.
Rick Patrick
William,
“Put up some quotes…where Moore…is telling us for whom to vote.”
Well, at least he is clearly telling us for whom we should NOT vote with this article:
Rick, your link to the NY Times op-ed by Moore, “Have Evangelicals Who Support Trump Lost Their Values?” says a lot but it doesn’t have Moore “clearly telling us for whom we should NOT vote”.
In the piece, Moore does write of Trump’s divorces, his bragging about sleeping with some of the “top women of the world,” his casino developments, his business bankruptcies, his defense (until recent years) of abortion, his “slurs against Hispanic immigrants,” his trivializing of religious practices. Which of these do you think Russell Moore should keep quiet about and not mention?
Trump has, of course, added to the list of things evangelicals should find objectionable since this was written back in September.
Bill Mac
The NY Times article asks:
“Have Evangelicals Who Support Trump Lost Their Values?”
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Perhaps what people have always purported to believe doesn’t exactly line up with what they actually believe. Nothing new there. We probably all have a misalignment between what we say we believe and what we actually practice, but Southern Baptists have always made a lot of noise about the morality of the candidates we support, but if we support Trump, we lose any moral authority we have ever had. Period.
Trump hasn’t changed. He’s always been a sideshow, a clown. We were entertained by him because he was on the fringe, and in no danger of winning. So what has changed? He’s no different. It must be us (or at least those who support him). Suddenly the standards have just dropped, and the sideshow has moved to the center ring. People are consoling themselves that at least he’s against abortion, or against gay marriage, or against illegal immigration. But is he? He says he is, but does he have a record? Forget what he is saying: What does his record suggest? Does the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has given to pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-illegal candidates mean nothing to people? It is mind boggling.
Steve, you can’t find Moore telling SBCers how to vote ‘off the top of your head’ because he hasn’t done so. You flatly stated that the ERLC has done so.
As a Southern baptist, I expect ERLC to speak to issues and to provide clarity on candidates’ positions on important issues. We are wasting our money on the organization if they fail to do so.
Rick Patrick
William,
“Which of these do you think Russell Moore should keep quiet about and not mention?”
My concern is not so much that Moore should not have mentioned Trump’s flaws as it is that he should have ALSO mentioned the flaws of Hillary, Bernie, etc. By singling out one candidate, Moore’s thesis of “Don’t vote for this guy or you will have thrown out your values” is indeed clearly perceived as a negative endorsement calling on Christians NOT to vote for Trump.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a negative political advertisement telling Christians they must not be very good Christians if they are willing to entertain a vote for Trump.
You may be correct in that there is not a sentence that LITERALLY states: “Southern Baptist, do not vote for Donald Trump.” Then again, it is clearly inferred or implied or suggested by the tone and tenor of the entire piece.
Bill Mac
Again, the problem is that the SBC is firmly joined at the hip to the Republican party. Moore is reminding us that the R next to a person’s name ought not to be enough to guarantee our support.
Nate
William, Moore denounced Trump’s desire to close the border to Muslim’s until this mess could get sorted out, but he didn’t chastise any other candidates for saying that Syrian refugees shouldn’t be allowed in. Why is that? The title of the article, “Why Christians need to speak out against Donald Trump’s remarks…” Ted Cruz offered a bill to shut down Syrian Refugees to keep Muslims from coming into the country. Where is Moore’s denunciation of Cruz?
Moore is against Trump, but he is the President of the ERLC and should keep his personal politics out of it. If Trump becomes President, will Moore refuse to attempt to work with the President on Religious Liberty issues? He was all smiles meeting Obama, what will he say to Trump should he become President? My Bad! Now, will you help me?
If Moore soft pedals Hil, I’ll be the first to take your point. I think you have a…uh…bit of a bias against Moore but it is fair to say that you think he is unbalanced in his criticism of GOP candidates. The alternative is that there is much more to criticize about Trump than the rest.
steve Swett
I do not feel I have any bias toward R. Moore, I believe I have a difference of opinion with him on political issues. R. Moore stated that the moral majority and J. Falwell were wrong to get so deeply involved in Republican Party politics and the SBC should stay out of politics. I agree with him on that issue, stay out of politics. Now there is a very consistent hard to overlook efforts to sway the Republican Primary from the SBC though the ERLC. As someone so aptly stated in a previous post, what will be the SBC position is Trump wins the Republican primary. Vote for the progressive pro abortion liberal of the party who booed the mention of God in their platform in 2012 election, vote for the terrible Trump or not vote? This whole thread is about is it a sin to not vote. Why would the SBC want to put itself in this position and why not let voters vote their conscience. Personally I believe R. Moore is championing positions that the majority of SBC members would not endorse. The SBC position on illegal aliens is the basically the same as the Democratic Party for example. My own personal opinion is that people of faith would vote on their values and beliefs without being led by any input from the SBC. If I vote for Donald Trump have I lost my Christian values? As Rick Patrick wrote why is the only person in the primary election held to this high standard of examination and attention Trump. I am inarticulate for sure and not use to this medium but I do come here to learn, compare opinions and see why the differences in opinion. Does either Clinton have better Christian values than Trump and if so why? Just a question as I know I will not vote for H. Clinton so of course I have a vested interest in the Republican primary or I will to really ponder the question is it a sin not to vote. I speak and ask questions only for myself, R. Moore speaks and represents the SBC. I have a very limited platform or arena to garner information from knowledge people such as post here. As R. Patrick posted why is SBC money and time being used to become involved in a Republican primary. When you get articles in the New York Times you usually are agreeing with their political and social agenda. All of this is just my opinion and I would appreciate them being rationally challenged, I am slow and that is how I learn. I do believe this presidential election is a crucial tipping point election for the future of America and want to make the best vote I can.
Nate if you are keeping a scorecard, let’s see it. ERLC has weighed in on these issues. I don’t buy your use of “denounced.” Which of Trump’s sins/history/practices would you have Moore not mention?
How do you know this is personal? Have you had a conversation with RM?
steve Swett
How deep do we want the SBC to delve into politics?
Lydia
Les, We started with Gospel dishes and are now discussing Glory of God dishes.
I am not sure we can pull all of that out of 1 Corin 10. I think it is important to include the context and then discuss how that might correlate to us today in a very different culture since we do not deal with such issues. .
I see themes of freedom of conscience in that passage along with not causing another to stumble and seeking the good of many through such actions or non actions.
When it comes to dishes or voting, I would refrain from such an Orwellian interpretation. Unless there is some way to explain how to Glorify God with doing dishes. If one cannot explain how that works, should we assume they are doing Satanic dishes? I would err on the side of freedom of conscience when it comes to dishes and voting which is private and entails freedom of conscience.
Tyler
I was grumbling and annoyed when I made the bed yesterday. Perhaps I should do the mundane chores with gratitude and thankfulness and cheerfulness instead. I want to enjoy God in every aspect of my life, and because of the Gospel I can now.
Really Lydia, this isn’t rocket science. And because you don’t seem interested in representing us rightly, I don’t think this will be a fruitful discussion so I’m going stop responding to your comments. Just not worth it.
Les
Yeah I really don’t see how this is controversial or difficult to understand. The gospel affects all of life. This is a no brainer. The gospel impacts how you and I do our daily routines. DA Carson in The Gospel of Jesus Christ on 1 Cor. 15:1-19:
“This book… repeatedly shows how the gospel rightly works out in the massive transformation of attitudes, morals, relationships, and cultural interactions… Just as Paul found it necessary to hammer away at the outworking of the gospel in every domain of the lives of the Corinthians, so we must do the same today…”
Oh, but see…he’s a Calvinist. See my earlier quotes from non C Dr. Rogers.
Les, you are in error if you believe people are tired of the overused term “Gospel” because Calvinists use it. Everything is not a Gospel issue. To me, and this is my opinion, the reason I do not care for the way the term is overused today is many who “Gospelize” everything come across as promoting their spirituality. Many of the things we call Gospel issues today the heathen, atheist, and criminals are doing. Honestly, is watching MMA to the glory of God a Gospel issue when folk are watching it down at the bar, shooting whisky, gambling on the outcome and using illegal drugs?
I think somewhere in this discussion is a key distinction that we can’t seem to find. I do not know how to say it but some see Gospel issues in everything the Gospel may affect. I think Gospel issues are those things that affect the Gospel. Is voting a Gospel issue? Voting is not a Gospel issue to me. Is religious freedom a Gospel issue? Religious freedom is a Gospel issue because it impacts the Gospel.
I have to finish my lectures for this week so this will be a drive by.
Blessings on you and the orphans, Les,
Dean Stewart
Les
Dean,
The Calvinist reference was really intended for one commenter who ALWAYS makes issues a Cal vs non Cal issue. I may have missed it, but I have never seen her attribute anything good to what comes from a Cal mouth or pen or keyboard.
I get that some are tiring of what seems to be an overuse of “gospel” connected with literally everything. But I don’t think that even if there is an overuse that we need to toss the baby out wth the bathwater.
Seems to me that Dr. Rogers had it right that washing the dishes should be done to God’s glory. He talks in that sermon about what that really means. I think that Paul using that term “whatever you do, do to the glory of God” really does mean everything. What we do matters. What we think matters. What we say matters. When Dr. Rogers talks about worship not ending when we exit the building at noon on Sunday, I think he is right. All of what we do should be ascribing worship…worth…to God our Father. We can wash dishes with a stinking, bitter, ungrateful attitude. Or, we can wash dishes while thanking God that we had food to eat and that we have running water to wash them with, etc. That’a what i think the scriptures are talking about.
As to the gospel affecting all of life and all of our decisions, Dr. Carson IMO is right. “the gospel rightly works out in the massive transformation of attitudes, morals, relationships, and cultural interactions… Just as Paul found it necessary to hammer away at the outworking of the gospel in every domain of the lives of the Corinthians, so we must do the same today…”
I don’t watch MMA. But I plan to watch Alabama vs Clemson tonight. My approach to sports, my heart attitude about sports, etc. should be reflective of the gospel realities in my life. To the extent that I may have anger issues about one team or another or feelings of hate for one coach or another and such are connected to the realities of the gospel. How has and how is the gospel (God’s grace in Christ) working out in my daily living…my thoughts, words, and deeds.
As to voting, I do think voting is a gospel issue in this way. The reality of the gospel (God’s grace in Christ) in my life should have an impact in my life as I pull a lever or check a box in the voting booth. If I choose to vote.
Anyway, God bless and stay warm my brother.
cb scott
“But I plan to watch Alabama vs Clemson tonight. My approach to sports, my heart attitude about sports, etc. should be reflective of the gospel realities in my life.”
Les,
Cheer for BAMA and your heart will be right as the rain.
Louis
What kind of soap is Gospel soap?
“Palmolive? You’re soaking in it.”
Louis
Tyler:
The question is not whether a Trump Presidency would be a nightmare.
The question is how bad and how long would a Trump Presidency nightmare be compared to the nightmare’s caused by the other candidates presidencies.
Les
Louis, respectfully that is a silly comment. Just as silly is this picture.
Count me as a Calvinist-friendly person who thinks the whole gospel-this and gospel-that thing is way overdone, as is peppering our communication with calvi-speak. I don’t think we intentionally glorify God when shaving or eating or any of the ordinary things we do throughout the day, nor do most people think about “enjoying God” when they stir a pot of soup or watch a movie. Most of us, quite frankly, don’t think that way.
God is glorified by who we are, and who we are is demonstrated by what we do.
For the record, I think God is definitely NOT glorified by supporting Donald Trump.
Tarheel
Bill, I se your point that its overdone/taught , but it also true that it is underdone/taught. Certainly, either over or under emphasizing the idea of “doing all to the glory of God” can lead to trivialization, even absurdity – but in my view being accused of over doing perhaps is better than under doing it?
Balance is the key though that we should strive for.
Personally, I too tire of the word gospel being connected to any and everything as almost a trump card. Its like the one who always says “the Lord told me….” to bolster their opinion or get their way.
This may cause a severing of a fault line some place between here and Alabama or might blow up the internet – but I agree with Rick Patrick here – I love the noun use of the word gospel a lot more than its overuse as an adjective. There is a place for its use – but come on….
cb scott
Tarheel,
You could have said you agreed with me. 😉
Tarheel
Easy there – this is new territory for me. Give me grace as I navigate through uncharted waters….LOL
Seriously, though – I saw Rick’s comment the other day and thought – I agree with that…I had not seen your comment until I looked for it after you posted that….
So, I will say that I agree with what you posted on this issue as well. 😉
cb scott
Tarheel,
Thanks for taking that as intended-lighthearted.
I am in a lighthearted mood today. As you may know, this is a holiday in the FOOTBALL Universe. The SEC’s Flagship, BAMA, plays the ACC’s paddle boat, Clemson, in the National Championship tonight, so my heart is extremely light today.
Yet, and seriously, I appreciate your comment and those of Les pertaining to the use of the word “gospel” in our church culture today.
Tarheel
“I am in a lighthearted mood today. As you may know, this is a holiday in the FOOTBALL Universe. The SEC’s Flagship, BAMA, plays the ACC’s paddle boat, Clemson, in the National Championship tonight, so my heart is extremely light today.”
ACC vs. SEC – I am glad it came down to this. I am, of course going to be cheering for the Tigers. I expect a good game.
Our friend, Joel Rainey expects his tigers to be eating elephant meat tonight – while you are confident that your mascot (AKA “Dumbo”) will be nibbling on tiger meat.
We shall see, indeed, we shall see.
😉
cb scott
Tarheel,
You are right. Joel Rainey is Clemson fan.
I have always held Joel in the highest regards and consider him to be exceptionally intelligent and a splendid leader in Baptist life. I simply do not understand his infatuation with Clemson. Especially is it confusing due to the fact that a fine SEC Nation is right there in SC.
Oh well, ROLL TIDE anyway.
Tarheel
Not to be an early chicken counter – as its not over till it’s over – but 3 minutes into second quarter and a team is rolling – but they’re not wearing Crimson….
Dean Stewart
How are those chickens looking now?
You boys just witnessed one of the most dominating football seasons ever by a conference. The SEC is in a league of their own.
Lydia
“Again, the problem is that the SBC is firmly joined at the hip to the Republican party. Moore is reminding us that the R next to a person’s name ought not to be enough to guarantee our support.”
Moore worked for a Democratic congressman who lost to a Republican. I always wondered if it was ideology (the party platform) or opportunity?
Evangelicals as a voting block has not really been that successful since the 80’s. A larger percentage than people realize helped to elect Clinton, twice, along with the third party candidates.
Louis
I really think that Moore made a misstep in being so publicly opposed to Trump. I think it is fine for Moore to objectively criticize Trump, just as he should criticize other candidates.
His misstep, however, is in failing to recognize that many Southern Baptists may vote for Trump, not because they agree with his lifestyle or other issues, but because between the choices they have, they feel that Trump is the better choice.
Someone noted above how little influence and opportunity Moore may have with Trump if Trump is elected.
But we should also note how Moore’s stature will have been reduced among those in the SBC who voted for Trump. Again, if Moore had been more even handed about the thing, he could have criticized Trump and not look so engaged in trying to pick a winner or make a loser.
The only reason Donald Trump has traction is because of his willingness to speak to issues that so many people care about. It seems to me that Moore has missed that. Immigration is a big deal to many people. Moore has staked out a position on that that I do not feel represents the majority of Southern Baptists. I am fine that he has taken the position that he has taken. That is his right. But I have come away with the feeling that sometimes Moore and other Christians really misunderstand and misapply the Bible when it comes to the immigration issue. It’s fine to take one side or the other, but to so clearly invoke that one position is biblical and the other is not is not wise.
Moore favors “comprehensive immigration reform” that well tested, talking point euphemism for “amnesty.”
I believe that a sometimes SBC Voices contributor from Alabama, and past President of the Alabama Baptist Convention, John Killian, asked Moore a really good question at last year’s convention. Killian asked Dr. Moore during the ERLC report how the ERLC could advocate for comprehensive immigration reform if the net effect, as so many believe, is the continued import of unskilled, uneducated people, which Mr. Killian said, harm the existing poor, unskilled, and uneducated who are already in this nation? Many people like this live in the South, and many attend or are closely related to those who attend SBC churches.
Moore’s response, in my view, was not charitable or thoughtful (and I am a Moore supporter). It was really not an answer.
So, while I believe that Moore is sincere, I believe in this instance he has staked out an unwise position, and one that is contrary to the thinking of many in the SBC, and other evangelicals, as well.
I don’t believe that Moore’s objection to Trump is all about immigration, for sure. Moore has other objections, as do many of you. Many are well founded.
But in the end, people make judgments about for whom they will vote. Judgments are not easy things, and they involve comparisons, and the weighing of interests and issues.
Different people will come out differently on this thing.
It is unwise for Moore to have written and spoken in a way that indicates people must make the same judgments that he has made (even if he did not identify a candidate – he cannot do that btw). In so doing, he has set himself against all of those people who make a different judgment than he makes.
He would have been better served to have left some room for people to make different judgments without feeling alienated from the agency they otherwise support.
steve swett
Very well said and you articulated many other peoples thoughts. Thank you for your well reasoned input.
Louis
I just read Steve Swett’s comment. That is exactly what I was talking about.
Shortest article in SBCV history…but far from being the most frivolous.
Not voting is not a sin, since it is nowhere commanded. I could envision voting for a particular candidate being a sin if that candidate is a moral monster.
Bill Mac said “Not voting is not a sin, since it is nowhere commanded.”
I’m not saying your conclusion is wrong, but that cannot be the whole story. Where there are no direct commands, Biblical principles must be applied.
Donald: Agreed, but I think one would be hard pressed to gather enough biblical principles to make voting mandatory.
I agree 100%.
The last few election cycles I have voted “selectively,” meaning I have only voted for candidates and issues that I could do so with a good conscience. I have skipped presidential elections several times.
This last presidential election I left that part blank. I was told by a few (not many) that not voting for Romney was a de facto vote for Obama.
But, I can’t in good conscience hold to the “lesser of two evils” ideology (maybe “lesser of two weevils”–points for the reference!). So if I have conscience objections to a candidate, (s)he will not receive my vote.
What conscience objections did you have with Romney?
Environmental issues, certain positions on gun rights, and the fact that I’m not sold on him actually being solidly pro-life among a few.
And, no, I’m not going to get into a detailed discussion at the moment on the first two items [other than to say the practical implications of my pro-life position (as it’s much broader to me than abortion) don’t allow me to tow the party lines of most conservatives] as that’s not William’s purpose to the question. 🙂
Fine with me. Since It has to with choosing not to vote, I thought was completely in keeping with William’s post. You were the one who brought Romney up, not me. 🙂
Master and Commander
1000 points to you
Love that movie, Andrew.
Braveheart
I think it would be extremely hard to argue biblically that there is only one course of action for this topic. If, for example, we ended up with Trump vs. Clinton:
-Some Christians would feel conscience-compelled to not vote
-Some Christians would feel conscience-compelled to vote for some 3rd party candidate destined to lose.
-Some Christians would feel conscience-compelled to vote for Trump, in order to try to prevent Clinton from taking office.
–Some Christians would feel conscience-compelled to vote for Hillary, in order to keep Trump from taking office.
I would be hard-pressed to find a biblical argument against any of them.
I vote in favor of this absolutely awesome answer by Andy Williams.
This would be my answer.
“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matt 22:21 [NIV]
I’ve used the text many times in regard to our duty as citizens; however, we aren’t required by law to vote. Jews were required to pay the tax; hence, Jesus’ pithy command.
It’s clearly a sin not to pay your taxes, then? (I’m stifling my disdain in order to stir myself to write the US Treasury their quarterly check due next week.)
Here’s a representative example:
“I am concerned about prayer movements to save our country that do not emphasis repentance. And I am suspect of any repentance that does not acknowledge the sin of Christians being disengaged in the political process (registering to vote, voting, running for office, petitioning the Government with grievances, teaching on moral and social issues).”
I might make a distinction between a Christian feeling conscience-compelled not to vote *in a particular election race* versus a Christian who NEVER participates in the political process in any way at all.
Disengaging completely seems to be the abandonment of a freedom and responsibility many died to preserve for us. If applied by Christians universally, it would logically leave the decision-making of our nation totally in the hands of the ungodly—which hardly seems wise or just.
By the way, who is the author of the quote?
Mike Griffin, the Georgia Baptist staff lobbyist, former pastor and failed (he lost) politician. He once testified before the Georgia legislature that he speaks for 1.4 million Georgia Baptists.
I see you avoid the term “sin” in favor of other descriptions for the non-engaged Christian: unwise, [un]just, by implication irresponsible, etc.
No, no, no, and possibly
I was going to leave that exact same answer.
I bet you were Rich…
I would say no, not voting is not a sin. But, the folks who are saying neglecting to vote is not a de facto vote for the other person, are just wrong. Simply put, if you don’t vote against Hillary and she wins, you are at least partially responsible for her being elected. There is a such thing as culpable neglect. Further, every one coming on here and talking about not wanting to participate in choosing the lesser of two evils need to simply burn their voter registration, because that has always been the choice before us.
When election day gets here the only two viable choices are GOP or Democrat. And if you neglect to vote for one, or at least against one, you voted for whomever wins. That is just a fact.
Bill Mac, if what you said is true about it being a sin to vote for a moral monster, what would neglecting to vote against him/her be?
“But, the folks who are saying neglecting to vote is not a de facto vote for the other person, are just wrong.”
Mathematically, they are not equal, and it might be closer to being worth about half a vote for the other person…ie:
For simplicity let’s say all republicans vote for trump, and he gets 110 votes. Clinton gets 91 votes. Now let’s say instead that 10 of those people abstain from voting for trump. He still wins by 9 votes. However if they had voted for Clinton, she would win, 101-100.
That’s all. 😉
You speak as if the election was determined by popular vote, but it is not. The presidential election is based on the electoral college. I live in Texas, in which Romney beat Obama 57% to 41%. It made no difference to the outcome of the election whether I voted or not. In 2016, the Republican candidate will almost certainly win Texas. The election will be determined in states like Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Nevada. Those are the votes that really count.
Living in rural Texas, I can see from this map how little influence I really have. It is all about the big cities on the coasts.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/election-margins.jpeg
John: I see your point, and I agree that if there is a better option it would be prudent to vote against the moral monster. In this particular case it is my opinion that the choice could well be between two moral monsters and unlike others I cannot decide which is worse, so I would not vote for either of them. I know people think that Trump would be better than Clinton but I don’t agree. The bottom line is that while I do think Clinton is a moral monster, I don’t think she’s unhinged, and I think Trump is.
An attitude like that keeps the status quo and nothing ever changes. No reason for one party to actually reinvent itself or for a new party to rise (it’s happened before, we used to have presidents who were Whigs) if the attitude is, “I’m voting the Republican because he’s not the Democrat” or visa versa.
It’s a fallacy, logical and otherwise, to say, “If you didn’t vote for R then your vote was a vote for D even if you voted for X.”
No Sir,
The logical fallacy is to believe that when you do nothing you are not culpabale. You worried about Romney’s commitment to the pro life cause and so you guaranteed that we elected a president with whom there was no doubt about his pro choice position. Asinine
No matter how you cut it “Not A, therefore B” doesn’t work when “Not B.”
Nothing in the Bible speaks directly to voting in a democratic republic. But it does speak directly to violating one’s conscience being sin.
You might think my conscience needs tweaked, that’s one thing; but as I said earlier: to vote for Romney would have been such a violation for me, maybe not as much as for Obama or the Green Party candidate, but a violation nonetheless.
So yeah, I’m not going to do something that I know for me would be sin just to satisfy those who think I should have done the opposite.
And Mike Bergman,
If you would do a little research you would know that a third party candidate is not a viable choice. A number of states do not allow for a third party choice and those votes aren’t even counted. Those states eliminate enough electoral votes that they make it literally an impossibility for a third party candidate to be president of the United States. So the choice currently is R or D, period.
I don’t think that logic flies. Take it out of the realm of politics.
If an intruder broke into your house and said, “Either kill your wife or your only child OR I’ll make the decision for you” and if you chose neither, the guilt is not on you for not choosing one of two evils. The guilt is on the one(s) who have put this choice before you.
Mike,
Your logic is called a straw man, designed to bring hyperbole to the situation. That is not at all the same.
Aye, call it what you will. Though I don’t think straw man is the correct logical fallacy. Perhaps its the logical fallacy where you evoke Hitler to make a point. But I still think my point stands. If someone puts you in a position to choose the lesser of two evils you are not morally culpable if you refuse to choose–the one who put you in that position would be morally culpable.
It’s not the same at all.
John, if limiting the discussion to having to choose the lesser of two Evils, taking it to the extreme is where clarity begins and Mike’s example is valid. The argument for TLOTEs is bad, and I don’t think you need to argue for that premise in order to make an argument for voting. When is it ever right for a Christian to do Evil in order to avoid sinning?
John: When it comes to talking about politics, you really get ugly. Think. Not voting makes us responsible for nothing. I could actually think of worse than Obama for President. Trump for example.
As we have pointed out the last several years, name any Republican President who has stopped abortion? It is still legal isn’t it?
Debbie,
Insofar as my being ugly when it comes to politics, I have regularly found your comments offensive. It is obvious that you and I rub each other the wrong way, I see no need in us offending each other further.
Well I don’t want to be ugly here. But as far as abortion, yes it is still legal. Fact is no one branch of government has unilateral authority (or at least is not supposed to per the constitution).
But, a president committed to truly restricting the killing of babies by any legal means available CAN veto Democratic controlled and passed legislation designed to expand the killing of babies. Through legal EOs he can reduce the killing of babies and he can affect the national conversation which could lead to the reduction of the killing of babies.
On the other hand, we could have a Dem president and a Dem controlled congress and they would have free reign to increase the killing of babies and get us to pay for them.
So there’s that.
John said “The logical fallacy is to believe that when you do nothing you are not culpable.”
Actually, the fallacy is believing that “not voting” is equal to “doing nothing”.
An historical example would be an Englishman Abjuring the realm. (In England the oath of abjuration is an oath by which an Englishman binds himself not to acknowledge any right in the Pretender to the throne of England.)
In America, it might mean being very active but being unable to vote “for” a candidate.
The right thing to do.
I want to add something about only voting for Democrats or Republicans and the “lesser of two evils” discussion. I don’t think we’ve considered all the facts.
Jeff mentions the electoral process. A lot of folks don’t think about this (and I will add that I agree with the concept of electoral college and election by states rather than direct popular vote). I have not voted for the Republican candidate in the last several presidential elections, choosing instead someone in a “third party” that I have a closer agreement with. But in terms of electoral votes, for example, it would not have mattered whether I or 100,000 more folks had voted for the Republican candidate. They got all the electoral votes either way (Disclaimer: every state is not a “winner take all” electoral situation).
In helping elect the winner when you didn’t vote for him or her we should also consider folks offsetting our “wasting our vote” by also “wasting their vote” — for example, a liberal voting for the Green Party candidate instead of the Democrat.
But here is an example on something I think has not been considered. About 35 years ago, while still a young man, my wife and I made the decision to stop voting in the Democratic primary and vote as Republicans instead. This was a decision that including “wasting our votes” for a number of years. How? In this way. Our small voting precinct had about 200 registered voters, of which maybe 5 or 6 voted Republican. Our county was still a traditionally Democrat county. Everyone who was running for county offices was running as a Democrat. So, say, if 5 men were running for sheriff in the Democratic primary, we had no vote, no say, in who would be the sheriff of our county. By the time the general election rolled around, it had already been decided by the Democrats and there was only one candidate left. A lot of people used this as their reason to stay in the Democratic Party — and the reason we should come back to it. BUT, we were not looking at a single election. We were looking at building a county party and platform from the roots up. Today, we are a solid Republican county. Almost none dare to run as Democrats. If we had not determined to “waste our votes” and stayed over the course of a number of years — instead just kept voting Democratic — this could never have been accomplished.
Similarly, if no one chooses to challenge the status quo and always keeps propping up the two well-established parties, things will never change. So I see voting for a third party as a process and a way forward to better political possibilities in the future. If you are comfortable choosing the lesser of two evils, I respect that and even understand. I’ve been there and done that. But don’t tell me I’m wasting my vote. I have a reason for and outlook toward the future in doing what I am doing.
John Quincy Adams said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.”
Jeff:
You are right. Most pundits consider FL and OH to really be the heavy hitting swing states to watch. That is because they are believed to be very close in terms of either going to DEM or REP column and at the same time they have a fairly large number of electoral votes.
Most states with a larger number of electoral votes are generally not considered to be “in play”. Absent some radical departure from the norm, they will likely stay in either the REP or DEM column as per the trend in the last several decades. Included in this is NY, CA etc.
If my home state of OK goes democratic it would be a shock of Titanic proportion.
No Republican has ever been elected President without winning Ohio. They won it in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, & 2004. They lost it in 1992, 1996, 2008, & 2012.
Electoral votes are determined by the popular votes in each state.
But if you look at electoral college maps from recent elections, you will notice that many of the same states keep voting the same ways. The Democrats haven’t won Texas since 1976 and are very unlikely to win it in the future. Romney beat Obama by nearly 1.3 million votes in Texas, but would have won Texas if he beat him by only 50,000. In the general election for President, candidates don’t even come to Texas, except for fundraising purposes. They know that Texas is that solidly Republican (if a Republican was losing in Texas, he would probably be losing badly everywhere else). For all practical purposes, my vote simply is not as important as the vote of somebody living in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or Colorado.
Jeff,
Just because those states keep voting the same way in no way means that your vote doesn’t count. People still have to vote for those electoral votes to be counted.
In current day politics it is more about party than candidate. Today the left is anti-God and pro sin (abortion, gay marriage). If you do not vote to the “right”, I believe you are therefore promoting, or at the very least, allowing these platforms of the “left.
So the left is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. Both decidedly unbiblical ideals. The right is anti-poor and pro-corporate corruption. How is one superior to the other?
Hogwash!
Some on both sides are both.
We should be accurate.
The left is in favor of abortion rights. But they also pay tribute to those who perform abortions in terms of money, support etc.
The left is in favor or recognizing Gay Marriage.
The right is not anti-poor. Where in the Sam Hill? The right believes in a reduced role of government in poverty relief. One can disagree with whether the poor are better off etc.
Pro-corporate corruption, the right? Are you kidding me.
Politicians of all stripes protect their supporters, corporate and otherwise. Dems are protecting a large non-profit corp and its corruption – Planned Parenthood. And the Dems are the ones who used public money to bailout GM and others from their financial mismanagement, and wasted billions of dollars in “green energy” schemes in the last 7 years alone.
Republicans also protect the corporations that are friendly to them.
But it is patently ridiculous to say that the “right” is in favor of corporate corruption.
Ryan,
“So the left is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. Both decidedly unbiblical ideals. The right is anti-poor and pro-corporate corruption. How is one superior to the other?”
Can you help me out by showing where/how the right is against the poor and is for corporate corruption? Is it in their party platform like the left has for baby killing in their party platform?
Thanks.
Les beat me to that one.
“Pro corporate corruption”?
Who’s “for” that?
“Anti poor”?
Who hates the poor?
The abortion stance is becoming an excuse. A poor one at that. Donald Trump has said nothing about abortion so we don’t really know his stance do we?
Donald Trump is pro-life according to his interview with CNN, but he is for exceptions which would allow abortions such as rape etc. So is he pro-life as in line with Southern Baptists? Christians?
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/08/11/donald-trump-interview-part-two-interview-newday.cnn
Problem is – until he started running for the Republican nomination for president when spoke to the issue of abortion he identified himself as pro-choice.
Since we are self governed, I believe we will be held accountable for the moral decline in this country if we don’t do the one thing we all can do to fight the decline and vote. When I read how the kings of Israel “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”, God was not pleased.
In my mind, we the people are the kings of this country so I would be responsible for the resulting sin if I didn’t use the only power I have to stop it even if my only choice is less than perfect.
Yes, if I don’t vote, I believe I am sinning.
Well then I am going to be sinning, because I will not vote if the choice for Republican is Trump.
Do you all really think he is going to give up his business to be President? Nope. Too much money at stake and don’t forget he is in really hot water with the UK. Many have signed a petition to not let him in.
Debbie, I bielieve I already stated what I really believe and I based it on what I believe to be obodience to God. I know there is no clear guidance in scripture on this topic which is why my answer about whether or not it’s sinful was limited to myself. What a bunch of godless socialist buffoons in the UK care about has no bearing on the question or my beliefs. If you can convince me with scripture that I’m wrong, please do so.
Ken: I believe the burden would fall on you to convince me that I am wrong using scripture.
It’s common sense I think. To vote for someone like Donald Trump is beyond reason in my opinion. I can’t fathom why a Christian would do so. I can understand a non-Christian, but a Christian? I just don’t understand.
The situation in the UK matters to me because it shows what a ruthless businessman Trump is. I think that’s pretty obvious. I can’t vote for a candidate just because they have an R in front of their name. Being a woman, the way he speaks about women is beyond my conscience. He’s been married a few times with more on the way I am sure. He flaunts how much he’s worth so we won’t forget he has the power.
No matter what evidence shows Trump to be no better than the ones you would vote against, you still stick with your stance. This anything to not get a Democrat in the house is mind boggling to me. Put an R in front of anyone’s name and they get the vote, which is why they do it.
Unfortunately, there is not going to be another Reagan anytime soon.
Debbie,
Do you believe a Christian could feel consience-bound to vote for Trump, in order to keep Clinton out of office, and do so without sinning?
Or do you think anyone who votes for trump over clinton has sinned, and should have not voted?
I don’t know if it is sin Andrew. It’s just beyond my comprehension why any one, especially a Christian would vote that way.
No.
No.
But failing to be involved in the process of government inasmuch as we are permitted is to miss an opportunity to make it better to share the gospel in the country. That also provides the onus for studying church history diligently and learning what political environments have contributed most to the spread of the gospel.
Debbie Kaufman:
Martin Luther is supposed to have said that he would vote for a competent Turk (Muslim) over an incompetent Christian.
The point is that one has to weigh the choices we are given.
As a Christian, I could vote for anyone – depending on who is on the other side.
So, before I declare who I will or won’t vote for, I want to know what my choices are, and vote based on the comparison.
It would be neither Christian nor anti-Christian to vote for or not vote for Trump.
Louis: Martin Luther did not say that quote.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/08/luthers-wise-turk-quote-that-he-didnt-say/
There are many other sources as well.
Secondly: Trump is not the better candidate. He is not a competent candidate. The lesser of two evils argument has already been shown to be a failure next to scripture.
Debbie:
I really appreciate the correction and reference.
At least I said, “was reported to have said”. I guess the guy who reported that is a dope.
Martin Luther did not say it.
But I have said it.
So, you may quote me. Or I may quote myself.
Many people disagree with you about Trump. Some believe that Trump is a better candidate than Sanders, than O’Malley, than Hillary, than Bush and so on.
When you say that Trump is not the better candidate – to whom are you referring?
At this point, is it not patently inaccurate to say that Trump is not a competent candidate?
His competency in being a candidate is unmatched. He came into the race as a political novice, has spent very little of his own money, has forced the media to cover him, has dominated the discussion (even the President was addressing Trump last night in the State of the Union), has been attacked by the Press, the Democrats, almost all of the other Republican candidates, and some religious figures such as Dr. Moore.
But he leads in the polls.
Therefore, he is objectively competent at running for President. He is a competent candidate.
I am sure that you what mean is that he has no demonstrated history/competency in many of the issues that the President is expected to address.
I do not disagree with you there.
But the question is whether he can take his known competency (high end, complicated real estate transactions and negotiations) and translate that to political questions.
I am old enough to have voted for Reagan in 1980, and heard some of the same things about him. The same things were said about Clinton and Obama.
But we are admittedly on a different playing field with this guy.
A friend who is not from this country recently said to me that U.S. politics is becoming more and more like the politics in Italy and other countries where people from all professions run (e.g. business people, prostitutes, movie stars).
It seems to me that the U.S. is progressing in that direction.
Didn’t JayZ or somebody like that say they were running in 2020?
I can tell you that if George Clooney or Tom Brady ran, they could be strong candidates.
Still, I cannot agree with you or Dr. Moore that we need to be telling people it is wrong or inconsistent with the Christian faith to vote for Donald Trump.
Again, these are questions of judgment that we all are not going to agree on.
I agree with you Louis and I assume that D. Kaufman meant that Trump was not qualified or competent to be elected President if he gets the nomination. Surely to question the competency and ability of a candidate who has spent peanuts versus the rest of the field to have gained and maintained the lead this long is just letting emotion trump fact. I do not agree or voted for President Obama but he was a brilliant campaigner and a skilled politician however he is not a competent leader for the nation. So sometimes we all let emotion overrule fact. My opinion is that at least 60 to 70 percent of Southern Baptist laymen will consider to or will vote for Trump. Dr. Moore has influence within the rarified circles he moves in but he average SBC member will not care about Dr. Moore’s opinions when they are so obviously biased, I certainly do not. I agree with Louis that this will ultimately lead to a lost of influence for the SBC leadership if the general SBC membership is even aware of Dr. Moore’s position. So to tie in with this topic the leadership of the SBC should leave the voting decisions up the discernment of the general membership. I believe of the ERLC is getting into a slippery slope of being actively involved. To tie in with the subject of this thread, are we not to vote if Trump is the Republican choice and if I do am I violating my Christian values or should I just not vote.
Not a sin then…but maybe not the best citizenship?
Anecdotal, but I see more among us who have stopped salivating when the religious politicos ring the ‘take back our country’ bell.
It is not a sin to Not Vote.
However, if you don’t vote and then write a blog about the President that gets elected (or comment about the President that gets elected) there ought to be an Electric Shock that zaps your fingers as you type.
Maybe the question should have been asked, “If I don’t vote can I still complain about the President without sinning?”
The “American Way” gives us the right to complain even if we don’t vote. It’s called freedom of speech.
Biblically, we probably should do more praying and less complaining.
Is it a sin for a denominational employee, supported by the tithes and offerings of said denomination’s faithful donors, to use one’s platform in a manner constantly harping and complaining about one party’s immoral candidate without ever writing or speaking a single word of rebuke concerning the ethical failures of the other party’s immoral candidate?
Yes, it is. It not only shows bias and imbalance on the part of the employee, but for all practical purposes, it turns the religious contributions of many of the faithful donors into political donations for the opposite party, since they are financially subsidizing the promotion of a political campaign they oppose.
Sin? Nah.
I think you are highly biased in your opinion here…but not sinful.
Non-criticism is not promotion.
You may not agree with it, but it is easy to see why the ERLC is criticizing Trump. Trump is the very antithesis of everything Southern Baptists purport to believe, and yet many of them seem enamored of him. Moore is not trying to “promote” Clinton. He’s trying to steer Southern Baptists away from Trump toward someone less odious to oppose Clinton. How much criticism of Clinton do you see on Southern Baptist blogs, including this one? Not a lot, because what is the point? People here are not likely to vote for Clinton (unless, in some cases, Trump is her opponent).
I’m just wondering if we’re not getting boxed into a corner here. Suppose it does turn out to be Trump-Clinton.
How exactly does Moore want us to express our opposition to Trump at that juncture? There will be only three options available to us:
A. Vote for Clinton.
B. Vote for a Write-In or Third Party.
C. Don’t Vote.
None of these are any more appealing to me than voting for Trump would be.
I understand your distinction that non-criticism is not the same as promotion, but at some point, Moore will have to do better than, “Just don’t vote for the Donald.” What DOES he think we should do?
When you see people running towards a cliff, you can’t worry about the other cliffs they might run off in the future. You’ve got to save them from the one in front of you.
Since this is an issue relating to a person’s freedom of conscience and there is no dictate of scripture;
If your conscience allows you to vote for Donald Trump, not vote for Trump, to vote for a third party or not, to not vote at all if he’s the nominee – whatever – hold your head up and follow your conscience.
Neither “side” should judge/condemn the other (and that is hard for all of us) and neither side should compel the other.
Further, on this issue, and the other one in the other thread, It’s also important I think to point out that we likely will have difficulty seeing and understanding the other “sides” conscience freedoms.
We’ve just got to be careful to respect each other’s convictions and not to dictate our conscience convictions upon another. (I wish I did a better job at this.)
I would like to add a question to the good question that William has presented to us. Scripture teaches us to be
subject to the governing authorities, to honor and pray for those in authority. I assume we all agree. However, the nation we live in is very different from the Roman empire and other nations of history. The Constitution begins with “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Here is my question: Do the people of the United States (the citizens) not have the ultimate power and influence? It appears to me that we have the biggest responsibility and, in some sense, the most authority to make changes. Granted, it is difficult to make changes and voting is just one way to influence. But who really has the ultimate authority in the United States of America?
To choose not to participate in any form of politics could be very healthy, but it could be a missed opportunity for being salt, light, and evangelistic.
To not vote is in my opinion better than to vote blindly. But the design of our nation requires participation by the citizenry for it to function and choosing not to provide that leadership of one essentially contributes to the kinds of problems we see.
We need men and women of character to both participate and pray for our local (municipal as well as county/parish), state, and federal governments. Asking if it’s a sin distracts from the importance of the opportunity.
I asked because one of our denominational employees said it was sin. Such neither diminishes nor enhances any opportunity to participate in politics. If anything, the sin label in this context diminishes biblical teaching on sin.
It is not a sin to abstain from voting, though I believe it is unwise in most cases.
There are almost always policy and other differences between candidates that would allow one to make an informed choice between them.
How one votes in usually not an act of sin, though it could be. If one were actually casting a vote for a candidate set upon doing evil, and the vote was a desire to assist in the commission of evil. But be careful. In my view that would have to be extremely obvious and intentional. Not – the candidates policies would lead to evil (e.g. not voting for higher taxes, more open immigration policies etc.) Policy choices and consequences are not evil, in my view, except in very rare circumstances. It would be silly to say, for example, that every person who votes for a person who favors abortion rights or so-called gay marriage is doing evil.
But if a candidate said, “Vote for me, and we will assault the capitol, burn it down, and kill all of the people in Birmingham.” That would be evil.
The other policy differences really have to do with a difference in conscience.
Louis, thanks for your comments. Always thoughtful. You said,
” It would be silly to say, for example, that every person who votes for a person who favors abortion rights or so-called gay marriage is doing evil.”
Respectfully I would have to disagree. If a candidate publicly expresses, for instance, the support for continuing or expanding the killing of babies, then to assist that person to obtain office (and the consequent power) IMO would be assisting the killing of babies…an obvious sin.
I suspect there are those who comment here would argue that a candidate who expresses the support for and intention to implement policies that would restrict the human rights of African Americans in some way would call a vote for said candidate a sin. Same if a candidate said he intends to set policy that would result in infanticide or assisted suicide.
I have watched all of the angst in come evangelical quarters about Trump.
In my view, the reaction among some is an overreaction.
I have seen some chest thumping in some quarters about how Trump is awful, evil, and Christians should not vote for him.
Trump and Clinton may not be my candidates. But anyone trying to discern a difference between them and their policies should not have much difficulty. Voting for either would not be sinful, nor would abstaining (though I continue to believe that to be unwise).
If those are the final two candidates, I will have no trouble evaluating between the two and making a choice.
Voting is a lot like voir dire in a jury trial.
The lawyers can’t “pick a jury.” The box is filled when you get there. You can eliminate some bad apples, but that’s all. It’s a limited type of selection.
And so it is with voting.
It is wrong headed of us to always expect that we will have at least one candidate who is virtuous and for whom we can enthusiastically vote.
Assuming that there are meaningful policy differences, it is unwise for us to cast away the little influence that we have because neither measure up to some sort of standard we think we have.
Cue Larnelle Harris rendition of “A-MEN!”
“It is wrong headed of us to always expect that we will have at least one candidate who is virtuous and for whom we can enthusiastically vote.”
I’m not sure you can find any president who fits your description. I can’t think of one President who was Virtuous, except perhaps George Washington since he voluntarily only served 2 terms and only reluctantly even took the position.
The rest of the list of Presidents are all flawed. Some more than others, but none I would have considered “virtuous”.
This is not a case of wanting steak, and settling for a burger. This is a case of wanting steak, being willing to settle for a burger, but ending up with a choice of two different types of roadkill.
“In my view, the reaction among some is an overreaction.”
Truth! Granted, overreaction is still reacting to something that may be totally valid. It does seem over-done when Trump is called the most evil person to come along in a long time.
William
I think one cancels out the other. You said it is a sin not to vote, and it’s a sin to vote for the wrong candidate.
http://www.bpnews.net/46114/trump-candidacy-stirs-debate-among-evangelicals
Land is right: Why vote for Trump in the PRIMARY season? (Land said nothing about the General Election.)
Jeffress and Cole are right as well.
Moore’s does not appear to be the majority view among Southern Baptists.
Why am I not surprised that Trump is speaking at Liberty this month? God help us.
As for Moore being in the minority view, I don’t find that to be a problem at all. It was one boy that saw the Emperor had no clothes and a whole crowd swore he did.
Why am I also not surprised that Falwell’s favorite candidates are Trump, Cruz and Carson?
And since Robert Jeffress would be comfortable having Trump for President, I stand even stronger in my opinion of voting for Trump. It gives me credence that I am seeing things properly.
Debbie…I was thinking the same exact thing. His little rant (during a church service no less!) about refugees and Trump was not the best.
Why am I not surprised that Debbie bashed Rick’s comment three times in 8 minutes. lol.
SBCVoices would be infinitely less interesting without Debbie Kaufman. Love ya’ Deb!
Lol. In the mean time she bashed the comments of like 4 other men too, lol.
“the Emperor had no clothes and a whole crowd swore he did.”
Debbie Kaufman,
I think the story goes that the “whole crowd” said nothing. They ignored the nakedness of the king and refused to deal with the shame among them.
They must have all been Southern Baptist preachers.
Who cares if Moore is not the majority of view of Southern Baptist? (Which I don’t think is true. Most, if not all, of my SBC friends I know personally will not vote for Trump even if it comes down to him). If the majority of SBC people voted for Hillary I still would not vote for Hillary. Lets not commit a majority fallacy.
And it doesn’t surprise me about Jeffress support for Trump even before the primary…not one bit.
“And it doesn’t surprise me about Jeffress support for Trump even before the primary…not one bit.”
Me neither, and just reinforces my decision to have nothing to do with Trump.
Exactly. I just hope that people who watch Fox News know he does not represent all of Evangelicalism.
What does electing a President have to do with the Gospel? How is this a Gospel issue? How is voting for Trump, or Hillary, or Cruz, or anyone else, who is running for President, a Gospel issue? It’s not. It’s just plain old politics.
Reminds me of Richard Land’s leadership in the ERLC.
I will be voting for Carson in the TN Primary, if he’s still around. If he’s not, I’ll be voting for Cruz. And, if the election does turn into a Trump vs. Hillary, then I’ll be voting for the candidate that’s not pro abortion, pro homosexual, pro big Govt and higher taxes. I’ll be voting for the candidate, whose party didn’t vote God out of their platform. So, while I’m no fan of Trump, I will not be voting for any baby killing, anti gun, higher taxes person.
As a Christian, I will vote for Trump over Hillary for all the above reasons.
David
“In sum, to affirm something is or is not a gospel issue is not a transparent expression. It is likely to be clearest among those who share a common confession as to what the gospel is. It is useful only when it means something more stringent than that X can be tied in some way to the gospel: one must show that without this X the gospel itself is seriously threatened. And it is always wise to recognize that some topics are hugely important on grounds other than gospel issues and that our choice of topics is generated in part by our perception of the threats and errors of our own age.” – D. A. Carson
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-are-gospel-issues
I think classifying certain things as “gospel” issues and other things as “not gospel issues” is problematic, subjective and without biblical basis.
It can also be used to manipulate people into accepting an entirely different set of social and cultural issues. The “social” gospel, for example, can be pushed through that opening.
I love the “noun” gospel so much more than the “adjective” gospel.
Everything is a gospel issue in that everything should be thought through and responded to IN LIGHT of the of the Gospel. That is what people mean when they say “Gospel Issue.” Everything is effected by the Gospel. How I do the dishes, how I treat my wife, how I vote…The Gospel effects every part of our lives. I’m not sure why this is such a controversial issue.
“How I do the dishes, how I treat my wife, how I vote…The Gospel effects every part of our lives. I’m not sure why this is such a controversial issue.”
Is there a way to make Gospel buttermilk buscuits? I have been tasked to bring some to a brunch.
When all words mean the same thing, no words mean anything.
When the word “gospel,” which seems to be a favorite word for many people in the American Church Culture to use as an adjective rather than a noun today, means everything, it loses its biblical meaning.
It reminds me of what happened to the term “born-again” back in the 1970’s.
Lydia, do you do everything to the glory of God? Eat and drink? Maybe that doesn’t include buttermilk.
CB, no one would disagree with you.
The gospel literally effects everything.
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Gospel Preaching” is about the only adjective use of Gospel that I go for.
David , excellent points and where will that leave Dr. Moore and the ERLC board. Will they not vote?
“Lydia, do you do everything to the glory of God? Eat and drink? Maybe that doesn’t include buttermilk.”
Maybe if you explain how to do Gospel dishes I will get it. My better half suggested that loading knife handles up might be part of it. :o)
I take it you are referring to 1 Cor 10? I assure you I do not buy flour that has been sacrificed to idols. :o)
Lydia, maybe Adrian Rogers can help you out here:
“Now, verse 16 speaks of worship, but verse 17 is still speaking of worship. That means our worship does not end when we leave these doors and go out there into the world. We take our worship with us. And, when we come to church, we don’t merely come to church to worship; we bring our worship with us to church. We bring our worship to church. Real worship—please listen to this, because if you don’t, you’re going to miss the point of the whole message—real worship involves all of life. Real worship involves all of life—everyday, every place, whatever we do we do in the name of Jesus. Because, what is worship? Worship is doing things in the name of Jesus, doing “all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Colossians 3:17). So, that takes worship, and it adds worship to every area of life.
What is worship? Worship is doing everything in the name of Jesus, and giving God thanks. And, why? Why would I call that worship? Well, let me ask you a question: What is worship? Would you not say that worship is glorifying God? Hmm? Say yes. Okay, worship is glorifying God. Then, your work ought to glorify God; your friendships ought to glorify God; your banking ought to glorify God; your recreation ought to glorify God. And, if those things glorify God, then those things are worship.
Adrian does, everything that you do, ought to glorify God, “that God in all things might be glorified.” Now, if God is being glorified in all things that I do, then all things that I do are worship, because worship is glorifying God. Are you following me?
Now, you might think I’m trivializing worship. I am not trivializing worship. What I am doing is magnifying our daily life, Monday-morning religion. Somebody wrote these words: “They’re praising God on Sunday, but they’ll be all right on Monday. It’s just a little habit they’ve acquired.” No, no, no. You see, we bring our worship to church. We carry our worship with us. And, when we get outside the doors of this church, we’re still worshipping. Let me give you another verse. Listen to this one; it is a key verse in all of the Bible—1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 31—listen to it: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). Now, boy, that’s going to eliminate some things, isn’t it? “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Listen to what he says here: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). That means your dinner is to be an act of worship, and washing the dishes after dinner is to be an act of worship. Somebody told me that Mrs. Billy Graham has a sign over her kitchen sink that says, “Divine services held here three times a day”—washing dishes to the glory of God—whatever you do. Now, listen. This is not Adrian; this is Paul: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). Again, 1 Peter 4:11: “that God in all things may be glorified.””
From a sermon All in the Name of Jesus
So wash those dishes to the glory of God…whatever you do…just like the scriptures say.
Amen Les. Amen. Good word from Adrian Rogers.
This discussion is getting into the weeds. As Rick Patrick alluded when we use words routinely and loosely they lose their true relevance and meaning. Any message and interpretation can be carried to the extreme. Are we so legalistic and focused on concepts and minutely defined specifics we will lose people with our obsession to split interpretative hairs. We should glorify God with our lives, so this would encompass all actions we do. However I do not glorify God when I tie my shoes, put on my pants and brush my teeth. I do these things I can go out and live a life that does glorify God and bear a good witness for Christ. Why , does this involve a dictionary lesson on what should be a common sense understanding of glorifying God. The topic at hand is it a sin not to vote and what role should being a witnessing Christian play when we vote. Should we not vote for Trump based on the ERLC criteria of his actions? Would a pro abortion, not strong on religious liberty candidate be the better choice or are we mandated not to vote if we have this choice. I think that is the topic. Again, our lives, our purpose is to worship and glorify God not with routine mundane necessary actions but with purpose, deeds and lives.
Steve, no one would disagree with you. But we don’t worship God with mundane actions, but IN mundane actions. With purpose.
I’m actually really surprised people are disagreeing with this concept.
No, we shouldn’t need the ERLC to understand the nightmare candidate that Trump is. Today Trump suggests that part of the weakening of America is because football isn’t as violent as it used to be. A muslim woman was ejected from one of his rallies for, wait for it, standing up.
Yep. Don’t need the ERLC to understand that Trumps presidency would be a nightmare.
So we agree we do not need ERLC to tell us who to vote for then the question now is why is the ERLC obsessed with Trump? Why get involved in a primary election when there is a chance that Trump might be the one is on the ballot versus Clinton? If we do not need the ERLC to understand Trump would be a nightmare the distain for Trump. 70 to 80 percent of Southern Baptist will vote for Trump, they just are not aware of the position of the ERLC. Stay out of politics. People of faith will vote their conscience without being told who is the choice of the ERLC.
Steve, I’ll agree that you have no idea what you are talking about. Put some quotes up where Moore or anyone at the ERLC has or is telling us for whom to vote.
When I look at the official blog and twitter account of Russell Moore it is full of anti Trump information, opinions and links to anti Trump information. Has Moore come out and said do not vote for Trump, no he has not but it is pretty clear, at least to me he is opposed to Trump. I have no problem if that is the position of the SBC leadership and they want to help form opinion however Dr. Moore stated very clearly he was opposed the moral majority foray into politics. I do not think anyone who has followed the President of the ERLC would doubt he is firmly opposed to Trump which is his personal right however he does speak for the SBC and is trying to influence events. Is the SBC in or out of politics? I am concerned as previous post have mentioned, what will be the position if Trump is the GOP pick, should we vote for Clinton, vote for Trump or as the discussion started with not vote at all. I just see a problem when SBC leadership tip toes into politics. No quotes I can give off the top of my head but I believe the support in the ERLC is for Rubio. Do you think Moore in neutral in his opinions of the GOP field? I am new to this and appreciate the postings, good insight and polite exchange of opinions with a sprinkle of humor thrown in. I do appreciate having to rethink my own opinions and thoughts due to many of the postings here. It is a learning experience that I am grateful for.
William,
“Put up some quotes…where Moore…is telling us for whom to vote.”
Well, at least he is clearly telling us for whom we should NOT vote with this article:
http://nyti.ms/1FQjaLi
Rick, your link to the NY Times op-ed by Moore, “Have Evangelicals Who Support Trump Lost Their Values?” says a lot but it doesn’t have Moore “clearly telling us for whom we should NOT vote”.
In the piece, Moore does write of Trump’s divorces, his bragging about sleeping with some of the “top women of the world,” his casino developments, his business bankruptcies, his defense (until recent years) of abortion, his “slurs against Hispanic immigrants,” his trivializing of religious practices. Which of these do you think Russell Moore should keep quiet about and not mention?
Trump has, of course, added to the list of things evangelicals should find objectionable since this was written back in September.
The NY Times article asks:
“Have Evangelicals Who Support Trump Lost Their Values?”
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Perhaps what people have always purported to believe doesn’t exactly line up with what they actually believe. Nothing new there. We probably all have a misalignment between what we say we believe and what we actually practice, but Southern Baptists have always made a lot of noise about the morality of the candidates we support, but if we support Trump, we lose any moral authority we have ever had. Period.
Trump hasn’t changed. He’s always been a sideshow, a clown. We were entertained by him because he was on the fringe, and in no danger of winning. So what has changed? He’s no different. It must be us (or at least those who support him). Suddenly the standards have just dropped, and the sideshow has moved to the center ring. People are consoling themselves that at least he’s against abortion, or against gay marriage, or against illegal immigration. But is he? He says he is, but does he have a record? Forget what he is saying: What does his record suggest? Does the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has given to pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-illegal candidates mean nothing to people? It is mind boggling.
Steve, you can’t find Moore telling SBCers how to vote ‘off the top of your head’ because he hasn’t done so. You flatly stated that the ERLC has done so.
As a Southern baptist, I expect ERLC to speak to issues and to provide clarity on candidates’ positions on important issues. We are wasting our money on the organization if they fail to do so.
William,
“Which of these do you think Russell Moore should keep quiet about and not mention?”
My concern is not so much that Moore should not have mentioned Trump’s flaws as it is that he should have ALSO mentioned the flaws of Hillary, Bernie, etc. By singling out one candidate, Moore’s thesis of “Don’t vote for this guy or you will have thrown out your values” is indeed clearly perceived as a negative endorsement calling on Christians NOT to vote for Trump.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a negative political advertisement telling Christians they must not be very good Christians if they are willing to entertain a vote for Trump.
You may be correct in that there is not a sentence that LITERALLY states: “Southern Baptist, do not vote for Donald Trump.” Then again, it is clearly inferred or implied or suggested by the tone and tenor of the entire piece.
Again, the problem is that the SBC is firmly joined at the hip to the Republican party. Moore is reminding us that the R next to a person’s name ought not to be enough to guarantee our support.
William, Moore denounced Trump’s desire to close the border to Muslim’s until this mess could get sorted out, but he didn’t chastise any other candidates for saying that Syrian refugees shouldn’t be allowed in. Why is that? The title of the article, “Why Christians need to speak out against Donald Trump’s remarks…” Ted Cruz offered a bill to shut down Syrian Refugees to keep Muslims from coming into the country. Where is Moore’s denunciation of Cruz?
Moore is against Trump, but he is the President of the ERLC and should keep his personal politics out of it. If Trump becomes President, will Moore refuse to attempt to work with the President on Religious Liberty issues? He was all smiles meeting Obama, what will he say to Trump should he become President? My Bad! Now, will you help me?
If Moore soft pedals Hil, I’ll be the first to take your point. I think you have a…uh…bit of a bias against Moore but it is fair to say that you think he is unbalanced in his criticism of GOP candidates. The alternative is that there is much more to criticize about Trump than the rest.
I do not feel I have any bias toward R. Moore, I believe I have a difference of opinion with him on political issues. R. Moore stated that the moral majority and J. Falwell were wrong to get so deeply involved in Republican Party politics and the SBC should stay out of politics. I agree with him on that issue, stay out of politics. Now there is a very consistent hard to overlook efforts to sway the Republican Primary from the SBC though the ERLC. As someone so aptly stated in a previous post, what will be the SBC position is Trump wins the Republican primary. Vote for the progressive pro abortion liberal of the party who booed the mention of God in their platform in 2012 election, vote for the terrible Trump or not vote? This whole thread is about is it a sin to not vote. Why would the SBC want to put itself in this position and why not let voters vote their conscience. Personally I believe R. Moore is championing positions that the majority of SBC members would not endorse. The SBC position on illegal aliens is the basically the same as the Democratic Party for example. My own personal opinion is that people of faith would vote on their values and beliefs without being led by any input from the SBC. If I vote for Donald Trump have I lost my Christian values? As Rick Patrick wrote why is the only person in the primary election held to this high standard of examination and attention Trump. I am inarticulate for sure and not use to this medium but I do come here to learn, compare opinions and see why the differences in opinion. Does either Clinton have better Christian values than Trump and if so why? Just a question as I know I will not vote for H. Clinton so of course I have a vested interest in the Republican primary or I will to really ponder the question is it a sin not to vote. I speak and ask questions only for myself, R. Moore speaks and represents the SBC. I have a very limited platform or arena to garner information from knowledge people such as post here. As R. Patrick posted why is SBC money and time being used to become involved in a Republican primary. When you get articles in the New York Times you usually are agreeing with their political and social agenda. All of this is just my opinion and I would appreciate them being rationally challenged, I am slow and that is how I learn. I do believe this presidential election is a crucial tipping point election for the future of America and want to make the best vote I can.
Nate if you are keeping a scorecard, let’s see it. ERLC has weighed in on these issues. I don’t buy your use of “denounced.” Which of Trump’s sins/history/practices would you have Moore not mention?
How do you know this is personal? Have you had a conversation with RM?
How deep do we want the SBC to delve into politics?
Les, We started with Gospel dishes and are now discussing Glory of God dishes.
I am not sure we can pull all of that out of 1 Corin 10. I think it is important to include the context and then discuss how that might correlate to us today in a very different culture since we do not deal with such issues. .
I see themes of freedom of conscience in that passage along with not causing another to stumble and seeking the good of many through such actions or non actions.
When it comes to dishes or voting, I would refrain from such an Orwellian interpretation. Unless there is some way to explain how to Glorify God with doing dishes. If one cannot explain how that works, should we assume they are doing Satanic dishes? I would err on the side of freedom of conscience when it comes to dishes and voting which is private and entails freedom of conscience.
I was grumbling and annoyed when I made the bed yesterday. Perhaps I should do the mundane chores with gratitude and thankfulness and cheerfulness instead. I want to enjoy God in every aspect of my life, and because of the Gospel I can now.
Really Lydia, this isn’t rocket science. And because you don’t seem interested in representing us rightly, I don’t think this will be a fruitful discussion so I’m going stop responding to your comments. Just not worth it.
Yeah I really don’t see how this is controversial or difficult to understand. The gospel affects all of life. This is a no brainer. The gospel impacts how you and I do our daily routines. DA Carson in The Gospel of Jesus Christ on 1 Cor. 15:1-19:
“This book… repeatedly shows how the gospel rightly works out in the massive transformation of attitudes, morals, relationships, and cultural interactions… Just as Paul found it necessary to hammer away at the outworking of the gospel in every domain of the lives of the Corinthians, so we must do the same today…”
Oh, but see…he’s a Calvinist. See my earlier quotes from non C Dr. Rogers.
Les, you are in error if you believe people are tired of the overused term “Gospel” because Calvinists use it. Everything is not a Gospel issue. To me, and this is my opinion, the reason I do not care for the way the term is overused today is many who “Gospelize” everything come across as promoting their spirituality. Many of the things we call Gospel issues today the heathen, atheist, and criminals are doing. Honestly, is watching MMA to the glory of God a Gospel issue when folk are watching it down at the bar, shooting whisky, gambling on the outcome and using illegal drugs?
I think somewhere in this discussion is a key distinction that we can’t seem to find. I do not know how to say it but some see Gospel issues in everything the Gospel may affect. I think Gospel issues are those things that affect the Gospel. Is voting a Gospel issue? Voting is not a Gospel issue to me. Is religious freedom a Gospel issue? Religious freedom is a Gospel issue because it impacts the Gospel.
I have to finish my lectures for this week so this will be a drive by.
Blessings on you and the orphans, Les,
Dean Stewart
Dean,
The Calvinist reference was really intended for one commenter who ALWAYS makes issues a Cal vs non Cal issue. I may have missed it, but I have never seen her attribute anything good to what comes from a Cal mouth or pen or keyboard.
I get that some are tiring of what seems to be an overuse of “gospel” connected with literally everything. But I don’t think that even if there is an overuse that we need to toss the baby out wth the bathwater.
Seems to me that Dr. Rogers had it right that washing the dishes should be done to God’s glory. He talks in that sermon about what that really means. I think that Paul using that term “whatever you do, do to the glory of God” really does mean everything. What we do matters. What we think matters. What we say matters. When Dr. Rogers talks about worship not ending when we exit the building at noon on Sunday, I think he is right. All of what we do should be ascribing worship…worth…to God our Father. We can wash dishes with a stinking, bitter, ungrateful attitude. Or, we can wash dishes while thanking God that we had food to eat and that we have running water to wash them with, etc. That’a what i think the scriptures are talking about.
As to the gospel affecting all of life and all of our decisions, Dr. Carson IMO is right. “the gospel rightly works out in the massive transformation of attitudes, morals, relationships, and cultural interactions… Just as Paul found it necessary to hammer away at the outworking of the gospel in every domain of the lives of the Corinthians, so we must do the same today…”
I don’t watch MMA. But I plan to watch Alabama vs Clemson tonight. My approach to sports, my heart attitude about sports, etc. should be reflective of the gospel realities in my life. To the extent that I may have anger issues about one team or another or feelings of hate for one coach or another and such are connected to the realities of the gospel. How has and how is the gospel (God’s grace in Christ) working out in my daily living…my thoughts, words, and deeds.
As to voting, I do think voting is a gospel issue in this way. The reality of the gospel (God’s grace in Christ) in my life should have an impact in my life as I pull a lever or check a box in the voting booth. If I choose to vote.
Anyway, God bless and stay warm my brother.
“But I plan to watch Alabama vs Clemson tonight. My approach to sports, my heart attitude about sports, etc. should be reflective of the gospel realities in my life.”
Les,
Cheer for BAMA and your heart will be right as the rain.
What kind of soap is Gospel soap?
“Palmolive? You’re soaking in it.”
Tyler:
The question is not whether a Trump Presidency would be a nightmare.
The question is how bad and how long would a Trump Presidency nightmare be compared to the nightmare’s caused by the other candidates presidencies.
Louis, respectfully that is a silly comment. Just as silly is this picture.
http://www.marcicoombs.com/2011/11/repentance-handout.html
Count me as a Calvinist-friendly person who thinks the whole gospel-this and gospel-that thing is way overdone, as is peppering our communication with calvi-speak. I don’t think we intentionally glorify God when shaving or eating or any of the ordinary things we do throughout the day, nor do most people think about “enjoying God” when they stir a pot of soup or watch a movie. Most of us, quite frankly, don’t think that way.
God is glorified by who we are, and who we are is demonstrated by what we do.
For the record, I think God is definitely NOT glorified by supporting Donald Trump.
Bill, I se your point that its overdone/taught , but it also true that it is underdone/taught. Certainly, either over or under emphasizing the idea of “doing all to the glory of God” can lead to trivialization, even absurdity – but in my view being accused of over doing perhaps is better than under doing it?
Balance is the key though that we should strive for.
Personally, I too tire of the word gospel being connected to any and everything as almost a trump card. Its like the one who always says “the Lord told me….” to bolster their opinion or get their way.
This may cause a severing of a fault line some place between here and Alabama or might blow up the internet – but I agree with Rick Patrick here – I love the noun use of the word gospel a lot more than its overuse as an adjective. There is a place for its use – but come on….
Tarheel,
You could have said you agreed with me. 😉
Easy there – this is new territory for me. Give me grace as I navigate through uncharted waters….LOL
Seriously, though – I saw Rick’s comment the other day and thought – I agree with that…I had not seen your comment until I looked for it after you posted that….
So, I will say that I agree with what you posted on this issue as well. 😉
Tarheel,
Thanks for taking that as intended-lighthearted.
I am in a lighthearted mood today. As you may know, this is a holiday in the FOOTBALL Universe. The SEC’s Flagship, BAMA, plays the ACC’s paddle boat, Clemson, in the National Championship tonight, so my heart is extremely light today.
Yet, and seriously, I appreciate your comment and those of Les pertaining to the use of the word “gospel” in our church culture today.
“I am in a lighthearted mood today. As you may know, this is a holiday in the FOOTBALL Universe. The SEC’s Flagship, BAMA, plays the ACC’s paddle boat, Clemson, in the National Championship tonight, so my heart is extremely light today.”
ACC vs. SEC – I am glad it came down to this. I am, of course going to be cheering for the Tigers. I expect a good game.
Our friend, Joel Rainey expects his tigers to be eating elephant meat tonight – while you are confident that your mascot (AKA “Dumbo”) will be nibbling on tiger meat.
We shall see, indeed, we shall see.
😉
Tarheel,
You are right. Joel Rainey is Clemson fan.
I have always held Joel in the highest regards and consider him to be exceptionally intelligent and a splendid leader in Baptist life. I simply do not understand his infatuation with Clemson. Especially is it confusing due to the fact that a fine SEC Nation is right there in SC.
Oh well, ROLL TIDE anyway.
Not to be an early chicken counter – as its not over till it’s over – but 3 minutes into second quarter and a team is rolling – but they’re not wearing Crimson….
How are those chickens looking now?
You boys just witnessed one of the most dominating football seasons ever by a conference. The SEC is in a league of their own.
“Again, the problem is that the SBC is firmly joined at the hip to the Republican party. Moore is reminding us that the R next to a person’s name ought not to be enough to guarantee our support.”
Moore worked for a Democratic congressman who lost to a Republican. I always wondered if it was ideology (the party platform) or opportunity?
Evangelicals as a voting block has not really been that successful since the 80’s. A larger percentage than people realize helped to elect Clinton, twice, along with the third party candidates.
I really think that Moore made a misstep in being so publicly opposed to Trump. I think it is fine for Moore to objectively criticize Trump, just as he should criticize other candidates.
His misstep, however, is in failing to recognize that many Southern Baptists may vote for Trump, not because they agree with his lifestyle or other issues, but because between the choices they have, they feel that Trump is the better choice.
Someone noted above how little influence and opportunity Moore may have with Trump if Trump is elected.
But we should also note how Moore’s stature will have been reduced among those in the SBC who voted for Trump. Again, if Moore had been more even handed about the thing, he could have criticized Trump and not look so engaged in trying to pick a winner or make a loser.
The only reason Donald Trump has traction is because of his willingness to speak to issues that so many people care about. It seems to me that Moore has missed that. Immigration is a big deal to many people. Moore has staked out a position on that that I do not feel represents the majority of Southern Baptists. I am fine that he has taken the position that he has taken. That is his right. But I have come away with the feeling that sometimes Moore and other Christians really misunderstand and misapply the Bible when it comes to the immigration issue. It’s fine to take one side or the other, but to so clearly invoke that one position is biblical and the other is not is not wise.
Moore favors “comprehensive immigration reform” that well tested, talking point euphemism for “amnesty.”
I believe that a sometimes SBC Voices contributor from Alabama, and past President of the Alabama Baptist Convention, John Killian, asked Moore a really good question at last year’s convention. Killian asked Dr. Moore during the ERLC report how the ERLC could advocate for comprehensive immigration reform if the net effect, as so many believe, is the continued import of unskilled, uneducated people, which Mr. Killian said, harm the existing poor, unskilled, and uneducated who are already in this nation? Many people like this live in the South, and many attend or are closely related to those who attend SBC churches.
Moore’s response, in my view, was not charitable or thoughtful (and I am a Moore supporter). It was really not an answer.
So, while I believe that Moore is sincere, I believe in this instance he has staked out an unwise position, and one that is contrary to the thinking of many in the SBC, and other evangelicals, as well.
I don’t believe that Moore’s objection to Trump is all about immigration, for sure. Moore has other objections, as do many of you. Many are well founded.
But in the end, people make judgments about for whom they will vote. Judgments are not easy things, and they involve comparisons, and the weighing of interests and issues.
Different people will come out differently on this thing.
It is unwise for Moore to have written and spoken in a way that indicates people must make the same judgments that he has made (even if he did not identify a candidate – he cannot do that btw). In so doing, he has set himself against all of those people who make a different judgment than he makes.
He would have been better served to have left some room for people to make different judgments without feeling alienated from the agency they otherwise support.
Very well said and you articulated many other peoples thoughts. Thank you for your well reasoned input.
I just read Steve Swett’s comment. That is exactly what I was talking about.