The Social Gospel?

We will be held accountable for our inaction insofar as what we are instructed to do.

Are we instructed to support evil with our voice if it is the lesser evil? Maybe, but I am not persuaded that is the case.

I think of all the actions Jesus could have taken to overturn the secular government. He took none. In fact, when challenged (Jews thought that is what He would do, many hoped for it) He corrected them.

I think of the early church. They had opportunities to participate in their secular government. They refused and were called unpatriotic for it (even a dangerous to Rome because of it).

I understand that you are planning to vote for Trump. I would much rather see Trump elected as well.



To help me understand your reasons for supporting the GOP, what exactly do you hope to accomplish (what policies, insofar as strengthening the Kingdom, do you think your support will usher in)?

 

I may have misunderstood you.

You are wrong about philosophy, though.


The idea of supporting a lesser evil to prevent a greater is a classic example of utilitarian philosophy. You may not have realized you were using it, but you were. It is related to consequentialism.


The old example is going back to kill Hitler as a child. One answer is if you had that opportunity you are obligated to do so in order to save millions. Another answer is you are responsible for your actions, not consequences, therefore you would not kill a child.

The longer version is about a runaway train. I'll spare you that one 'cause I like you.

These philosophicies are not necessarily right or wrong. They do explain different ways of legitimately viewing ethical issues, and many documents prove unbiblical.

 

In the US we do not have a negative vote. The only way to harm the election of one candidate is to support another.

What moral part of Harris' platform would cause you to support a "lesser evil" (if you could)?

 

You misunderstand.

I am not talking about resorting to philosophy but philosophy in its real sence. I am talking about the way we view right and wrong in terms of action.

We can't resort to it because it describes our thought process. Both of our methods of determining right or wrong are philosophical. But they differ.


On politics you subscribe to what is called utilitarian philosophy. It is better to vote for a lesser evil. Not voting is supporting the other candidate. We are accountable for what we do not do.

Whether something is right or wrong is dependent on the outcome or consequences of that action.


Mine is moral philosophy. Supporting a lesser evil is supporting evil. We are responsible for our actions, not the outcome of those actions.

Actions are right or wrong independent of their outcome. It is wrong to kill a child even if we knew that child would grow up to be a murderer. That kinda thinking.



Both are within the arena of moral choices because We are talking about ethics. Both are "in the real world".

I have found many resort to shying away from discussing how they arrive at a conclusion because that is philosophy and they think it somehow a "bad word". It isn't. In this context it simply means how we think about things.

 

I'm not the one who introduced the term. I do not know of any part of his platform that is evil.

By definition both parties fall into the category of "powers of this age", "forces of darkness", "the World".

There is no part of Trump's platform that aligns with the Kingdom of God either. It is secular. He supports allowing abortion at a federal level. He supports transgender rights.


I also would never support Harris. Her platform is demonic, and openly so.


Have you ever lit a candle in the dark, like at a birthday party, and noticed how brightly it shines compared to when lit in an office surrounded by artificial light sources?

I believe that we are responsible for our actions, and that our actions carry a moral element in themselves. God controls the outcome. That is why I cannot vote.

 

Interesting.

How do we struggle against the "world forces of darkness"?

Seems like we have two options suggested:

1. Become a part of the "world forces of darkness" that we view as a "lesser evil" or compatible with Christianity.

2. Put on the "armor of God", remain a holy people separated to God, and "light" and "salt".


I was wondering exactly how you believe that supporting one party in secular politics advances the kingdom of God.

 

I agree. But I have a feeling we may be talking past one another. Before we continue I want to make sure we are not.

When I say "resist evil" I mean it defensively (don't let evil take seed in your life or the congregation).

I am starting to think you mean "resist evil" offensively (do your best to not allow evil to exist in the World).

God tells us how to respond in both cases:

Matthew 5:39 in the Bible states, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also".

James 4 also mentions resisting evil, stating, "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you."


What do I do to resist evil? I convict sin in my own life and support my brethren in their lives. I resist temptation, resist the Devil, "put on the armor of God" and come near to Him.

What do I do to resist evil occurring in the World? I do not judge the World as it is already condemned (1 Corinthians 5). I turn the other cheek.

 

I hope my last post made sence (that we may have been talking past one another...using "resist" differently).

To the last two points:

1. Christ has already stood in the breach. Evil will not win.

BUT I do want you know what you hope to accomplish by supporting "the lesser evil" for the Kingdom of God. I think that is important.


2. I am not speaking of not being a part of the solution. I am saying we are only truly a part of the solution when we remain a holy people separated from the World (in, but not of, the World). It is not up to us to discover a solution for what has already been resolved.


Right now you are suggesting supporting a platform that will not ban abortion to combat another that will not ban abortion. You are talking about supporting a platform that has a large gay-transgender following to combat another with the same.

Why? To make the nation look more moral than it is? To put better clothing on a wolf?

I simply do not know what it is you are trying to accomplish for the secular world here.

 

Yes, I do believe we seek shelter in God and simply obey Him.

What I am asking you is exactly how supporting a secular party that seeks to keep abortion legal at the federal level, is composed of and supported by gay-transgender communities, is actually being salt and light?

I do not understand the kingdom work you are trying to accomplish. That is my question.


For my part, I am participating in the body of Christ without partnering with abortion and gay-transgender communities. We assist women in options other than abortion, we feed the poor, and we share the gospel.

I stand against evil. I actively resist evil. Not only in my life but by warning others of the evil they let in and fail to resist for the illusion they are fighting a greater evil. It is all the same. And the Way is far more narrow than many will permit.

From my position many Christians I talk to today look exactly like any Republican regardless of faith. They are no longer salt and light, but are indistinguishable from any atheist Republican. They appear to have put their hands to the plow and looked back, to have allowed the concerns of a world already condemned to choke out that which had initially sprung up in them.

I cannot resist the greater evil and ignore the lesser evil.

I agree. And it is a discussion that should be had.


So back to my question - how is supporting the GOP doing God's work?

 

I believe that God raises up governments. I am grateful for many things God has done. I am grateful I am a citizen here as well.

I do want to point out this comment (I missed up my last post which meant to address it):

I do not think you intended it, but this is the argument Roman pagains used against Christians around 250AD. Christians could vote (for senators) and hold office, but they refused. If you are interested you can read the Christian response in Contra Celsum. Christians abstained from politics until Rome made Christianity the official religion (and made politicians "Christian").

Anyway, you list several things that I am concerned with....but these are political. The church has existed in all types of governments (they shined the most in oppressive governments).

What you did not list is a readon a Christian voting for the GOP is doing God's work. As a believer we do not look after our own interests or comforts. We rejoice in persecutions- not seeking it but joyful we are counted worthy.


God tells us not to turn to the concerns of the World. How is becoming involved in world politics not doing exactly that which we write commanded to abstain from doing??


I have asked this several times of several members, but nobody has offered an answer - how is supporting the GOP doing God's work?

 

I voted in every election I could up to now. Abortion was my deciding factor. So I get it. In this case I'd vote for an ammendment. But I wouldn't say it'd be evil to abstain. I'm going to answer why in two posts (this on on my personal reasoning, the next one why it wouldn't be evil to abstain).

You are right that voting for an ammendment is different. It isn't supporting those powers we spoke of. So there is a distinction difference.

But I still wouldn'r say its vlear cut. I say this for a few reasons.

First, when we look at Jesus life and work we do not see any action or words of condemnation against the government or secular culture. But many of the things we are concerned about were occurring (to include abortion).

Second, we can't legislate morality. I get protecting children, but I sm not sure that laws against abortion will actually make a difference. Abortions would be performed illegally, or women will simply go to another state.

Third, it remains a matter of conscious (just like supporting secular politics).

I am going to post an illustration (I'm going to reply to you twice here). The reason is we are talking about philosophy (about ethics and a classic debate).