The Social Gospel?

[JonC]

But what you seem to overlook is that we will also be held accountable for our inaction.

I understand that you have your reasons for not casting a vote, I have been tempted to do the same more than once.

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)?

 

[Silverhair]

No, you are confused here and unfortunately have resorted to sin. Each Christian needs to pray and follow their conscious. That is why I refuse to tell other Christians to abstain from voting (here I am explaining why I abstain). I desire to avoid the sin you have committed.

The reason you make an error is the philosophy you choose (utility, or utility of outcome). This is a practical but unbiblical philosophy.

Those who follow their conscious by not supporting a "lesser evil" are not supporting the "greater evil". If you read the life of Jesus in the gospel accounts you would, undoubtedly, accused Jesus of supporting evil.

We are accountable for our support, not for things we don't support. As a Christian I believe I am called to resist these powers of darkness and to stand on His Word.

What sin have I resorted to Jon? I have to disagree with you on the following one's conscience. If the apostles had done that rather than follow God where would we be. I am saying that Christians should stand against evil in whatever way they can.

It is not philosophy but rather whether one chooses to follow God or the world. Scripture tells us we will be held accountable for all our actions.

I am not trying to guilt you into voting but I do want you to think. Since you do not vote if evil wins you will be able to say "I did not vote for that" but then again you did not vote to stop it either. The fact you did nothing to stop it is the action that you will be judged for.

You say that you are called to resist the powers of darkness and yet you do not vote so as to resist the evil that one party wants to unleash on the unborn and children. Your stand does confuse me.

 

[Silverhair]

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)?

From a personal point of view it is not a vote for Trump but a vote to resist the evil of Harris.

I can not cast a vote either way as I live in Canada and have seen what the left can do. Trudeau has tried to sell unicorns and rainbows to the Canadian public for 10 years and has just about brought this country to its' knees. The US has the opportunity to avoid this but if they squander this chance it will not come around again.

 

[JonC]

What sin have I resorted to Jon?

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.

 

[JonC]

From a personal point of view it is not a vote for Trump but a vote to resist the evil of Harris.

I can not cast a vote either way as I live in Canada and have seen what the left can do. Trudeau has tried to sell unicorns and rainbows to the Canadian public for 10 years and has just about brought this country to its' knees. The US has the opportunity to avoid this but if they squander this chance it will not come around again.

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)?

 

[Silverhair]

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.

I have noticed that many times people will resort to philosophy as a cover. I prefer to live in the real world. In this case it comes down to will one stand against evil or will one just stand by. Now which choice one decides is the evil is up to the person but to do nothing is effectively to do something.

Whether one chooses to act or not act is not a matter of philosophy I see it as a matter of moral compass.

I find that philosophers live in the what if but their what if does not actually translate that well. Take your example of Hitler, and no one could have know what his future would be. We can only look back and say "if only".

I have heard versions of the runaway train before, but thanks for sparing me. But even that one, as I see it, comes down to a moral choice.

Take the case of the assassination attempts on Trump. You could say it was a philosophical choice but in the end it is really a moral choice.

 

[Silverhair]

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)?

When you say the "lesser evil" what parts of Trumps' platform do you consider evil?

As for Harris, her support for transgender surgery etc for minors. Her stance on abortion. Those alone would be enough for me not to vote for her.

But as I said before I have lived with the mad rush of the left and seen the result of it firsthand.

 

[JonC]

I have noticed that many times people will resort to philosophy as a cover. ice.

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.

 

[JonC]

When you say the "lesser evil" what parts of Trumps' platform do you consider evil?

As for Harris, her support for transgender surgery etc for minors. Her stance on abortion. Those alone would be enough for me not to vote for her.

But as I said before I have lived with the mad rush of the left and seen the result of it firsthand.

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.

 

[JonC]

I see the claim was made that I might be advocating that Christians should "join" the world forces of darkness." But here is my quote.
"Did I ignore that we struggle against the "world forces of darkness?"

Why would anyone make such an obviously false claim? Go figure.

[I see an additional post to suggest I said we must become evil. One false claim after another, for no good reason....}

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.

 

[Silverhair]

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 understand what you are saying but in the end it still comes down do you do what you can to resist the greater evil?

To stand by and do nothing because it fits your moral philosophy has to be held up to your Christian duty.

I can say with out a doubt that I do not agree with all that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said and wants to do but I strongly disagree with what our present leader is doing and supports. Neither man is without their failings but you have to resist the greater problem if you expect to see a better future.

Yes we are responsible for our actions, in this case not voting. By not casting a vote for a flawed person that presents an option of a better future is in essence supporting the present flawed person.

Not resisting the greater evil is still supporting the greater evil. You have it within your power to help effect a change.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

We will never find a political party that aligns with the Kingdom of God. They are all in the world.

Have you ever noticed that a candle that is not lit gives no light. We are to be those lit candles, the salt but if we just stand aside and do nothing to resist the evil of this world we are neither.

If we have no one stand in the breach. Evil will win.

My dad taught me that if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

 

[JonC]

I understand what you are saying but in the end it still comes down do you do what you can to resist the greater evil?

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.

 

[JonC]

If we have no one stand in the breach. Evil will win.

My dad taught me that if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

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.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

No we are not talking past each other. I understand where you are coming from I just do not think you are right in how you are dealing with evil. You seem to have developed a shelter in place mindset when we are told, as you said, to Resist the devil. Others my not be aware of either the devil or God in their lives. We as Christians are to be that light that salt. When one stands back and lets evil have a clear track they are no better than those that support the evil. Both are supporting it, one by their action and one by their inaction.

I am not under the allusion that I will change your mind on this but it is good that we can have this discussion.

 

[JonC]

No we are not talking past each other. I understand where you are coming from I just do not think you are right in how you are dealing with evil. You seem to have developed a shelter in place mindset when we are told, as you said, to Resist the devil. Others my not be aware of either the devil or God in their lives. We as Christians are to be that light that salt. When one stands back and lets evil have a clear track they are no better than those that support the evil. Both are supporting it, one by their action and one by their inaction.

I am not under the allusion that I will change your mind on this but it is good that we can have this discussion.

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 am not under the allusion that I will change your mind on this but it is good that we can have this discussion.

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?

 

[Silverhair]

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.

To bring some clarity to this. I agree that neither party has the moral high ground. If you may recall I pointed to the political mess we have here in Canada. When you see your open border and question it just realize that from a population perspective you do not have a problem compared to Canada. Trudeau has opened the border up to anyone and it has caused untold problems.

Trudeau came to power in 2015 population 29 million 2024 population 41 million difference 12 million or a 41 % increase.

USA 2015 population 320 million 2024 345 million difference 25 million or a 7.8% increase.

I have had to endure the effects of the Liberal policies and I see those same policies in your Democrat party. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away

Perhaps you are right and we should just stand back and let the world go by but I am sure there are millions of your fellow Americans that a grateful that Wilberforce in England and Lincoln did not just stand back.

 

[JonC]

To bring some clarity to this. I agree that neither party has the moral high ground. If you may recall I pointed to the political mess we have here in Canada. When you see your open border and question it just realize that from a population perspective you do not have a problem compared to Canada. Trudeau has opened the border up to anyone and it has caused untold problems.

Trudeau came to power in 2015 population 29 million 2024 population 41 million difference 12 million or a 41 % increase.

USA 2015 population 320 million 2024 345 million difference 25 million or a 7.8% increase.

I have had to endure the effects of the Liberal policies and I see those same policies in your Democrat party. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away

Perhaps you are right and we should just stand back and let the world go by but I am sure there are millions of your fellow Americans that a grateful that Wilberforce in England and Lincoln did not just stand back.

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):

When one stands back and lets evil have a clear track they are no better than those that support the evil. Both are supporting it, one by their action and one by their inaction.

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?

 

[sdcoyote]

JonC.

I understand (and mostly agree) with many of your arguments.

I ask you this, however. Our state has a "legalizing abortion" constitutional amendment on the ballot this cycle. I am going to vote this year simply to vote against that.

I think that is one instance where doing nothing is doing evil. Would you not agree?

 

[JonC]

JonC.

I understand (and mostly agree) with many of your arguments.

I ask you this, however. Our state has a "legalizing abortion" constitutional amendment on the ballot this cycle. I am going to vote this year simply to vote against that.

I think that is one instance where doing nothing is doing evil. Would you not agree?

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).