It sounds like David is suggesting church leaders take a "politically agnostic" position on specific candidates, recognizing God's plan might be bigger than one candidate's platform. I assume if you really believe that, you have to demonstrate that publicly.

So should "political agnosticism" become the church's public stance? And does that mean asking Obama supporters to cover their t-shirts and Palin supporters to leave the tubes of lipstick at home?

Many of the "issues" that separate people on the political spectrum are simply different ways of addressing problems. Both parties want people to have health care, but they propose two vastly different ways. Both parties want good schools for kids, but they propose two vastly different ways. There are very few "solutions" to social issues specifically mentioned Scripture, which leaves much to personal preference, and makes the solution very murky.

What we need to do is look at the issues where there are direct Scriptural references, which are often life issues. Abortion, death penalty, war - each of these are mentioned in Scripture and each is an issue where the contrast between parties isn't methodology but "yes, we want it" or "no, we don't". We would all agree that a Christian should not support a party which explictly encouraged marital unfaithfulness or the direct killing of the elderly and feeble. The challenge is to think are there other issues that are not a matter of "how we do it" but "whether or not we do it"

He's not asking for political agnostism. He is asking for people to allow their congregation to make up their own minds.

By the way he is completely right about geography making a bigger difference than theology. That is a big point. If theologically conservative congregations seem to have radically different political positions depending on their geography, then it may be that it is not the theology that is driving the politics, but the geography. If that is the case, then he is right that we should not be preaching politics from the pulpit because it is not really theology that is being preached but geographic ideology. It just happens that evangelicals tend to be primarily from the suburbs. If you poll evangelicals from the city you get a wildly different political perspective.

"then it may be that it is not the theology that is driving the politics, but the geography."

Of course, our reading of the scriptures is influenced both by the traditional hermeneutical tools of bible 'study' AND by the location of our study.

Study the words of the prophets in a safe, secure, well lit suburban street and contrast it with the same reading in a badly lit, deprived, unsafe inner city neighbourhood.

Where we read the bible profoundly influences our interpretation. Mostly though we're not conscious of it.

Maybe we have a case of people being more in love with the different worlds around them. I mean, don't forget that, though the people are in similar churches, they are not in similar "worlds", and not everything they get from those worlds is going to be drawing them in the same direction. People who live in the suburbs are less likely to be concerned with the poor or uninsured when it means their personal accounts take a hit, and people in a city won't be as concerned with various aspects of morality when it means being chided by their multicultural peers. You know, just for the sake of argument.

Awesome Pastor David!

Is it political party affiliation or Biblical values that should determine who we vote for? Is it not our responsibility to defend those that cannot defend themselves - like the unborn. Can we really claim the name of Chrisitanity and our actions prove contrary. Don't just talk the talk - walk the walk and yes that means voting for the candidate that will better represent our Chrristian values. If you need a reminder of what those values should be go to the source - THe Word of God!
A good reminder from that source is Proverbs 29:2 which states, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules the people groan." (NKJV) It is our responsibility to check out each candidates values and morals and base our decsions on how they align with the Word of God not our personal preference.

I think Adam and Glenn are tracking with my point: our location matters a great deal when it comes to our politics, perhaps as much or more than our theology. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it should be realized. When Rhonda writes that we ought to vote for the candidate that will better represent our Christian values, it is important to notice how her geography impacts her understanding of what makes a value Christian.

Perhaps our best shot at a holistic political theology would involve conversations with Christians who hold similar beliefs but whose politics and neighborhoods are different from our own.

Rhonda,

The problem is that no candidate will completely represent biblical values. Any political party, and the candidates that represent them, may represent a Kingdom of God perspective on certain issues - but none fully represents the Kingdom of God. Hence the problem with proclaiming one particular candidate as THE candidate Christians should vote for. Of course we need to bring the biblical text into our political decisions - but please recognize that no candidate or party will ever live up to the biblical standard.

Chris makes an excellent point as well - often the Bible does not give a definitive answer on particular political issues, even though it certainly has something to say about any decision we make. Many Christians draw different conclusions from the biblical text regarding how to address various issues. This is even true with the issue of abortion - there is an increasing number of Christians who believe that abortion is a terrible evil but don't agree on the best way of addressing the problem.

Interesting, except most of the church-going metro-Chicago suburbanites I know are also pro-Obama. But there is definitely that tension between the 'religeous right' and the independant/left-ish voters who pledge allegiance to the Gospel. Great insight. Thanks.

Christian and Political.
A.W. Tozer Stated, "The evil habit of seeking God-and effectively prevents us from finding God in full revelation. In the and lies out great woe. If we omit the and we shall soon find God, and in Him we shall find that for which we have all our lives been secretly longing."The Pursuit of God, page 18.

God is waiting for us to seek him before all else, He waits for the and to fail us, so we will seek Him. Help me, Oh Light of the World to pursue you before all else.

"Is it political party affiliation or Biblical values that should determine who we vote for? Is it not our responsibility to defend those that cannot defend themselves - like the unborn."

Hmm, tipping your hand a wee bit there in your opening statement, aren't you?

"Don't just talk the talk - walk the walk and yes that means voting for the candidate that will better represent our Chrristian values."

Values eh...interesting.
I hear a lot of Christians talking about values...so...seriously...what are these values my brothers and sisters in the lord speak of?
It seems to be a very serious concern, so I think it's important that we, we being us Christians, a.k.a. followers of Y'shua, subjectively define what these values are, so that everyone in the church has a clear picture of its meaning.

I remember well the interdisciplinary session that I participated in in the 1970's at Regent College, Vancouver, B.C. The anabaptists argued that the world system was fallen and that Christians should have no part of it. The opposing point of view was more interesting. While it was conceded that the man's political order is fallen, it posed the conclusion that it is inevitable that civilizations will have a religion at their roots. The question is, "What religion?" Or what set of religious values? As one who has worked outside of the United States for about 20 years, I agree. Does this mean that a leader should carry a "religious mantle? Far from it. But her values and loyalties are of utmost importance to the shape of a culture. Beware of individuals who have a messiah complex.

amen, brother! well said.

It's easy to quote verses about people groaning when you're doing the groaning.

It still doesn't give an account of why when Bill Clinton was elected the following Sunday I attended 2 churches.

One in a suburban setting, another in a poor urban setting.

The suburban church thought the devil had been elected. (So much for praying for your leaders) The urban church made it sound like the Kingdom of God was at hand. (So much for not provincializing God.)

How do you account for such diversity of responses from people who claim Christ?

Unless of course you've already determined one group is not really "Christian" implicitly or explicitly.

Until then...people need to check themselves when throwing around "prooftexts" from the Bible.

It looks like you actually care about what the Bible says, but unreflective use of the Sacred texts actually demonstrates a callous and casual approach to them.

Sorry.
Just does.

to give the vice versa of what jennie above mentioned, i worked at a christian school and was a member of a church inside the heart of chicago. both were fairly multicultural and mostly served those from a lower economic background. and both were stridently republican.
context very much so shapes how we understand our bible and our politics - no doubt. but i don't think our context is limited to our geography.
in this case, for instance, the main diff has to do with a widening generational gap in leadership in evangelical churches.

It's true that no one party defines all of the issues Christians should be concerned with - that is obvious. However, for me the deal breaker is abortion. This is where all other "life" issues rise or fall. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone who says they are pro-life would act in a pro-life way, but it does certainly say something about those who think that abortion should be "safe and rare" and that if all other social and economic ills were solved than abortion would go away. At best, that is naive thinking. At worst, it is ....

Alison, I am not sure that it is any more naive than thinking that making abortion illegal would make it go away either. I think that this is just one more example of how people from different geography see things differently. If you look at the research, restricting access for abortion (through laws) doesn't make as much difference as providing support to low income women. Can't find the study right now, but it was a Catholic research group that released it around the republican convention. I will try to find it again.

Alison,

I wholeheartedly believe that abortion is a terrible evil and addressing that problem is vital. But viewing any one issue - including abortion - as the "dealbreaker" essentially privileges certain lives over others, by privileging the lives of the unborn (and specifically the lives of the American unborn). There are plenty of other "life" issues - including how we respond to genocide in regions like Darfur, our decision to enter a war that has killed thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and hunger/disease/poverty in Africa and other third-world areas that result in the loss of millions of lives. Are these lives somehow less important? Because if they are not less important, than I cannot make abortion the "dealbreaker" - these life issues do not rise and fall on abortion in any way.