Thursday, May 26, 2005

Christian First, Party Second

By Alexander Samuels

A former chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, Lawrence Davis, announced that he was switching his political affiliation to the Republican Party earlier this week. He cited differences in moral values as his primary reason. I do not know if Mr. Davis is a Christian or not, but I do applaud his efforts to try to live out his moral values in a consistent manner.

Conservative Christians, however, often tend to imagine that . . . if more people transferred their allegiance to the Republican Party it would somehow ensure that the United States will become a Christian nation again. Let me be quick to warn you that salvation will never be found in the Republican or Democratic parties. We Christians who answer the call of duty to participate in civil government or the political process often neglect our obligations to be Christians first and political conservatives or liberals second. Our duty to God is never outweighed by our allegiance to any political party.

The Handbook of Life, for Christians, is the Bible. The Christian is obligated to read it, to meditate on it and to know its teachings. The Christian is then responsible to God to personally live out the principles taught in the Scriptures. When this is applied to the political process, the Christian always acts out of his or her highest obligation to God rather than loyalty to a political party or to man. When voting, a Christian should always vote for the person or policy that is most in line with the will of God as revealed in the Bible. A Christian will lay aside any personal or selfish interest in order to conform his or her decisions to the revealed will of God.

This is why organizations like the ACLU and other politically correct groups oppose Christians serving as judges or holding political office. In order to be a Christian, a person must believe in the absolute truth of God and God’s standards of right and wrong. A Christian will not compromise on these absolute truth issues.

Since the majority in our country have accepted the philosophy of relativism, they do not believe in absolute truth. They believe that what is right or wrong is dependent on the people, the circumstances and whatever makes you feel good. They are philosophically opposed to a Christian God who sets absolute standards of right and wrong.

I am a Republican, but I know that many Republican politicians are relativists when it comes to making decisions because the most important value to them is to be reelected. I am a Christian, but I also know many who claim to be Christians even though they live as relativists. They always run back and forth between two very distinct lifestyles and never truly commit to Christ.

Where do you stand? If you say you are a Christian, do you truly understand what you say you believe? If you have truly committed your life to Christ, then your life should reflect your absolute commitment to all the teachings of the Bible. If you are a Christian and participating in the democratic process of our country, then you should be willing to shake off any political allegiance in order to stand, uncompromisingly, for the application of God’s absolute truth to political policy and legislation.

2 Comments:

At Saturday, May 28, 2005 2:27:00 PM, Anonymous Alberto Trippe said...

this is joyous news. God-fearing Christians must be converted lest they be condemned to Hell. Prepare for the rapture.

 
At Monday, May 30, 2005 9:39:00 AM, Anonymous Steve said...

There was a story (a re-broacast of a video on Channel 8 public access channel) on the rise of Christian political activism, from the time of Billy Graham to the Moral Majority to the Christian Coalition, which I thought was tastefully done. Also covered Carter, Pat Robertson and W. Bush's faith. An interesting scene was how baffled the main-stream media was about Jimmy Crater's born-again faith, and how they didn't even have the vocabulary to understand or describe it.

The main point was that evangelicals were no longer going to be a pawn of any particular poltical party, but would voice and exercise thier conscience through voting. When Pat Robertson muted his criticism of Reagan's Sandra Day O'Conner nomination, the Moral Majority migrated from being a potent prophetic voice to a co-opted "player".

I didn't jot down the credits in time, but I'm curious if anyone else saw it.

Keep up the good work Mickey,

Steve Hase

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home