Clever conflation here but no one is arguing that positive change cannot occur through politics but Shane deftly ignores all of the negative change that can also occur. Why did we need a suffrage movement to begin with? Why did we need to free the slaves? Why did we need the civil rights act? That being said, no one is arguing that Christians should not vote -- just that they stop assigning virtue to their vote. Conferred righteousness upon what is ultimately a vote for evil is not a Christian endeavor. It is not a matter of being too controversial. It is a simple matter of what we are called to do. Romans teaches us that only the Gospel has the power of God unto the salvation of man. Only the Gospel saves. I love how Shane expresses that we can "no longer" ignore these social wedge issues when the church has been nearly completely compromised by these issues for decades now.
"2. Many are divided over foundational issues and the role of government. Some value appearance over abortion and graceful speech over national security. They are concerned that Trump is reckless but fail to see the plethora of conservative judges he has appointed and the protection of freedom of speech. Some even say, "Bring on the persecution. The early church did!" No, that's not correct. The early church did not invite persecution, and most Christians in persecuted countries wish that they had our freedom. Many need to wake up to this fact. We can't be united if we are divided on foundational issues. If everything is a priority, then nothing is. The highest priority is the value of human life. There is no contender. Our president is not a pastor; he is to be a terror to those who do evil (Rom. 13:3-4). This is why it's unwise to apply many of Jesus' teachings such as "turn the other cheek" to the institution of government. Contextually, Jesus was referring to personal affronts and insults, not to the administration of justice--which leads to the next point." -- Shane Idleman
Yes the new refrain is "it's all about the judges." This is the new myopia, same as the old myopia. A funny thing happens with judges though. What we thought they would do they rarely end up doing. John Roberts was named by GW Bush and the church went wild. They could not stop raving about him. Fast forward a decade and it was Justice Roberts that upheld Obamacare. Do you know who gave us the Roe decision? A 7-2 Republican led Supreme Court. Do you know who affirmed Roe in 2000? Another Republican led Supreme Court. Look at the tell here from Idleman. As a born-again believer the number one highest priority is the value of human life. No Shane. The number one priority must be God and securing eternal life. You know, the Gospel? This is what myopia will do to you. It makes you write silly things like we should not apply the teachings of Jesus to governmental affairs. Is the government beyond the reach of Christ? What is Shane advocating for here? That God tells us to turn the other cheek in our lives but expects our government to shoot first and ask questions later? Yeah, that's not remotely biblical.
"3. Many misquote Scripture to push their agenda. I've been shocked at how many people use "turn the other cheek" and other scriptures out of context. If you feel that the government should "turn the other cheek," I appreciate your heart, but you really need to think this through. Even Jesus didn't always turn the other cheek. When one of the temple officers struck Him, he called the man out and said, "Why do you strike me?" There is a time to call people out. The Bible does not promote pacifism in all cases, especially in the context of national security. Should we tell our leaders to turn the other cheek to Russia, China and North Korea? I would love to have a humble, Spirit-filled Christian in office, but this person would have to be an exceptional leader who not only shows grace to his fellow man but is also a terror to terrorists. And even if that person exists, I am not sure if they could win the presidency. There are only two candidates ... two choices when it comes to enough votes to win." -- Shane Idleman
Yes Shane, many misquote scripture to push their agenda, such as what you are trying to do here. You see the answer Jesus gave is not just "why did you strike me." He was making a legal argument within the context of the law. He said if what I said was wrong, show how, otherwise -- why did you strike me? The larger point however is that Shane somehow does not think this represents Jesus turning the other cheek! Are you kidding me? Remember, Jesus laid down His life voluntarily as a lamb led slaughter. Read the key verses where he has to remind us that He could have appealed to the Father at any point and had 12 legions angels at His disposal. You are simply wrong here Shane. Your myopia is blinding you from being able to see that Jesus was most definitely turning the other cheek when he laid down His life. Lastly from this snippet we see how dangerous these conditions are. Even if there was a candidate that was a spirit filled Christian and an exceptional leader -- Shane would not vote for him if he did not think he could get enough votes to win. That is how you know you have completely compromised yourself and sold out your Savior.
"Again, the president is to protect and defend, not turn the other cheek. I believe that this is also why many of us view Trump's tweets differently. For example, on immigration, although I would not have said what he said, what I read into many of the tweets is that he was talking about securing our borders from those who wish to do us harm. He was not making a blanket statement that applies to all immigrants. We have a legal process to enter our country, and if we want to change it, there is a constitutional method to do so. As Christians, we should be able to agree about the rule of law, even if we don't care for the words used to express how those laws should be enforced. So, on the one hand, I can have great compassion for refugees and others who want to live here, but on the other hand, I realize that we have to do things the right way. How I treat refugees is different from how the government does. I do not believe in the separation of church and state as it is defined today. But I do believe the church and state are to be separate in their duties and functions while being interwoven in their core beliefs and principles. Our second president, John Adams, said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (More can be found in my book, One Nation Above God, free on Kindle.)" -- Shane Idleman
Now we see the Trump idol worship at work. Things that are established facts, with accompanying media, are downplayed, marginalized, or "read into." We are supposed to believe that when Trump said there were fine people on both sides of a Neo-Nazi rally, we really did not hear what he was trying to say. When he called Mexicans rapists it was all just a misunderstanding. Then the ridiculous hairsplitting regarding refugees is sickening. Does Shane Idleman think he can muster this defense in front of Jesus? Do not tell me that you have great compassion personally while advocating for having no compassion as the government.
"4. Many are looking through the lens of color or race. Instead of looking through the lens of a biblical worldview, many vote based on ethnicity. Sadly, the lie that Donald Trump is a racist has driven fear-based voting. Somehow (in ways still unclear to me), white Christians are viewed as Republican racists, when in reality, it was the Republicans who fought against slavery and championed freedom. I just finished reading Ulysses S. Grant's biography, and it's amazing to learn about the true cost of freedom. The tens of thousands who gave their lives in the Civil War would be horrified to see how the truth has been twisted today. Unfortunately, racism is still alive, but it's found on both sides of the political aisle. Neither party should be characterized as racist." -- Shane Idleman
