Astronomy and Politics Through the Lens of Epistemology
How do We Know What We Know?
What is Our Method of Evaluating Truth?

 

A current problem for faith-based voters

​

As our society declines morally, an inevitable consequence is that more and more candidates in the “family values” camp, often Republican, are going to be noticed with moral failures in their backgrounds.  As we then contemplate the recent epidemic of abuse of women in both parties, the question here is, how should we then support issues of faith in the way we vote?  Based on these trends, it is high time that Christians and Jews re-think their approach to voting decisions.  What does one do when the candidate of the traditional family values camp has serious moral failures,  but at the same time the opposite party promotes government policies inconsistent with those faith-based moral values?  In cases like this, faith voters will be increasingly forced to think outside of, for example, the evangelical box.

​

In times past, Christians and many Orthodox and Messianic Jews have voted via the following sequence of reasoning. First people have looked at a candidate’s personal moral character, philosophy, and/or religious affiliation as a basis for their likely voting from a moral perspective.  Then they vote on that assumption combined with the candidate’s basic moral arguments on issues and policies. However, since the days of the Roe V Wade decision legalizing abortion, again and again, we have witnessed people of high moral values, sometimes with a religious background, voting for policies promoting infant genocide. So, the question here is, are we entering a dark time where people with a seriously questionable moral character can be, in certain specific circumstances, more likely to vote in favor of moral governmental legislation as well as judicial appointments and decisions?  I am not suggesting we abandon the general guide of a candidate's character generally.  I am only suggesting this where there is good evidence that a candidates policies differ with with his or her past background.  This was the apparent opinion of Franklin Graham before the last election.  

A Franklin Graham insight

​

Before the last presidential election, Franklin Graham zeroed in on part of the answer I am suggesting here.   When asked whose personality was best for president, he responded to vote on the government policies, not the personalities of Clinton or Trump.  Abortion, for example, involved policies of good and evil.  Many other national leader’s policies have also involved genocide.  Policies like abortion and similar types of mass murder certainly involve issues of good and evil.  Yet good and evil are hardly limited to genocide, which includes many other policies of our previous President.

​

The Superseding principle of good government

​

So, what are the Biblical values, Christians for example, should use to assess the moral role of government in any democratic country?  Romans 13:1-7 forms the “preeminent” basis for an evaluation of people running for public office since that passage outlines the role for good governmental leaders.  For brevity, let me quote verses 3 and 4: "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

​

The Superseding biblical belief in good and evil

​

Now, one obvious fact in this passage is that good and evil do exist.  That is evident all over the scriptures, whether it be from the Old Testament or Tanakh to the New Testament revelations, not just in this passage!  Also obvious from this NT passage is that government can and does have the ability to discern evil behavior, “bring wrath” on it, and punish it with the sword.  Most Christians see this passage as an endorsement of either police or military functions.  If so, we should be voting to make sure our government takes on this Biblical role.  Yet, the striking thing about this declaration in this letter to the Romans from the Apostle Paul is that the entire Roman government was 100% Pagan at that time.  Because of that fact, Paul’s admonition is a recognition that even pagans can discern good and evil in society.  For example, the Roman emperor during this time of writing was Claudius (Acts 11:28, 18:2, 23:26) who was comparatively tame for a Roman Emperor.  Still, is there any believer on this planet who thinks that Claudius was the moral equivalent of a Baptist Sunday School teacher?!!?  Yet he is addressed in this passage as a minister of God!!!  Now with the exception of people who know nothing about history, does anyone seriously think Donald Trump is as bad as the Roman emperor Claudius?  So, from a purely biblical perspective, our standard today really only has to be a notch above the moral scale of Claudius, (if and only if there is no better practical/moral choice and assuming he or she is consistent with our modern laws and constitution)!!  After all, after the Republican convention, we had no other practical and viable choice than Hillary or Trump.

​

The Superseding belief in the fallen nature of man

​

One of the central tenets of Christianity is not only the belief in good and evil behavior, but the doctrine that man is selfish, evil, self-destructive, and is perpetually in rebellion against the authority of God.  Romans 3:10-12  “As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.  They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."  Note here that the passage does not say that people do not do good things.  The standard of reference here is that the word “good” is a reference to God’s standard of perfection.

​

The opposite view of the nature of man is often shared by people who take God out of the picture, otherwise known as humanists or secularists.  Whenever God and His standards are taken out of the moral picture in this way, then by default, man will become the role model of ethical behavior for which other men will aspire. Whenever this notion is embraced, then whatever deficiencies man has will by default be perfectible by outside teaching means like government.  But rarely will secularists be honest and up front in describing this characteristic of man’s nature as the “inherent goodness of man”  3.

 

My webmaster and friend, Don Cruzan, put it this way. 

​

“Whenever this notion is embraced, then the moral code man adopts will be the values dictated by the state.  These values change over time as the values of the leaders of the state change, and therefore never standardized.  The mores reflected upon the populace will always be something less than the best in man. In many cases, the leadership is far less than the best in man, ending in corruption at the expense of the people.”

​

Yet, at the following link, it is demonstrated that a common difference between Republicans and Democrats is that secular Democrats as a group lean generally toward the belief that man is inherently good.  That was the almost the universal experience of former Oklahoma Representative (1995-2002) and Baptist pastor J.C. Watts as he summarized it while campaigning for Rand Paul in Pella, Iowa in 2016 [3] .  Certainly, that is not true for all democrats or congressmen, but that was his experience which means that this philosophical presupposition, at a minimum, is at least very popular with the political left.

 

But, there is a similar view that is, ever so slightly, closer to an evangelical view of the nature of man.  This position may concedes that man may not be inherently good, but instead believes that every person on earth has a small spark of divinity within them.  Because of that divine spark, liberals may similarly adopt the same overall (utopian) philosophical approach to government. 

 

For example, Nancy Pelosi on May 18th explicitly states in religious terms, the basis of her belief in the “spark of divinity” tenet.  She does so by conflating a remark Donald Trump had made when specifically questioned about the gang MS-13.  She quotes Trump referred to ALL undocumented aliens as animals.  But don’t get distracted by that controversy.  It is what she says about every human being having a spark of divinity in them that is the point here.  nancy_pelosi_ms-13_gang_members_are_not_animals.html

 

Again, Don Cruzan addresses the Divine Spark theory this way. 

 

“Pelosi’s comment typifies an example of Gnostic thinking.  The “divine spark” is a mystical term used primarily by Gnostics and Western traditions that have adopted the philosophy, i.e., that each human contains within themselves a portion of God.  In these theologies, the purpose of life is to enable the Divine Spark to be released from its captivity in matter and reestablish its connection with or simply return to God who is perceived as being the source of the Divine Light. In the Gnostic Christian tradition, Christ is seen as a wholly divine being which has taken human form in order to lead humanity back to the Light. (Jerome Friedman (1978). Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Total Heresy).

 

It should be understood, however, that the vast majority of evangelicals endorse the tenet of the “utter Depravity or total depravity of man and do not recognize any basis for any inherent goodness or divine spark in human nature. 

 

Still, rarely are politicians so direct and up front about the origins of their philosophy.  Instead, they will use softer terms so as not to alarm much of the sizable Christian electorate, but will often use language like embracing an optimistic view of human nature 4.  Going further, they will also insist that mankind is perfectible by simply altering his or her environment with government intervention.

​

Without any doubt, many Christians who are Democrats will be understandably offended and react with disgust at the very idea that they would accept any of these doctrines on human nature.  (1) I understand their reaction and I recognize there are, for example, conservative democrats who would obviously be exceptions.  I also have personal Christian friends who are Democrats who would not accept those tenets about the “nature of man”.  Instead, they choose to say in the Democratic party for practical reasons as a witness. 

 

(3). Yet I believe there is a third reason for Christians remaining in the Democratic Party.  I believe that most Christians, both liberal and conservative, are simply not informed or trained to connect the dots between the values of the Bible and their philosophical world view and how they view government.  In this camp, believers are either conditioned to believe that they must keep their faith out of their voting activities or practices by those who advance false constitutional arguments.   Tragically, certain teachers in our faith also try to discourage Christians from influencing government, arguing it is not our calling.  That is why, near the beginning of the blog, I referred the reader to another site of mine to take on what I believe is a false doctrine I call “political abstinence” (see the above link).  I do this because it is the mission of this site to empower Christians to understand “why they believe, what they believe, instead of voting based on instinct.  One cannot answer a questioning world based on one’s instinct, but on the knowledge to explain why, for example, so many Christians have voted for Donald Trump.  There are many people who cannot, in good conscience, become a Christian until they understand, at least in theory, why so many Christians support Trump.

 

Whenever evaluating Trump vs Hillary or any other Democrat, naïve approaches to either foreign or domestic forms of evil are a predominantly important consideration for evangelicals that dwarf many other issues.  Whether the threats are criminals or terrorists, narco trafficars or invading armies this consideration is huge and balancing the risks, Trump wins hands down.

 

Furthermore in that regard, most charismatics and evangelicals, including myself, government is either useless or even counterproductive if it’s role is administered in the absence of strong belief in good and evil.  On the other hand, many Democrats are intensively naïve to good and evil.  Other democrats and some member Christians believe evil exists but cannot be discerned by government without “passing judgment”.  In the view of most Christians, Romans 13:1-7 totally affirms a belief in good and evil, along with huge portion of the rest of the biblical text, which then authorizes punishment on said evil without reservation.

 

Nevertheless, are you struggling with the concept that man is either inherently good or that he has that spark of divinity occupies every human being, take the time to study Don Cruzan/s Bible study on this subject.   There, these two doctrines are the focus, rather than a focus on politics although there may be passing references to a political perspective.  Click here