ChristiansUnite Forums

Rom 13:1 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

Joh 19:10 “Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11  Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”

According to Romans 13:1 (above) it is God who appoints the governmental authorities. Jesus demonstrated this in His conversation with Pilate in John 19. This clearly means the two terms which Bill Clinton served as president was a result of God appointing him to that office. Yet, the so-called Christian right, as well as I, were opposed to Bill Clinton as president. Was the so-called Christian right and myself, opposed to the will of God as a result of opposing the man (Bill Clinton) God appointed president for two terms?

Many believe that in order to see a moral change in our society Christians must vote the “righteous” into office. They believe that when the “righteous” hold the governmental powers they will enact laws to promote righteousness in the land. They believe they are doing God’s will by voting for the “righteous”.
Is it possible that in light of the verses above the methodology of the so-called Christian right is flawed? That it is man’s way, not God’s way, of bringing about moral change to a society? The Word of God teaches us that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, that His ways are higher than our ways. Could this be the case in politics? After all, according to Romans 13:1, it was God who appointed Bill Clinton to office for two terms.  Obviously, God’s thoughts were not the thoughts of the “Christian right” and His ways were not their ways in this matter.

Many Christians will say that President George Bush is a righteous Christian man who loves the Lord and President Bill Clinton a vile, wicked and immoral man. This is one of the reasons why the so-called Christian right supported George Bush for president and opposed Bill Clinton. It is obvious that both men became president because it was God who appointed them to the office, yet in God’s eyes, is one any more righteous than the other?

Many point out the immorality of President Bill Clinton while in office. They are shocked that such an immoral person could be president. The truth of the matter is that Bill Clinton is just like the vast majority of people in the world today, immoral. On the other hand, many Christians think highly of President George Bush because of his moral conduct and professed belief in God. Yet, president Bush is the one telling Muslims we pray to and serve the same God. Is it true, that the true God of the Bible and the false god of Islam are the same? It is president Bush who gave honor and respect to a Buddhist idol while in Japan and it is president Bush who is a member of the “Skull and Bones” a secret society engrossed in occult religious activity which is opposed to God.   
On the one hand, we have a president (Bill Clinton) who claims to be a Christian who was caught in physical immorality, and another who claims to be a Christian (George Bush) steep in spiritual immorality. The so-called Christian right condemns Bill Clinton for his immorality and for whatever reason gives George Bush a free pass over his spiritual immorality, or worse yet, deny that he is practicing spiritual immorality at all. Is this another case of God’s ways and thoughts being higher than man’s ways and thoughts? Is the physical immorality that Bill Clinton practiced worse the spiritual immorality that George Bush practiced? Therefore, based on morality which president is more fit for the office of President?


Mat 16:21 “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22  Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

The above passage is a clear example of God’s ways and thoughts being higher than man’s ways and thoughts. Jesus told His disciples that He was going to go to Jerusalem to be put to death by evil men. Peter had a hard time with this and pulled Jesus aside to rebuke Him. Obviously, the will of Jesus and that of Peter collided here in a big way. Keep in mind that this took place right after Peter acknowledged Jesus as being the Son of God.

On the one hand we have God (Jesus) telling Peter what must take place, that He was going to go to Jerusalem and be put to death by evil men. On the other hand, incredible as it seems, we have Peter rebuking God concerning this. Obviously, what Jesus just told Peter must take place did not fit with Peter’s preconceived ideas of what the Messiah must do and accomplish while here on earth.

We know from other Scripture that the disciples focus on the Messiah was that of a conquering King, ushering in His kingdom not as the suffering Messiah going to the cross and becoming the sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. As a result, Peter’s desires for Jesus and God’s desires for Jesus were opposed to each other. Peter foolishly attempted to rebuke God and in return received a severe rebuke himself, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

Ouch! that must have smarted. Notice in His rebuke to Peter, Jesus revealed some important things that were wrong in Peter’s thinking.

First, Jesus tells Peter that his agenda opposed God’s agenda. Satan opposes God. Therefore the rebuke “Get thee behind me, Satan”. Peters agenda and Satan’s agenda were the same in nature, opposing God.

Second, Jesus tells Peter that as a result of his opposing God’s agenda, he was an offense to Him. Many today oppose God by trying to impose their own will on Him, thinking all the time they are in the will of God. In reality, they are an offense to Him. In this case, one who was close to Jesus (Peter) became an offense who needed severe rebuking.

Third, Peter’s agenda was not of God, but of man. Proverbs 16:25 “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Had Peter’s will for Jesus prevailed, and Jesus had not gone to the cross and made payment for the sins of the world, there could be no salvation of mankind. Mankind would be damned to an eternity without God, wailing and gnashing their teeth in suffering for all eternity. Perhaps now we can see why Peter’s rebuke was so severe.

Could it be, that many times we ourselves are like Peter. We see things from our own preconceived ideas and based on these thoughts set our own agenda for God, all the time thinking that we are serving God when in fact we are opposing Him?

How about the area of politics? Is this one of the areas we confidently believe we are serving God by voting to office the so-called “righteous” man? Could it be that like Peter, our agendas are not that of God’s but of man’s and we find ourselves opposed to the will of God rather than submitting to Him? Like Peter, can we become an offense to God because our agendas in politics are different from God’s?

Stop and think about it for a minute. If we believe Romans 13:1 to be true, then for whatever reason God appointed Bill Clinton for two terms of office. The so called Christian right was oppose to the will of God in this matter and spent much time, energy and effort in opposing God’s choice of president for these two terms. Was the so-called Christian right an offense to God in this matter?  Was their agenda that of man’s and not of God’s in the matter? I believe the answers to these questions are obvious and will be to all truth seekers who are willing to put aside their own preconceived ideas and agendas so that they may be in alignment with the will of God.   

After reading an excellent article by a good friend and brother Carl Knott “THE CHRISTIAN AND POLITICS”
http://www.nlbchapel.org/politics.htm I became convicted that my involvement in politics was not according to the will of God and that I needed to stay out of politics completely. The morality of a nation is not going to be set by those holding political office, but by myself and other Christians getting out and sharing the gospel. If the so-called Christian right would spend even half the time, energy and effort as they do in politics they would leave a far greater impact on the morality of the nation that will last much longer than the political term of their man in office.

2Ti 2:3 “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.”

Pilgrim

Yes and Hilter was placed in position over Germany. God will permit whomever He will to be in such positions to ultimately bring about His will. All we can do is the best that we can with what we have available for us to see and do.

Are all these things that are said about President Bush or former President Clinton really true or are these things just another deception of the devil.

Yes our primary goal in our Christian life is to win souls. I will say Amen and amen to that again and again. For us to stay completely out of politics though is to throw the lamb to the wolves. If Christians that are called by God to be in the political arena do not heed that calling then we will have nothing here on earth but satans complete unadulterated rule. We as Christians must fight evil on all fronts not just one alone, if all Chritians take the attitude that we are to stay out of politics then we will lose the freedoms to worship as we will, will lose the ability to witness to others. This is why America is in the condition it is today because Christians stood by and did nothing when the Bible was removed from public schools, when prayer was removed, when abortion was approved, when the teaching of creation was replaced with evolution. If we do nothing we will be forced into hiding before long or killed.

This same thing is happening in the churches. So called Christians are not taking a stand on what is right over what is wrong. They are allowing leaders in the church that are leading the flock astray. If we are not to be involved in politics then we should not be involved in churches because churches are set up also with a political structure because Preachers are voted in or out.

Hello Brother Pilgrim,

We can agree to disagree again, and that's fine. You do what you feel led to do, and I'll do the same. I won't judge or condemn you for remaining silent, and you won't judge or condemn me for standing up. Regardless, I'll stand up for the things of GOD unless HE leads me to sit down and be quiet.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 118:24 NASB  This is the day which the LORD has made; Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Amen Brother Tom, being led by God is the key to this as it is in all things.

Hello Pastor Roger,

Brother, I guess we were typing a reply at the same time. I like your reply better than mine.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Proverbs 22:6 NASB  Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.

lol ... we seem to do that a lot brother.

Or, maybe the churches should stop copying the corrupt political systems of the world and go back to Biblical ways of appointing elders in the Churches. Today's Church refelects so much of the world that it is completely foreign to the new testament Church the Lord Jesus Christ instituted.

pilgrim

Even the church that Jesus Christ set up was with a political structure. It, too, had various positions for each person. Leader = Jesus Christ, workers/teachers = Apostles, other followers = congregation. Then the individual churches set up by the Apostles following the Spirits directions had a Bishop, deacons, etc. Nothing less than a political structure.

Brothers,

I simply wish to add that there are many churches that rarely have big problems. I'm completely aware of some that have made Christian news recently with all kinds of problems I wouldn't have dreamed of 50 years ago. Those types of churches are the exceptions, not the rule. There is still an abundance of decent churches with sweet Christians who love the LORD and pastors sincerely dedicated to GOD and the ministry.

The vast majority of churches I know of have structures where the pastor and leaders are held accountable in one way or another. The exceptions to this would be rare, rightfully so I must add.

A tiny percentage of Christians think that Christians should not vote, hold public office, take a stance on right and wrong, be a police officer, be a school teacher, serve in the armed forces, and all kinds of other things that I don't believe are taught by the Bible at all. BUT, they are welcome to their opinion. I won't debate this topic, but I will say that the things of GOD obviously involve right and wrong and so does this short life. One should be able to apply common sense from here.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Colossians 2:8-10 NASB  See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

Amen, brother.

Sadly, many of today's churches revolve around a pastor. Is the pastor system of today's modern church Biblical? Check and see how many times you even see the word pastor in the New Testament, you may be surprised.

No the specific word "pastor" is not in the NT at all. Just like other words used today that are not specifically there but still do apply. The word pastor is found in the OT in Jer 17:16. It means "to tend a flock". As Jesus told Peter: "feed my sheep" therefore that is what a pastor should be doing, feeding the sheep of the great shepherd.

You will find the word Bishop in the NT however and this is the same as that of a Pastor.

Boy is that strange. Most of today’s Churches revolve around a pastor system that is not even found in the New Testament. Can you find even one passage that speaks of voting in a pastor? Is this man’s way or is it God’s way? When God instituted the Church did He do it all wrong? Does He need our correction? Is today’s unbiblical structure of the Church better than God’s Biblical structure?

Bishops and pastors are different roles. The office of a bishop is the same as that of an elder but not of a pastor. God’s structure of plurality of elders for each local church is biblical. Man’s way of pastors is not. 


Peter was an apostle and an elder, the Bible never calls him a pastor. I don’t believe it ever called him a Shepherd either. As an elder (not a pastor) he charged with feeding the flock. Elders, not pastor, are to take oversight of the flock.

1Pe 5:1  The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2  Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3  Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4  And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5  Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.


Pilgrim

Hello Pilgrim,

I would say that a church arguing over semantics instead of using their time for more constructive things would have big problems. My dad was in the ministry for over 60 years, and they called him all kinds of things (i.e. pastor, preacher, evangelist, minister, circuit preacher, etc.). Does it really matter as long as the man behind the pulpit loves the LORD and is dedicated to GOD? He also swept the floor, cooked at Bible camps, and did anything else that needed to be done. So I guess that they also called him a janitor, cook, etc.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 10:8-10 NASB  But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

For someone that is not going to be involved in politics you sure are posting a lot in the political section.   ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D


The Bible mentions both Bishop and Deacon. If we look at 1 Tim 3:8 it talks of deacons in general. The original word used here in Greek diakonos means attendant, teacher, pastor, minister, servant. So irregardless of the word that is used for the titles of these people both offices are still there.

As for Peter. Yes he was an elder. A Pastor can also be an elder. If you notice he said he was an Apostle and an elder meaning that the two are not necessarily the same. Where does it say that his feeding of the sheep was because he was an elder and not his position as an Apostle. I agree that Peter was never directly called a shepherd but who feeds the sheep but a shepherd? 1 Peter 5 : 1 - 4 tells us that Jesus is the "Chief Shepherd" indicating that there are other shepherds in the Lord's work.

As for voting in the church. Let's take a look at the Apostles in Acts for the replacement Of Judas:

Act 1:26  And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Amen Brother Tom. I see we did it again. You were posting at the same time I was.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

 ;D   Brother Roger, YES, we did it twice in the same thread. I don't believe in coincidence, but I don't know what to make of this. I know that I don't want to be a politician, but I do want to continue voicing my opinions on right and wrong. But, just thinking about me being a politician makes me cringe. I might last almost 10 minutes.   ;D