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
