However sound your reasoning may be when it comes to conversations pertaining to politics and culture, inevitably it goes back to a comment that John Adams made when he said, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

He was right.

The Rule of Law and Moral Absolutes have no substance if your philosophical paradigm is based on the notion that you are your own bottom line. In that light, however effective we may labor to be, as far as being knowledgeable and articulate when it comes to championing the Conservative Christian mindset in the context of current events, our primary duty and our most effective strategy is to pray according to 2 Chronicles 7:14.

I see on various websites rhetorical questions coming from Liberals asking how anyone could support President Trump or why someone would question the validity of the Socialist approach to government?

I’ve seen on social media websites a myriad of threads commenting on Homosexuality and other behaviors that are specifically labeled by God as utterly toxic, saying that these lifestyles are justified by a person’s right to be happy and regardless of how you feel, if their behavior is not directly affecting you, than what business is it of yours?

These topics are not merely “moral” or “political” in a general sense. If your perspective on a particular issue runs contrary to what God has expressly documented in His Word, than you’re contesting God Himself and not just the School Board or the Supreme Court. In other words, many of the personalities you encounter who proudly fly the flag of liberal convictions are philosophically invested in a platform that maintains mankind as his own absolute which makes this a spiritual battle and not a mere debate.

That doesn’t mean every Republican is always right and every Democrat is always wrong. Nor does it mean that Trump is a saint and Biden is a reprobate. What it does mean is that you have to kick the tires and determine whether or not God has a particular take on the issue at hand and support those whose platform is consistent with Biblical Absolutes and be ready to explain, not just the theological merits of the direction you’re advocating, but the practical benefits as well (1 Pet 3:15).

And you don’t want to be fixated on just “winning” the argument as much as you want to be promoting what’s True.

The biggest problem with our country right now is not how we’re “divided” or “domestic terrorism.” Our biggest obstacle is our failure to take sin seriously.

But here’s the kicker…

You can’t expect to significantly influence those who approach themselves and the world around them who maintain an indifferent attitude towards the empty tomb (2 Cor 4:4). If the issue bleeds into a spiritual sphere (which it inevitably does [Eph 6:12]), than while you do have the responsibility of being aware and accurate (1 Chron 12:32), in order to be effective, you’re going to need some Holy Ghost Rocket Sauce if you’re going to make a difference and not just an appearance (Prov 25:11; Is 55:10-11; Matt 10:20).

And while the Bible may or may not resonate as an objective Authority in the mind of your audience, you can point to our nation’s heritage as it’s documented in our national archives and imprinted in our capitol’s architecture.

Here is a portion of “American Concrete…“

When it comes to the topic of our nation’s Christian heritage, you have two main schools of thought:

• The liberal mindset that insists our forefathers viewed religion as something to be negotiated as an administrative duty
• The Conservative Christian platform that maintains an aggressive acknowledgement and pursuit of God’s Assistance characterized the collective perspective of the founding fathers

Much of the controversy stems from a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1947 and the way they interpreted a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802. They declared that Jefferson’s usage of the term “the separation of church and state” constituted “the authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.¹ Since then, that ruling has become the standard by which all public expressions of religious convictions have been measured, leading to an ever increasing limitation being put on the acknowledgement of God in governmental agencies as well as an ever lengthening shadow of doubt being cast on our nation’s religious heritage.

The debate is, at times, passionate and you’ve got buffoons on both sides of the aisle. The venom and the inaccuracies can culminate in a spectacle that can make it difficult to know which argument is correct.  But there is a bottom line that transcends the way in which a solitary statement can be potentially dissected to the point where its meaning becomes illusive. That bottom line is to consider, not only the comment that was made, but also:

• the context of that comment
• the character of the person speaking
• the cultural backdrop that made what that person said both relevant and influential

In other words, rather than just scrutinizing what was said, look at also why it was said, to whom was the person speaking and who was it that made the comment. At that point, you’ve got a full color, three dimensional rendering of what was stated as opposed to an intentionally cropped, black and white snapshot.

Using that kind of approach, let’s take a look at Thomas Jefferson and his exchange with the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson’s Resume

Jefferson’s mental capacity and creativity went beyond mere academics. At the front door of his home, there’s a seven day clock that he designed. It’s counterweights hang on either side of the front entrance and extend through the floor. The height at which the counterweights hang indicate the days of the week that are written on the wall and beneath the floor. Monticello as a whole – the layout of the grounds and the structural design – all served as a testament to the creative intelligence and the intellectual ingenuity of their architect.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was speaking at a dinner in the White House honoring all of the living recipients of the Nobel Prize. He said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has every been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”²

Thomas Jefferson was extraordinary. Prior to earning his license as a lawyer, he had earned his college degree from the College of William and Mary, having studied Mathematics, Philosophy, Metaphysics as well as French and Greek. It was there that he would also be introduced to the writings of John Locke, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon – great thinkers that would shape his approach to politics and America’s quest for liberty.

After writing the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia where he served in the Virginia State Legislature, eventually ascending to the position of Governor. His role in crafting the new state government was significant. For nearly three years he assisted in the construction of the state constitution. His most notable contribution was the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” – an accomplishment he had immortalized on his tombstone.

Jefferson was also very familiar with the Bible and the teachings of Christ. During his presidential years, he wrote a 46 page work entitled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”³ Moreover, he understood the necessary role the Christian doctrine played in the formulation of a government based on the Absolutes of Scripture as opposed to the machinations of men, be they manifested in the context of royalty or enlightened reason. While he was convinced that the established clergy of the day were corrupt and the imposition of any one creed by a legislature was fundamentally flawed, it was the transcendent dynamic of the Christian doctrine upon which he founded his philosophical approach to freedom and sound government.

Jefferson’s Starting Point

It’s here where the liberal and conservative perspectives diverge. The liberal platform maintains that Jefferson’s usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to purge any mention of God in an official context, be it the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of any Christian symbols during the Holidays , prayer in schools and the list goes on and on. His previously stated comments pertaining to the Christian component of our nation’s government , the culture of the time and the audience he was addressing are all either diluted or dismissed in order to craft a liberal platform that presents America as a purely secular enterprise. Furthermore, there’s a philosophical starting point that Jefferson uses in the two documents he requested be immortalized on his tombstone that gets glossed over as though it has no real bearing on the issue. But if this is the cornerstone of his thought processes pertaining to religious freedom and liberty in general, this is a crucial piece of evidence that needs to be admitted as part of the conversation. Take a look…

In both documents, he bases one’s right to liberty on the fact that God created man to be free.

The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…(emphasis added)

The opening statement of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance
to the state.

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state. Remove the philosophical foundation of Scripture from Jefferson’s approach to liberty and you reduce the essence of our nation to a complaint rather than an Absolute. Furthermore, by insisting that there be no acknowledgement of the biblical paradigm that supports the ideological structure of our government, we invite the decay and corruption that inevitably accompanies the fallibility of a purely human enterprise.

Jefferson’s faith was unorthodox and his determination to avoid any appearance of officially sanctioning a particular denomination was nothing short of aggressive, but to twist his usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” into a quasi-legislative impetus to remove prayer from schools and strike the “one nation under God” phrase from the pledge of Allegiance, is to ignore the obvious cornerstone of Jefferson’s thought process. In addition, should the liberal perspective be embraced, you make Jefferson himself the “chief of sinners” in that he violates his own supposed conviction by invoking a overtly Christian dynamic in the very documents that define his perspective on the freedoms we enjoy.

To read, “American Concrete” in its entirety, click here…

Here’s my thought: You remove God from the equation and the questions that are otherwise answered according to a biblically based dynamic are now responded to with horrendous probability values, concepts that bend the laws of Nature rather than explain them, and philosophical arguments that do not match what we know about the human experience.

In short, you’ve got to do a lot of intellectual scrambling to make up for the lack of substance that characterizes an atheist’s perspective on life. Take a look at the following questions and you tell me…

1) Where did you get your gravity from?

The origin of the cosmos, from the standpoint of the atheist, comes about as a result of a lucky collision of random elements. Then, thanks to the properties of gravity, physics, chemistry and so on, the elegant intricacies of life begin to surface. But where did you get your gravity from? Everything about your explanation is predicated on the preexistence of ordered systems within which your raw materials can combine and form into more complicated life forms. But you never attempt to explain who or what put the science in place that produces your end result.

2) How does a vacuum cleaner become a drummer?

If the starting point for life was something basic that then evolved into a thinking organism with a unique personality and capable of artistic expression, then at some point your “matter” is no longer a mere collection of molecules. It has somehow become both material and non-material and you’ve redefined the essential composition of what matter is. “Panpsychism” is not a new theory, but it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence there is to support it.

3) Where is your fossil record?

When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he admitted that the fossil record that was needed in order to substantiate his theory was sorely lacking. Chapter Nine of his book “Origin of Species” is dedicated to what constitutes the most glaring discrepancy of his theory. He says “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”¹ He goes on to explain that it’s not his theory that is flawed, rather it’s the geological record.

“Origin of Species” was published in 1859. The fossil record is no more conclusive now as it was 150 years ago. “Java Man,” the iconic image of man’s supposed distant ancestor, is a creative extrapolation based on three teeth, a skull cap and a femur.² It is not even remotely close to a complete skeleton, nor are the other hypothetical half man / half ape intermediaries that fill the textbooks of biology classes throughout the nation. The archaeopteryx (ar-key-OPT-er-icks), the fossil remains of a bizarre looking bird discovered in 1861, is unreservedly embraced by many proponents of Darwin’s theories as a conclusive example of a transitional life form, bridging the gap between reptiles and birds. The problem, however, is that birds are very different from reptiles in terms of their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs and their distribution of weight and muscles. The fact that you have a reptilian look bird doesn’t qualify it as a reptile when it is fundamentally a bird.³

Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, sums it up by saying:

…[T]he universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre life forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.⁴

4) What’s the point of your existence?

That may sound kind of abrupt, but think about it: If the fact that you have a pulse is due to nothing more than a fortuitous and altogether random pileup of chemical materials, then you have no real role to play. Your presence in the cosmos is entirely inconsequential – you don’t matter to the storyline because there is no storyline and you’re just an insignificant bump in the road.

You might respond with a noble sentiment that says you’re here to do as much “good” as you can do, or you might feel liberated to be as self serving as you can possibly be. But, again, if there’s nothing intentional behind the structure of the universe, then even the very definition of what’s “good” becomes subjective. In the absence of a definitive standard, what resonates as a positive to one person is perceived as a problem to another.

In short, it’s all pointless. There’s nothing truly worthwhile that endures and you are nothing more than dust on a windy street.

5) How would you defend Darwin’s regard for Africans?

This is a little awkward:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.⁵

Darwin saw Africans as being inferior to Caucasians. In his mind, from a scientific standpoint, Negroes were similar to gorillas in that they were an evolutionary precursor to Europeans. Given Darwin’s prestige as the iconic champion of Evolutionary Theory, no doubt this is something you agree with.

6) What makes your definition of “moral behavior” superior to mine?

While Hitler’s approach to the Jewish people today is regarded as unconscionable, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s many perceived it as scientifically sound. Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene” was Darwinian as far as its philosophical foundation and the ruthless acts committed in the context of the Holocaust were endorsed by some of the greatest German minds of that time as being a reasonable compliment to the forces of Natural Selection.⁶

Hitler’s approach worked for him and those who were like minded because they weren’t Jewish. But what if Adolf Hitler had been born a Jew? Would he have been as passionate in his belief that his race was inferior to those with blond hair and blue eyes? Probably not. But how would he have pleaded his case? If he was on the short end of Darwin’s evolutionary stick, how would he have convinced Germany’s scientific think tank that his brand of “moral behavior” was superior to their clinical justification for murder?

In the absence of an Absolute moral standard, the basis for one’s behavior is now more about what’s preferred as opposed to what’s right, and the code of ethics that is established for the community is established by those who are more persuasive rather than those who are more wise.

7) At what point do you admit that your theories are based on impossible scenarios?

Scientists have concluded that the chances of a single protein molecule coming together by chance is 1 in 10⁴⁵⁰ power. These are the sort of probability values upon which you build your entire approach to life, morality and all the intangibles that constitute the human experience. Is that your idea of a credible philosophical foundation?⁷

8) What makes your explanation of the origin of the cosmos any less “faith based” than mine?

You believe that something can come from nothing, that order can proceed from chaos and, given enough time, a plant can develop a personality. In other words, you subscribe to a doctrine that transcends the natural world as we know it, which is the essence of the term “supernatural.”

In the absence of the concrete evidence required to substantiate your theories, like Darwin, you have “faith” that science will one day vindicate your convictions.

Regardless of how you attempt to veil your paradigm in academic sounding verbiage, your arguments are ultimately founded on a metaphysical platform and not an empirical one. When it comes to the origin of the cosmos, you believe in processes and forces that don’t exist. If your aversion to including a Judeo-Christian perspective in the conversation pertaining to the creation of the universe is due to the fact that one must have “faith” in order to subscribe to such a thing, then what prevents you from disqualifying yourself given the fact that your approach is no less subjective?

9) Why does the tone of the conversation change anytime the name “Jesus Christ” is mentioned?

You can talk about any religious figure that has ever graced the world stage and the tone of the conversation remains comfortably academic. But mention the name Jesus Christ and something changes. People start getting a little uncomfortable.

Why?

If Christ is nothing more than either a ridiculous fairy tale or a self-serving promotion designed to advance the fortunes of charlatans posing as pastors, then why does the very mention of Jesus’ Name reverberate in a manner that makes people look down and take a sudden in interest in their shoes?

10) If the Bible is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then why make Peter a coward, Moses a murderer and Jacob a liar?

Why include all of the flaws and shortcomings belonging to the principal characters of Scripture? If Christianity is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then how do you explain what is obviously a nonsensical decision as far as discrediting the heroes of the Bible by detailing their weaknesses and bad decisions?

Peter denied that He even knew Christ while talking to a servant girl. He wasn’t even conversing with someone of stature. He caved in the face of talking with a girl that was probably young enough to be his daughter (Matt 26:69-70). Moses was guilty of murder (Ex 2:11-12) and Jacob was a liar (Gen 27:19). Compare that to the way even Muhammad’s fingernail clippings and hairs were fought over by his followers.⁸

Scripture presents human beings as they are and not the way in which an intentionally misleading commercial would attempt to play down the undesirable characteristics of its main characters. Furthermore, the Bible invites questions and acknowledges its absurdity should its central theme prove false (Is 1:18, 1 Cor 15:19, 2 Pet 1:16). In short, this is hardly the verbiage of a text attempting to mislead its reader.

Conclusion

No doubt, there will always be those that simply refuse to believe. At the end of the day, it’s a spiritual dynamic that’s being engaged, which doesn’t always fit neatly within the confines of a box defined by purely empirical parameters.

But…

The existence of God can be recognized (Rom 1:20), the Reality of Christ can be observed (Acts 26:25-27) and His Gospel can be understood (Jn 6:65; 1 Cor 2:12; Jas 1:5). The only thing that’s illogical about the Bible is why God would go to the lengths that He does for the sake of humanity. To dismiss the Bible and Christianity in general based on the notion that it has no basis in fact is not an assessment founded on evidence, rather it’s a choice inspired by preferences.

What is it that possesses a human being to look at the stars – to consider the elegant intricacies of the created order – and respond with an explanation that contemptuously dismisses God and replaces Him with horrendous probability values, questionable time frames and theoretical processes that mock the boundaries of legitimate science?

Moreover, what drives an individual to spit upon the notion of a sinless Savior who lays aside His right to condemn and sacrifices Himself in order to redeem?

Typically, atheists proudly promote themselves as enlightened thinkers that tolerate followers of Christ as fools that refuse to accept the obvious and instead cling to antiquated myths that are ultimately revealed as limiting and intolerant.

Here’s my thought:

I see you at the foot of the cross either sneering at your God as He dies for you or dismissing it as a pointless fiction.

I hear you dismiss the depths of the ocean, the expanse of space and the exquisite complexity of our planet as crossword puzzles that can be solved, it’s just a matter of time.

And finally, I watch you passionately cling to a terminal existence where significance and happiness are built upon a foundation comprised entirely of things that are destined to die, quit or change at any given moment.

Christ brings a lot to the table – more than what you might’ve been lead to conclude based on whatever bad experiences you’ve had with “religion” in the past. Don’t evaluate a system according to the way that it’s abused and don’t dismiss your King according to the way He’s been distorted.

I’ve got no further questions…

1. “Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, 2006, p250
2. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p61
3. Ibid, p57
4. Ibid p56
5. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015
6. “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Jerry Bergman, http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust, accessed August 28, 2015
7.”Probability and Order Versus Evolution”, Henry Morris, PhD., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/, accessed May 11, 2015 (see also http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)
8. “Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction”, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011, https://books.google.com/books?id=9JafXLrLiwYC&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Muhammads+fingernail+clippings+&source=bl&ots=9yZoCsiR2G&sig=SGuWORW8dxaD9P_gOeAc9MqB3U0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIvNesz_DVxwIVCjI-Ch0HRg3t#v=onepage&q=Muhammads%20fingernail%20clippings&f=false, accessed September 1, 2015

To say that God isn’t interested in politics represents a twisted interpretation of Scripture.

God works through human institutions and authorities to accomplish His Purposes. You see that in the way He hardened Pharaoh’s heart to facilitate the Exodus (Ex 4:21). He used King Cyrus to give the Israelites the legislative green light they needed in order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem (Ez 1:2-4) . He used Quirinius to institute a census that would bring Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem (Lk 2:1-3), He used taxes to illustrate how we are to allocate our sense of duty and responsibility (Matt 22:21).

The Old Testament devotes four books to chronicle the actions of all the kings of Israel, we’re commanded to pray for kings and those in positions of authority that we might live peaceful and godly lives (1 Tim 2:1-3) , He stresses the importance of godly leadership by highlighting how citizens beneath the tyrannical boot of a wicked ruler are miserable (Prov 29:2). He commends godly leadership , He despises evil rulers (1 Sam 15:11), He hates dishonest scales (Prov 11:1) and He encourages political involvement (Ex 3:10-12; 2 Chron 7:14; Neh 2:4-6; Acts 23:11). Furthermore, “…there are 642 verses that refer to law, laws and lawlessness. There are 211 verses that refer to judgment, judges, and judging, and 561 verses that speak about justice. There are 195 verses that talk about courts, 301 verses that talk about ruling and rulers, and 100 verses that speak of governing and government.¹

Just prior to the Battle of Jericho, Joshua comes upon an imposing individual standing in front of him with his sword drawn. Joshua asks, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” The man replied, “Neither,” and went on to say that he was the commander of the Lord’s armies.

Some use this passage to suggest that God is indifferent to Politics – that the discussions, divisions and elections that dominate the headlines irrelevant when compared to more lofty, theological concerns. But that’s not the case. The angel was not relaying Divine indifference to the upcoming battle, he was reminding Joshua that this was God’s campaign and as such they could be confident of a victory. But because it was God’s battle, they couldn’t look upon it as a mere military action and their heart and their minds had to be focused on Him.

God cares about Politics.

Warnings and Rewards

Dishonest scales” are referenced in Proverbs 11:1. That’s referring to cheaters and liars. He hates them.

He hates them.

He also says this the monarchs reigning in Judah:

“Moreover, say to the royal house of Judah, ‘Hear the word of the Lord. This is what the Lord says to you, house of David: “‘Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it. (Jer 21:11-12)

To whom much is given, much will be required (Matt 20:25-28; Lk 12:48; 1 Pet 5:1-3). If God places you in a position of authority, you are accountable to God for the way you lead. Your honesty (Prov 12:22), humility (Jn 19:11) and compassion (Is 1:17, 23) are crucial to the way you administer the affairs of those in your charge.

God cares about Politics.

I Will Bless Those Who Bless You

And here’s something else to bear in mind while we’re talking about it:

The nation is like a mighty lion; When it is sleeping, no one dares wake it. Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed, And whoever curses Israel will be cursed.” (Num24:9 [see also Gen 12:3])

Palestine is giddy that Biden has won. And before you begin to think that the PLO represents an honorable cause, understand that in the aftermath of WWII, the UN set up a territory that was supposed to be two separate nations: An independent Arab state and an independent Israeli state. Six days after this arrangement was made, war broke out which was initiated by the Arab world and the hostilities have endured since.

Hamas is a terrorist organization that doesn’t respect Israel’s right to exist. And while the majority of their efforts are directed towards Israel, they are part of a network that is undeniably opposed to any supporter of Israel, including the US. Click here to learn more.

The US, under Trump, has been supportive of Israel. Biden and his like minded compatriots are not. In fact, Obama sent 221 billion dollars to the PLO during his last hours as President.

Now, however you want to process all this is up to you. But don’t think for a minute that God is somehow detached from politics and encourages neutrality. It’s not so much what side God is on, it’s whether or not the nation in question is on God’s side. It’s that nation that thrives and regardless of how stately or crass the leadership may appear on the surface, it’s their actions that reveal, not only their personal disposition, but the collective perspective of the country that voted them into office.

Conclusion

The thing is, God does care about Politics because it’s not just “politics.” It’s either His Purposes or man’s rebellion being played out in the context of legislation and foreign policy.

God cares about politics.

1. “First Person: Does God Care About Politics”, David Shelley, August 30, 2010, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/first-person-does-god-care-about-politics/, accessed March 30, 2021