Electoral politics: Choosing ''ministers of God''

For a printer-friendly version of today’s Update, please visit our website, Idaho Values Alliance

Note: If you’d like to unsubscribe from either the Daily Scripture Reading or the Daily Prayer, just hit “Reply” and let us know, and we’ll adjust your profile.

CHOOSING MINISTERS OF GOD: WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN ELECTORAL POLITICS

In my last column, I suggested that since, according to Romans 13:1, all political power has been delegated by God, Christians have an appropriate and necessary interest in how that power is used.

Since the followers of Christ are the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world,” we should only expect decay and darkness in any arena of life where Christian influence is not felt, and that includes the arena of public policy as well as any other. It is an irresponsible abdication of Christ’s call on our lives to willingly absent ourselves from the world in which political decisions are made.

There is a second reason why Christian involvement in politics is essential: civil authorities, we are told in Scripture itself, are “ministers of God.” Their role, therefore, is every bit as sacred as the role your pastor

occupies in the life of your church.

And just as every congregation must choose carefully those “ministers of God” who exercise God-given spiritual authority in church life, so every Christian citizen must choose carefully the “ministers of God” who exercise God-given civil authority in public life.

In Romans 13:4, the great apostle twice refers to civil authority as a “servant of God,” and in Romans 13:6, he says that holders of political office are “ministers of God.” (ESV)

The word translated “servant” in v. 4 is the Greek work diakonos, from which we get the word “deacon.” The lexicon defines diakonos as “servant” or “minister,” both terms with clearly sacred significance.

Of a holder of civic authority, Paul says “he is God’s servant” in the first half of the verse, and then “he is the servant of God” in the second half. Not much ambiguity there.

The term diakonos is used interchangeably in the New Testament to refer to those who have positions in the church and those who have positions in government since both are discharging divine duties.

The word translated “ministers” in Romans 13:6 is the Greek word leitourgos, from which we get the word “liturgy.” It’s almost as if Paul went out of his way to choose a term with sacred overtones.

In fact, the premiere New Testament Lexicon, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, says that the term “always (is used) with religious connotations.” In fact, just two chapters later (Rom. 15:16), Paul uses the term to describe himself in his role as an apostle.

“Authorities,” Paul says in Romans 13, “are ministers of God.” It would be impossible to get more direct and unambiguous than that.

This is true of politicians, you will note, whether they re

cognize it or not. An utterly pagan official is just as much a “minister of God” as a devout follower of Christ.

So the question is not whether a public official is a servant of God, for he clearly is whether he knows it or not. The only question is whether his decision-making will be guided by the transcendent truths of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” or not.

If the Scripture tells us that politicians are just as much “ministers of God” as our own pastors are, then it follows that we should care as much about those who hold civic authority as we do about those who hold spiritual authority.

In point of fact, both are exercising sacred authority given to them by God. Christians should be just as concerned with the one as with the other.

Choosing political leaders is like choosing pastors, and just as important.

If a member of a church doesn’t care about the choice of a minister of God for his flock, he is hardly in a position to complain about what he gets. Likewise, if we as Christians don’t care about the choice of ministers of God for our society, we are hardly in a position to complain about buffoons and corrupt politicos in public office.

We have the historically rare opportunity and responsibility in America to choose our own “ministers of God” in the public arena, and it’s inexcusable for Christians not to recognize the awesome privilege we’ve been given and go to work to exercise that responsibility wisely.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

In his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said something that dramatically illustrates the importance of elevating men to public office who have an allegiance to the law of God.

Said Dr. King, “I would agree with St. Augustine that an ‘unjust law is no law at all.’ Now what is the difference between the two? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

How do we identify those candidates for public office who will bring a Judeo-Christian worldview to the job? That’s the purpose of the non-partisan Gem State Voter Guide, a guide which allows the candidates to declare where they stand on issues of importance to the pro-family community in Idaho.

In 2006, the candidate with the most family- and values-friendly profile won in 17 of the 24 contested primary races, and we believe that the Gem State Voter Guide had a role in that outcome by putting trustworthy information in the hands of voters. With your help, we can make the same critical information available in preparation for the May 27 primary and its 29 contested primaries. Please consider a gift today!

Please consider a donation to help the IVA as we continue to stand with you to promote and defend our shared values. You may make a donation here. Thank you for your kindness and generosity!

Ø As I wrote you on Friday, McDonald’s has made a corporate decision to aggre

ssively promote the homosexual agenda by placing an executive on the Gay & Lesbian National Chamber of Commerce and giving generously to the GLNCC. As Don Wildmon, chairman and founder of the American Family Association suggests, next time you’re in McDonalds, ask to speak to the manager and say, “As long as you are members of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, I’m going to have to seriously consider whether or not I’m going to continue … to bring my family to your restaurant.” McDonald’s may not have to listen to you and me, but they will be forced to listen to the voice of their franchisees.

Ø News reports over the weekend indicate that Condoleezza Rice is actively hinting that she would like to be considered for Sen. McCain’s V.P. spot. This would be a disaster for McCain with social conservatives, since Rice, in her own words, is “mildly pro-choice,” and identifies herself as a “libertarian” on the issue of whether or not a woman should be allowed to kill her unborn baby. Whatever hope McCain has of victory in November may well be doomed if he picks a running mate with pro-abortion sympathies. (Abortion Position of Condoleezza Rice – US Secretary of State)

Ø One of Britain’s most senior judges, who has 37 years of experience in family

law, is publicly declaring that “the effects of family breakdown on the life of the nation, and ordinary people, in this country, will, within the next 20 years, be as marked and as destructive as the effects of global warming.” Family “meltdown,” he says, is “catastrophic,” may result in “social anarchy,” and is the cause of almost all of society’s ills. Britain’s marriage rate is at its lowest since 1862, and the number of children living with a single parent has doubled in the last two decades. Surely this is a call for re-emphasizing the sacredness and permanence of the marriage relationship, and raising the bar for divorce to encourage couples to stay together. (Breakdown in families 'as destructive as effects of global warming' - Telegraph)

Ø A middle school in Maine is now considering drugging 11 year-old-girls with birth control pills and patches, entirely without parental knowledge or consent. The school already hands out condoms like candy. Even though an expert says, “Parents should be the sex educator for their children,” he still supports the school usurping that role. Perhaps it would be best for schools to get back to the three Rs and, if they cannot send an unambiguous abstinence message to their charges, get out of the sex education business altogether. (Maine Middle School May Drug 11 Year Old Girls with Birth Control Patches)

Ø A California lawmaker wants parents charged with a crime for spanking their chi

ldren. And lest you think this is far-fetched, a mom and a dad in Britain were locked up for 32 hours in dingy cells because the mother swatted one of her children one time on the bottom, as a last resort, after he had ignored he warnings to stop a temper tantrum which included profanity-laced tirades. The boy said, “F*** off, you cow” to his mother more than once before the swat came. The child was taken away from his parents for a week, and the mother subsequently lost her school teaching job because their children are now listed on the Child Protection Register. (Assemblywoman Reintroduces Law to Ban Spanking - Christian Newswire; Locked up for smacking my son ... How a slap brought police and social services in to tear a family apart | the Daily Mail)