After reading this post there are so many thoughts buzzing around in my head that all I can think to say is "thank you".

Christians don't need to ask candidates these questions. It will be obvious because they will have a (D) at the end of their name. If these seem like NEW ideas then it probably means you have been a republican. The last 25 years (the entire voting life of many of us) has lead Christians to have the mentality that voting Republican is part of their Christian responsibility. I was as guilty as anyone.

Don't spend the next year trying to get Republican candidates to say things they don't believe or shift the party to the middle, just SWITCH PARTIES! Come on in, the water is fine and Jesus already swimming.

my gracious, who would have thought that the editor of Leadership would be so...so...so unabashedly progressive...so liberal-sounding...so...so...*Christian*...

he just needed one more point so that it could be a bonafide "12-step program"...

and, of course, i have the perfect one:

12. Will you work to get laws passed to forbid the teaching of an eternal, fiery hell for unbelievers?

:)

mike rucker
http://escroll.blogspot.com

Before the article was ever written in the New York Times, I was having reservations about the choices I was going to have to make by casting my vote in 2008. Mr. McDonald's brings up some very good issues, which I don't think oppose those of the Religious Right. However, those issues do bring up a growing problem with the American Church; we are looking for a president to do the work that we should be doing. My vote boils down to supporting the candidate that most supports the church's freedom to act on its principles and beliefs, to mobilize and serve, to live and freely proclaim God's values. The reality is that there are candidates who think that the church is a problem rather than a wonderful resource for love and good deeds. Let's find a presidentthat will encourage us to do our job and whom we encourage to do theirs. Let's stop hoping for a new savior when we've already got one living in each of our heart's, AND let's stop being critical of one another and start donig God's work. The religious right, evangelicals, emergents, and liberals would do a lot better if we didn't undermine each other all the time.

Two questions:
1) What is the Christian response when you cannot answer "yes" with any conviction to any of these questions, about any of the candidates? (Even the ones with "D" after their name.)
2) What is the Christian response to the overwhelming cynicism I feel because of #1?

danutz is correct. The candidates you describe will all have a (D) at the end of their name. They will also support abortion on demand, gay-lesbian-transgender-bisexual (better known as GLTB) special rights, and increasing taxes on the middle class. The one area they will NOT support you is in No. 9. "...offer any form of moral influence that would raise the tastes of our nation in its choices of entertainment, the spending of its money, and its growing addiction to sports?" They are way too in love with hollywood. Besides, the people you describe despise our current President who is an avowed Christian (whether you agree with his policies or not) and even the 'Christian' left can't stand his policies on moral issues. So, there you go.

As to your airport experience of the soldier bound for Iraq, bear in mind that he is in the military of his own free will. He was NOT conscripted as soldiers were during VietNam. I do agree that we should have a mandatory military service for everyone. We tend to lack appreciation for that which costs us nothing, i.e. our freedom. We now even despise those who sacrifice themselves to allow us to keep it.

Finally, I would say that the standing of the USA in the world's opnion is created in large part by our own media which has contempt for our traditional Christian values. Additionally, my own international travels (small in comparison to yours) have shown me how much affection a large part of the world's population have for Americans. And if we are so terrible, people from nations around the world would'nt be clamoring to come and live here. Sometimes the voices you hear when you talk to others will sound suspiciously like your own as we all tend to hang with like-minded folks.

I agree with many of the questions that were asked in this article, but I believe that the list is incomplete. This list was obviously slanted to convince readers to vote Democrat. While I respect the writer's convictions, I believe that it is extremely harmful to the church and contrary to the gospel's message to brand Jesus as either a Republican or a Democrat. I think that Jesus would be against torture, abortion, racism and gay marriage and thus I feel that, as a Christian, I can't fight too much for one particular party. I think some questions that needed to be added to this list include:
-Would he/she respond to the biblical teaching that "Before I formed you in the womb I know you" by seeking to limit and reduce abortions?
-Would he/she seek to protect God's sacred institution of marriage while not preaching hatred of homosexuals?
-Would he/she seek real solutions to poverty that helped people in need but that didn't create a dependency on welfare?
-Would he/she protect our society by continuing the war on drugs?
-Would he/she prevent the abuse and exploitation of women by cracking down on pornography and prostition?

Gordon,
Thank you; I too am ashamed of what we've let the United States of America become and the rest of the world has noticed how far off-course we are. Instead of fighting wars we should be leading the world to Peace (first by our own good example, maybe we should feed and educate our poor so we will have a good example to show).

When I hear of Christians who vote Republican I have to wonder what they are thinking, do they only listen to speeches and see the lies and trickery (the rich continue to get richer at the cost of the working class and the lives of our soldiers). Jesus wants us to give to the poor the Repulicans call it entitlement and want to eliminate it (I'm not naive, there are abuses Jesus would say give first and not worry about that).

Then there is torture, how can any Christian not denounce toture. The end does not justify the means, only dictators think that.

Yeah, I'm frustrated that Dobson and Robertson think they speak for evangelicals. But I'm afraid Gordon doesn't speak for me either. I would ask some of Gordon's questions, but not all. I'd ask a few others. Quit trying to influence my vote. Nice try, but stop it. Please.

Gordon MacDonald brings out some good points. But, we must remember that for American politics to model Christ's teachings as in the 4 gospels, we would invite rather than deter more terrorist attacks, give away our wealth, rely on others to feed us, and so on. I've always viewed Christianity as being for believers or disciples, not as a form of government. Did Jesus call for new leadership, or new discipleship? Still, I've often wondered what national policy would look like if it more closely followed the teachings of the Savior.

Wow. That's the main thing I want to say.

But also this: Politically active Christians face a paradox. Even if our main political action is simply casting a vote.

Jesus fought this same battle with the Jews who wanted his Kingdom to be flesh and blood. He kept telling them, "My Kingdom is not flesh and blood." But they didn't get it. We still don't.

And yet... And yet... we still have to elect a leader who is flesh and blood. As Christians how do we choose the leaders of our American kingdom who will also help build God's Kingdom?

I have trouble believing we do that by just voting pro-life. Or pro-environment. Or anti-war. Or pro-security.

But I still don't know how to do it!

Part of me feels as cynical as Walt. And part of me thinks all of this ideological talk is foolish. There is no perfect leader. So we just make our best guess and pray for God's will to be done.

Gordon, writing as a Christian and a born-and-bred American citizen, laments America's standing in the world and wishes we could "recoup our reputation in the world as a generous and compassionate nation". He says he's "embarrassed" every time he goes abroad. He thinks, when he sees a soldier going to war, that, "this isn't the way it was supposed to be. Somebody please change this!"

I, writing as a Christian and a very grateful adopted son of America, also lament America's standing in the world and am disappointed with many here and abroad (sadly, including some Christians and Gordon) who cannot be humbly grateful for America as the generous and compassionate nation that it is. I think, when I see a soldier going to war, of the courage and sacrifice of those, past and present, who have helped make this country the great country it is -- despite its many flaws.

Please excuse the "selectiveness" of my comment:

>Finally, I would say that the standing of >the USA in the world's opnion is created in >large part by our own media which has >contempt for our traditional Christian >values. Additionally, my own international >travels (small in comparison to yours) have >shown me how much affection a large part of >the world's population have for Americans.

No, the opinion is not created by your media, it is a very real fact that, for example, "my generation" lost its "innocent trust" in America in 2003, at the latest. Our parents experienced their share of disappointment during the Vietnam War Era. Generally, America lost much of her credibility and to Germans like me it feels like losing a friend. And from my extensive travels I can report that a lot of people from different continents feel the same way.

All of this is not just true for the "secular" realm. German churches, from liberal to "Bible-believing evangelical", were and are very critical of American policies. For me the separation of the SBC from the World Baptist Alliance is a symbol of the rift between US-Christians and their brothers and sisters in the world.

Please, do not belittle the impact the war in Iraq had on the standing of the USA in the world. It was and is devastating. It also is a blow to your reputation as a Christian nation.
What are "your" traditional Christian values??

But it is also true that American individuals are always welcome abroad. I already had the pleasure this year. I also spent a year in America. And I would come back and stay a few years longer, your country has lots to offer and is better off than most other nations in this world - but things have to change. The USA is a world leader in many respects and thus has a huge responsibility for this world.

We are watching and we have an opinion - and we would love for our friend to come back.

I respect Gordon, but I vote for Melody.

Yes, yes, yes. It is time we used politics for running the government and participating in the world stage and not for legislating moral behavior. It has never worked. If that were the path to transformation of society, the family, and people's hearts, then Jesus would have been on the 32A.D. ticket to be the Jewish candidate for Ceasar. ha.
No - Jesus railed against the "upright and moral" people of his day. Let us stop obsessing about the outside of the cup, the counting of spice seeds, and get to work on the giant planks in our own eyes.
If a politician would stand for even half of the ideas presented by Mr. MacDonald, we would all be living in a world closer to the Kingdom of God. I am tired and disgusted with the manic focus on abortion and gay marriage. What about the children who are born? And dying of starvation and disease? And going to war? And being tortured? Or being beaten up because they are gay? What about the entire planet becoming unliveable for our grandchildren? The American Christian has become the Modern Pharisee. WE are the ones that Jesus is calling to repent. WE are the whitewashed tombs.

Great point Danutz! We have consistenly voted Republican without much thought. As if it were a commandment, even!

The solution to the problem is to vote Democrat. It's really just that simple. Never mind all the baby killing... wink, wink... Jesus is a cool guy and he's not making a big deal about it. What's a little infanticide when simply switching parties will make us look oh so iconoclastic and principled.

It all boils down to this fundamental question:

"What will this candidate do for the least of these?"

Jesus talks about them in thousands of verses in the bible. The poor, the downcast, the widow and the orphan. We have this problem at home in monumental proportions. It is called Single moms, children without fathers, Wives without spouses and so on. What will the candidate do to serve these people. The one who can do it has my vote. Iraq and other things be darned.

Gordon,
Vote Democrat! you hit all there talking points! As for me I vote for Melody also.

Mr. McDonald, an honorable, devout Christian man, allows a bit too much of his own political biases show.

One wonders about our American reputation worldwide long before 9/11. Many nations--including a number of them in Europe--have disliked us for years. It's more than just foreign policy, which is often cited as an all-too convenient culprit. We're successful, we're free, we are (largely) religious, we are (for the most part) anti-socialist. For these reasons, and others, we've been disliked. The Europeans didn't seem to mind our foreign policy decisions when we ended the massacre in the Balkans.

And regarding moral issues in American politics today, why aren't oppressive tax rates ever mentioned as immoral? Gaps between rich and poor? Please move to New York State, where I live. Highest state taxes, second highest property taxes, highest gas tax. Is this not theft, especially when most of it falls into the cavernous bureaucracy?

Please, know that taking more in taxes to spend on various social programs will not bring people out of poverty. The Great Society did not draw people into the middle class, it further mired people in poverty. Is this Christian?

Peter J. Grant wrote:
"Please, do not belittle the impact the war in Iraq had on the standing of the USA in the world. It was and is devastating. It also is a blow to your reputation as a Christian nation. What are "your" traditional Christian values??"

With all due respect, this is offensive, especially since I have a brother in the U.S. Army. Whether we are successful or not, there was a desire to stop the wholesale slaughter of literally thousands of innocents that had been going on for years. Is it unChristian to help stop such death? Would it have been more Christian to know of such death, yet do nothing?

I have benefited greatly from some of the writings of Gordon over the years and I esteem him in the Lord. I also share with him a concern about being lumped together with the Christian "right" and have positions attributed to me in which I had no ability to participate. However there is a real arrogance in believing that he knows which questions were asked and which questions ought to have been asked in that behind-closed-doors meeting.

I am an evangelical (meaning I believe in the uniqueness of Jesus as Savior: "There is no other Name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.") and yet, amazingly I am deeply concerned about the poor. I am deeply concerned about those who are in chains (let's quit spiritualizing this one.) I am deeply concerned about children around the world fighting rats for food on top of city dumps. I am so deeply concerned about these things that I have made career choices to reflect those values. I also have organized a ministry to rally churches to many of these causes.

However, those with the (D) next to their name belong to a party which has a plank in their platform that unborn human beings can be sacrificed on the altar of choice. That is not an altar at which I can worship. I will take my chances trying to rally the (R) folks to the causes of justice and righteousness. They may not be as sensitive to the poor and to as committed to peace as I'd like them to be, but they don't have a plank in their platform that has cost more than 45 million unborn lives to be lost in the past 34 years. That figure is more than all of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Hussein combined.

If we could deal with that one issue, the playing field would be considerably different and we could then have other conversations. However, let's take care of first things first. We tend to want to deal with the urgent, lets deal with the important....LIFE! Who will speak for those who have no voice?

I also vote for Melody!! Also STEVE!!

Unlike Gordon, I was raised in a church that encouraged me to think and act politically. In the early 80's Francis and Edith Schaeffer spent a week at our church. Their message was that all of life is spiritual and that the church needs to be willing to work within the social institutions that are in place already (education, government, media, law and others).
Francis warned that society would continue to degrade spiritually and morally if the church stayed behind the scenes. What seemed unbelievable back then has become normal in American society today. Those "Christian leaders" have given many people the courage to live out their values in a way that impacts society. I am grateful for the example of those who have been willing to be ridiculed and hated for being the salt and light in our culture.

What a country where we have the freedom to express our own beliefs in the blogging forum! Aren't you glad you don't live in China?
I vote with Paul and Melody, too, but I appreciated having the opportunity to get inside the rest of your minds. It's not unspiritual to stretch our heads.
Kat

Thank you Gordon,

I'm from Australia, a youth pastor in my 20's, so i may bring a different perspective...
First off it saddens me that you would be condemned by many Christians for simply asking questions, as a Christian leader you have my full permission to probe, ask questions and encourage me to live as a disciple of Christ, in fact i see it as your duty, please do not stop. I reserve the right to answer as i see fit, but thank you for keeping us honest.

Secondly, it amazes me that people have launched in to spruik votes for political parties! Politics is not the answer, the Church is. I did not see Gordon telling you who to vote for, the church in America is in trouble if this is the response such an article brings.

No one party represents the church or Jesus Christ, that's as clear in my country as it should be in yours. Vote for who you see fit, seek God and pray, and understand that your vote might be different to someone else's, they might even both be right under God - that's not too radical a thought is it? Is there only one winner under our God?

The global church needs you America, not simply for your politics, we need you for your love for Jesus and your commitment to follow him no matter the cost. In that case your country will truly be a superpower, one that i would gladly and wholeheartedly support.

I'm an Independent because I cannot morally or ethically agree with either political party. They both have immoral and un-biblical practices. I agree with the issues that Gordon brings up and the obvious thoughtfulness of this post. But I have an idea that in 2008 I will once again be choosing who I think are the lesser of two evils. I really want a viable third option I could vote for.

The problem with politicians today isn't what they're for or against, but who they're for. They're ultimately out for themselves, which definately isn't what Christ taught!

"Is it unChristian to help stop such death? Would it have been more Christian to know of such death, yet do nothing?" So why was nothing done when Iraq was killing Kurds and Iranians with western supplied weapons? Some of the most outspoken critics of Britain's Opium Wars in the nineteenth century were British citizens in China who saw the injustice of their own country's actions. They were called traitors for doing so but history has vindicated them. Perhaps Western Christians (including Americans) need to listen more to the voices of their countrymen and women who serve the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq at the risk of their own lives. The majority of them (us, I served in Pakistan/Afghanistan for 12 years) would seriously question what sounds like nothing more than the self-justification of Western powers for self-serving foreign policy actions.

In response to the post by Steve above (Posted by: Steve at March 6, 2007):

"Peter J. Grant wrote: "Please, do not belittle the impact the war in Iraq had on the standing of the USA in the world. It was and is devastating. It also is a blow to your reputation as a Christian nation. What are "your" traditional Christian values??""

The above comment was posted by J. Schmidt at March 6, 2007 NOT Peter J. Grant

See Peter J. Grant's comments above for his views.

Yes, my apologies for citing the wrong person with my quote. Forgive me Peter.

Robin said:
"So why was nothing done when Iraq was killing Kurds and Iranians with western supplied weapons?"

Yes, and a number of Soviet T-52s. I'm not going to defend our nation for not stepping up for the Kurds and Shi'ites earlier. Yes, we offered satellite intel to Iraq during its war with Iran. Please let me know of the types of weapons the United States provided to Iraq. To be honest, I can't find much evidence for them. Perhaps I am wrong.

But you're right, Christians throughout the years have had to stand against injustice done, even if done by their own countries. (Witness our own slave trade and the abolitionsists who stood against it.) But I'm still wondering about my question: If what we're doing is immoral, would it have been more moral to have not acted at all and allowed Hussein to continue murdering? It should be a difficult question. How many nations of the world would send their men and women to fight and die for a group of people they don't even know (and who may not even like them), just to give them a chance at freedom?

Many Christians--both in America and in Europe--stood as pacifists in the 1930s, facing the threat of growing fascism. They were well-intentioned. Unfortunately, they were all wrong.

We were not called self-serving when aiding the Kosovars in Europe, or the Haitians, or the Somalis, or the Panamanians, etc. Curiously, this accusation has gained traction during a particularly difficult and bloody conflict.

Gordon, you sound like the Dixie Chicks, or something. And good for you!!

{Sigh} It's always makes me a little sad to see nice Christian people, well-schooled and intelligent within their own field of expertise, resort to tired old tropes and platitudes when talking about politics or foreign policy.

Rev. MacDonald surely knows that the net influence of the U.S. within the world is clearly positive. No other nation has done as much as the U.S. has, and continues to do, to extend freedom to others, assist with catastrophes, provide education and medical care, and raise the quality of life of others.

For all that our media loves to inform us of America's low esteem in the eyes of the world, we never seem to lack for those seeking to immigrate here. Nor have I ever heard of a country refusing our aid in time of need. Indeed, for all that many in Western Europe may indeed disapprove of America, it was our blood which ensured Western Europe's freedom.

And yes, many countries around the world are in debt to America financially. Perhaps Rev. MacDonald could ellucidate: which countries now in arrears on their debts are being penalized by the U.S.? Which countries now in debt to the U.S. could we reasonably expect to become boosters of the U.S. were we to forgive their debts tomorrow?

In spite of all this, the good Rev. would rather focus on the negative, magnifying it so beyond reason in his mind that he is ashamed of America everytime he goes abroad. Were I in an uncharitable mood, and wished to write in the same simplistic vein as Rev. MacDonald, I might answer that if he is ashamed to be an American everytime he goes abroad, he could always expatriate and stay there, thus solving his emotional quandry.

As a reader in Switzerland, I can only say, these are the questions that Christians world-wide are wanting to ask. Please, USA, come back again, into the real world, where Christians of all kinds are trying to work by grace for Peace with Justice. We missed you.

Bryan

I wish that you could spend some time in another part of the world, perhaps you would realize (as Gordon correctly states) how the rest of the world perceives the US and Christianity. From an outsiders perspective there is often a sense of frustration and embarrasment. My plea is that you would realise this and take leadership once again on the world stage.

My concern is that there is, as stated, no real alternative only an either/or option.We will pray for your nation as you wrestle with these issues.

I have only three questions. I know they are politically incorrect. But the answers to these qustions will help me to vote for them and pray for their strength, wisdom and success, no matter which party claims them:

1. Do they know God? (have a perosnal relationship with God and speak with Him on a regular basis.)

2. Do they love God and their fellow man? (as demonstrated by their moral stands and actions of love and sacrifice that I can see. The media can surely dig up stories and anecdotes about acts of human kindness, repentance for moral mistakes [sins] and their participation in Church)

3. Will they humbly seek God's direction in all of their decisions and act accordingly regardless of political consequences?

And Thank You BEN! Hitting the nail on the head for us all the way from Australia. I was wondering if anyone was going to say it.

The banter in these responses shows exactly what is wrong - we are too focused on politics to do what the Church of Jesus Christ should be doing. Wake up people and do your job! It was never the intention of the founding fathers that the US govt should be the moral police or should promote one religion over another. That was, in fact, one of the practices in Europe that they abhored the most.

Having said that, who do we vote for? It's called prayer. The last 4 elections for me have varied on party based on who I felt God would have in that position for that time - regardless of my comfort level with their views. If you have a problem with someone who doesn't appear overly Christian (in your opinion) in office, read about Cyrus in the Old Testament. God annointed His work in the lives of the Israelites even though it is repeatedly mentioned that He did not worship God.

He is in control and has the big picture that NONE of us can see. Ask Him for direction, do the job as the Church that He has told us all to do in scripture, and trust Him for the outcome.

That's funny. I've read alot of Gordon MacDonald and I thought it was ALL political. I have yet to read anything particularly Biblical. Yet he presents himself as some kind of political novice. He's being dishonest.

What bothers me about Gordon's article is that he masks his politics behind a list of seemingly "objective" questions. His list of questions doesn't include even half of the things we should consider when it's time to vote.

I appreciate Mr. Mc Donald's thoughtfulness. He brings up some important issues that we all need to consider. I do think, like others that while some candidates may agree with some of his concerns I think two very big issues that were not mentioned have to be considered. One, is what are we going to do with the unborn and the whole issue of medical ethics? The other has to do with the trivializing of marriage to where we are becoming more and more open to giving same sex and live togther opposite sex people the same rights that married people have enjoyed.
I wonder why this is not being talked about here in the article. While issues like economic and going to war are important sexual and life morals are more important because if we disobey God's way in these issues we continue to rot from the inside as we are doing now. I am not worried about what other countries think of us. I am worried about what God thinks of us. The two are far different. We cannot ignore the agressive homosexual agenda and even pander to gay rights groups as some candidates are already doing. And, we cannot kill the innocent unborn just because these children are inconvenient. It is time for change. Let us not forget these issues too.

"One wonders about our American reputation worldwide long before 9/11. Many nations--including a number of them in Europe--have disliked us for years. It's more than just foreign policy, which is often cited as an all-too convenient culprit. We're successful, we're free, we are (largely) religious, we are (for the most part) anti-socialist. For these reasons, and others, we've been disliked. The Europeans didn't seem to mind our foreign policy decisions when we ended the massacre in the Balkans."

Sorry, but in Europe we do not envy your success, freedom or anti-socialism and don't mind "your" religiosity (which you share with many Europeans like myself). Americans also weren't the only ones who sent troops to the Balkans, there are still thousands of German troops stationed there, among soldiers from many other (European) nations. The war was staged by NATO to end a war that was already going on.

"With all due respect, this is offensive, especially since I have a brother in the U.S. Army. Whether we are successful or not, there was a desire to stop the wholesale slaughter of literally thousands of innocents that had been going on for years. Is it unChristian to help stop such death? Would it have been more Christian to know of such death, yet do nothing?"

I am not questioning the faith of your brother or any other American individual, involved in the war, opposed to it or whatever. But American policies seem to be astonishingly selective when it comes to "stopping the slaughter of thousands of innocents" (and causing some thousands of deaths on its own in the course of it). The USA also did not seem to worry too much about the Iraqi dictatorship when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam and delivered weapons to support the war against Iran (which cost 1 Million lives).

I feel offended when somebody lies to me, and it is very obvious that the justification for the war was fabricated (let us not forget that it was supposed to target WMD and terrorism). I am not sad at all about another dictator who lost his power, but the costs in human lives are staggering. And on top of it, it did not work out, just like many specialists feared it would not. Nobody listened. Terrorism made its way into Iraq, Afghanistan (the main source of terrorism) remains a Taliban-power house.

Additionally, since the second gulf war, the dictatorship was already weak and less dangerous. The situation in Darfur or North Korea is certainly worse. Nobody seems too eager to send troops there.

Well, with this writing Gordon has just convinced me that he has pretty much bought into to a liberal agenda. As a Pastor responsible for influencing hundreds, I cannot, in good conscience, advocate endorsing candidates that will not have the common sense or decency to vote against killing unborn children, openly supporting gay & lesbian public policies, or completely misunderstand the threat of militant Islam to the West. Republicans are far from perfect, but many still support moral sanity. My advice: vote your conscience, but make sure your conscience is subject to historical/cultural biblical interpretation.

One thought that has not been mentioned in posts to date is the difficulty of having a discussion about politics from a Christian perspective without it becoming emotionally charged. We live in a world of crimes, injustices and tragedies. As followers of Jesus we want to stand for truth, grace, and justice. So we select the negatives we think are most significant and then we get very emotional about it. This emotionality is understandable, but it short circuits discussion and stirs enmity. The world conducts politics through character assassination and invective. While Gordon writes objectively on the surface, his emotionality and assumptions are inherent in the article, and they stir the emotions of those who agree and those who disagree.
I wish it were different, but I don’t know what the answer is, aside from a high level of discipline on the part of everyone in the discussion.

When (if at all) going to the ballot box, citizens in many countries around the world fail to realize what an enormous responsibility they have in their hands not only towards their own nation but also towards the rest of the world.

Given the U.S. influence in the world, this responsibility is even greater for American citizens. In other words, how American Christians vote in 2008 will influence in one way or another lives of us Christians living in other parts of the world.

I have longstanding respect for pastor McDonald. Pushing a particular political ideology with a perjorative list is beneath my expectations of him, especially after noting problems with others who push other lists. Since so many U.S. believers have a different understanding, let's extend grace to each other. Not that many Christians are against the poor or for ruining the earth. We just have different ideas on how to deal with it. Let's maintain unity on the essentials, but a little more love with those who have a different list. The key point I get from pastor McDonald is the importance of our leadership not being driven from our essential message: Christ, and Him crucified.

Why are we continuing to call for change in the political structure to end abortion and gay-rights? Initially in 2000, two branches of govt were conservative, and the Supreme Court followed. that's 3 out of 3. Go ahead, fix it. Didn't get done, because that's not how it gets done.

These moral failure issues - which are tragic - in American society are the fault of the church, not the govt. It has become increasingly popular in the last 25+ yrs to abdicate our God-given reponsibility to be at the heart of the work of changing lives. We have replaced root level, Holy Spirit empowered change with moral "police"ing thru legislation and whine when we don't get our way. We continue to pour money, time, and people into political agendas which change at least every 4 yrs rather than investing in people on an every day, Jesus following way.

I have never read a verse of scripture where the Apostles mentioned the govt being the catalyst for change or where they mentioned the govt being a stumbling block to changing lives and influencing culture. And I don't think you really want to compare our govt to the oppression and lack of freedom that existed under Roman rule.

If people really want to change America for the better, they need to follow the formula in Scripture - Love God, Love People. You would be surprised at what can happen globally when we are simply obedient. God has the plan and perspective and it hasn't changed.

The problem with the Church's response to politics can be summed up in Gordon's quote, "I was not raised to THINK politically."

American Christians typically don't think, we react. Show us enough pictures of aborted American babies and we vote Republican. Show us enough pictures of dead Iraqi babies and we vote Democrat. Anyone who can look at both sets of pictures without feeling incredible disgust, sorrow and anger lacks heart. Anyone who thinks voting Republican will end abortion or voting Democrat will end the deaths in Iraq lacks wisdom.

I'm not sure what to do about abortion,the environment, education, the war on terror and the moral decay in our country. I am sure that if I did know how to address ONE of those issues, there is no way I could sum it up in 1500 characters!

Gordon is right. We do need someone like Lincoln. The problem is we won't elect anyone like Lincoln. We'll elect whoever has the slickest ad campaign. That is inevitable in a society focused on visual, fast-pace media. If we did elect Lincoln, I'm not sure he would care about restoring "our reputation in the world as a generous and compassionate nation?" I think he would be more concerned about BEING generous and compassionate.

We must do the hard work of informing ourselves about the issues so we can make good decisions. This is especially important for ministers. I was astounded during a recent election to find many of our local ministers were encouraging their members to vote for or against an ammendment that almost none of them had read.

We also need to get involved locally. Many of my neighbors live at or below the poverty level. I don't think voting D and throwing more money at the problem or voting R and ignoring the problem will help them. When my wife and I share our food, give them rides, help them get medical care, help them find jobs and help them find inexpensive housing, I'm sure we help them.

1. You can stop painting Gordon as a Democrat. He was attempting to offer Christian concerns that have not been represented by those in the "religious Right". By labeling him, you only hope to ignore the issues he brought up. Why not address the issues rather than dismiss them?

2. I share Walt's cynicism. It seems to me that people's political opinons are almost wholly formed by the commentators they listen to.

3. For 5 of the last 7 terms, we have ahd pro-life candidates in the Oval office. Where has it gotten us? Should we just hold out hope?

4. I'm voting third party in 2008. I've decided that voting for someone who cannot win will be better on my conscience than voting for "the guy who seems to be lying less" or the "lesser of two evils." I won't vote for evil any more. Maybe I'll vote for Gordon:)

And could someone tell me why religious leaders should not have political biases? It is impossible, and dishonest to claim to not have them.

I wonder what it says about the American evangelical church when politics generates more discussion on this blog than any post about theology or church life ever does?!

"I'm not sure what to do about abortion,the environment, education, the war on terror and the moral decay in our country. I am sure that if I did know how to address ONE of those issues, there is no way I could sum it up in 1500 characters!" The answer is not found in 1500 words, it is found in 1 single word - Christ. Remember, no one is more than 5 or 6 people from being connected to anyone else. If you influence those you are connected to for Christ, they will influence those they are connected to, etc, etc and that equals world change.

One Savior - one life at a time.

I can't help but reflect that our disappointment in America has more to do with us being American than Christian. My service to country has taken me many strange places including Iraq. I did my duty more because it was my duty than because I believed in the "rightness" (or lack thereof) of any particular secular cause (including the agendas of my government). "Render unto Caeser..."
Christians were taught to submit even to Nero. God certainly doesn't guarantee us a "righteous government or nation", but demands our individual devotion regardless. I will not be disappointed by America, because I have not placed my faith in it. Meanwhile, I'll submit to authority and yes, pray for God's influence on that authority.

With each issue of Leadership and Christianity Today I am seeing an increasing slant toward "liberal" theology. Although most of MacDonald's questions are legitimate concerns for all of us, why is he skipping the other concerns important to Bible-believing Christians?

I do appreciate hearing different opinions on the issues, so Leadership's sharing various viewpoints in the church world is fine. However, with limited time to read, I am wondering how much time I can give to reading opinions already being propagated in the mainstream media.

When I read Leadership, I want to hear the other issues ignored or misrepresented by biased journalists and TV analysts.

There are other good Biblical leadership websites. I'm going to start looking.

There is much more to be said. But I am appalled, not so much at the Democrats and Republicans. But I'm appalled at how we Christians fail to come across as what we are, in Jesus, and of the kingdom of God come in Jesus, into this world.

We're not of this world, even as Jesus was not. Is our agenda really kingdom of God-oriented? As given to us by Jesus.

I do agree with the points Gordon MacDonald makes.

These questions are for the most part good and valid. As a Scot who lives in the United States, I have to query why question #1 is phrased the way it is - in my life time (I'm 37) I can't recall a time when America has been regarded quite as wholesomely as Gordon suggests. It would be great for this nation to be all of those things and to be percieved that way, but it's not something to recoup from a lost golden age in which the rest of the world loved the States.

In response to Melody, I'd have to say that while individual Americans meet with a lot of affection abroad (because an unusually high percentage of Americans are warm, gregarious, welcoming and generous) she shouldn't confuse that with attitudes toward America as a nation. Also, other countries don't get their impression of America from American media, but from their own. We don't have Fox News to watch in Britain.

Gordon didn't include a question specifically related to health care, which may have just been an oversight, but I would say it's a question that's increasingly necessary.

I've lived in Washington DC and New York City, and I've travelled throughout California and many other parts of the country. In all those places and over the past twelve or more years of being around Americans fairly intensively, one thing has emerged to deply trouble accepted on both sides of the political and theological divide, that there are only two packages for Christians to buy into, and they must buy into the whole package. I grew up in evangelical, orthodox churches and mostly politics wasn't a topic of conversation but in those churches there were capitalists and socialist and liberals and people who couldn't have cared less about political issues. What there wasn't was an assumption that being a bible-believing Christian (who could say the Apostle's Creed without lying and give you a great testimony) meant that you had to be right wing. Neither was there an assumption that caring about poverty,starvation, unfair trade, the environment, or being involved in an unjust war made you someone who didn't really believe in Jesus. Some people in your church would agree with you, some wouldn't, but nobody would doubt your faith even if they might question your beliefs on spiritual grounds.

I'm likely to live here for a long time, my wife and daughter are both US Citizens, and this insistence on rigid *sets* of beliefs is one of the hardest things for me about living here. I find it sinful and disturbing that peace and justice Christians are distrustful of my comittment when they find out I'[m evangelical, and that when evangelicals find out my political beliefs they think I'm lying when I say I'm a Christian.

I'm not saying I have the correct bundle of beliefs, I'm saying that it's esential for nearly all political camps to have an active Christian witness with them and that I should be (graciously and lovingly) allowed to have my bundle.

I can't resist ONE contentious question. I know this is naughty, but I'm going to ask it anyway: Were the people who say we're supposed to support Bush because he claims to be a Christian, saying the same thing about Carter?

Mat 10:16-42 -
Our Lord warned his disciples to prepare for persecution. They were to avoid all things which gave advantage to their enemies, all meddling with worldly or political concerns, all appearance of evil or selfishness, and all underhand measures. Christ foretold troubles, not only that the troubles might not be a surprise, but that they might confirm their faith. He tells them what they should suffer, and from whom. Thus Christ has dealt fairly and faithfully with us, in telling us the worst we can meet with in his service; and he would have us deal so with ourselves, in sitting down and counting the cost.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary.

I love my enemies because Christ first loved me and is loving them through me because He first loved me.

The great ship America is leaking, and many call for damage control. God is still after the heart, not a nationality.

We live in a time where God remains on the Throne and is very Loving towards you and me no-matter what of the externals.

This post is encouraging to me. I fear we as Christians put to much in someones label and not in what they actually believe and will do. These questions you would ask are questions I hope all who vote will ask.
Thank you

Lots of great discussion here, but was anybody bothered by the opening remarks that these "Christians" met in a five star hotel?

Seems to me that is telling enough of their misguided agenda.

Someone, I believe on of the early church fathers, stated they would rather have a heathen as emperor who had the ability to lead well, than a Christian who could not.

Lord, have mercy on us all. D's, R's and the rest of the little people.

What disturbs me most about all the responses to this post - by a man who is only trying to get some of us to think in ways that we would not normally do on our own - is the personal attacks and vilification of Mr. MacDonald. So many of the responses went directly after what was assumed as Mr. MacDonald's "agenda" or motivation. What a sad state of affairs we have gotten ourselves into when in the name of "christianity" we find ourselves beating each other down over our personal political beliefs and agendas. Why not instead just be thankful for a brother in the Lord who is willing to do nothing other than ask us to think?

Mr. MacDonald -- I am personally sorry for what has happened to you here although I am sure you are used to it. Press on Brother.

hmm... I'm not American and I'm not qualified to talk about which way anyone should vote. I do think voting is a matter of prayer and it may be that not voting is the best option.

I suspect that what this world needs most is not more liberal/republican idol worshippers but a faithful church. A Church made up of Chinese, American, Indian, Iraqi, Israeli, Italian, British, Australian, South African, German, Palestinian... And if the Church walked more closely with its Lord: nationalist ideology including violent global intervention, a surveillance society, with secular moral policing, and the nationalisation (by socialists/communists) of church based initiatives would be things of the past.

I agree with Rick - "One Saviour, one life at a time".

Perhaps we should go back to Dr. Martin Luther for some wisdom. He distinguished two kingdoms, the kingdom of the right hand (the church) and the kindom of the left hand (government) Both are ordained of God and both have an important role to play. As a Christian I have one foot in each kingdom and I have a vocation to play out in both these kingdoms. As a citizen of heaven, I share Christ, worship, intercede for others and do works of compassion as did Jesus. In the Kingdom of heaven, I use Kingdom tools, the Gospel, prayer, etc. I do not use political tools to accomplish Gospel goals. As a citizen of this country, I live out my vocation. I seek to do whatever I do as good as I can do it because it is God given. As a citizen of this country, I happen to have the right to vote and influence the political process in a number of ways. I am to use my human reason to determine what is the best way for me to be a good citizen of this nation. We are not to try to turn this nation into the Kingdom of God. We are to make it as good a place as it can be but it will never be the Kingdom of God. In this Kingdom, I use human reason and not Gospel or prayer. We reason together with our fellow human beings and seek to live together in peace. As a citizen of this Kingdom I may choose to run for a political office. I do not do it as a Christian but as a citizen. I do not stump on my faith but on good policy based on good reason.
I fear much of conservative American Evangelicalism is influenced by post millenial thinking. I see Christians acting as if their task is to turn this nation into the Kingdom of God on earth and then Jesus will return. I am weary of the discussions about what persons or policies are Christian and which are not. Use your noodle not your Bible to do politics. On the other hand use the Word of God, baptism, communion, prayer to do Kingdom work.

Yes, McDonald's biases are showing, but we all show our prejudices - especially when we point out his prejudices. He asks Christian questions that too many Christians find inconvenient. He asks questions that can't be answered ina 45-second soundbite. He asks questions that point to the character of the candidate, and the depth of thinking the candidate lends to the national discussion. I say, "Yea, Mr. McDonald." Yes, we must ask questions that go beyond shallow tests of party loyalty (anti-abortion, small-government, balanced-budget) and forget the rhetoric of the party platform (that's often ignored once in office), and look closely at the character of the candidate. And we must each clean the lenses of our own filters and biases in order to clearly discern the inner strength and mental dexterity of a candidate. And consider this: because Gordon McDonald asks the questions he does may be the reason he wasn't invited to Florida. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that's the reason.

Nate wrote: "I wonder what it says about the American evangelical church when politics generates more discussion on this blog than any post about theology or church life ever does?!"

It's a fair question, Nate; my only response would be that the nerve this particular thread has hit is at the root of both politics and spirituality. Theology is absolutely necessary, and church life essential; but what is also required is that our Theology drive us as a Christian Community out into the world and make a difference in it. What we study is important, but I think what affect it has upon the world around is even more so.

And I for one do not mind any of the passion or emotion shown in this blog (nor do I tend to believe that Gordon would, either); besides the fact that spirited debate is healthy, passion is a sign that these issues hit us deeply, and can be the start of action for many. I applaud the dialogue.

Dave,

Don't be so wimpy, whiney, and thin skinned. He put the comments out there and other people need to be able to (with love) oppose his comments. To say they are wrong or mean because they disagree is vilifying them.

The fact that we can disagree is one of the qualities that makes this country great.

Post On!

And again, Jesus weeps.

If Mr. McDonald is ashamed and embarassed by his country when he travels abroad, maybe he should spend some time visiting our troops and ask them what this struggle against radicl Islamic ideology means to them. It sounds like he doesn't understand the cost of freedom; or the lessons of history. In the beginning of the 19th century, Jefferson stood up to the Barbary terrorists while Europe paid protection money to those Islamic pirates. We won!

So many comments look upon the issues in such simple terms. If I support this, then I am against that. If I am against the war, I don't support the troops who are giving their lives. If the US had a great track record in helping other nations who were oppressed, then I would applaud our efforts in Iraq. But we have a history of not of helping the oppressed, but of serving our own interests - even when it has meant supporting terrorists in the past. And yet, I don't think we can leave Iraq now. Too much instability (that we helped create.) But can we change our focus? Can it be less about the war on terror and more on the love of others? Jesus isn't a republican or a democrat. And, no I don't think he would agree with abortion or other main issues of the religious right. But let's put our focus on the things Jesus put his focus on. Jesus spoke most about the poor. About stewardship. About how a society treats its most vulnerable. It is time that the US changes its reputation of being the bully. We have the money and the power. Let's really change the world, Jesus style. Let's do something great for Africa. Let's close the gap between the rich and poor in our own nation. May Jesus concerns be our concerns.

Great questions. It is time for American Christians to stop thinking that all good Christians should vote Republican. The question needs to be asked, how would Jesus vote. I suspect he would look beyond the party and look at the man. Compassion and justice are important, the Sermon on the Mount is still in the book.

The price of war is almost always paid for by young men, many of whom are poor black young men. I don't suspect Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton would allow their daughters to go off to Iraq.

As a Canadian and a firm believer, I cannot understand why so many American believers refuse to accept the idea of climate change. It seems to me that God calls us to care for the environment.

I must confess I have never been a big fan of Gordon McDonald, but I am now.

I hope that you will rework those questions for Canadians. Sometime soon we will be having a federal election.

Your Servant,

Dale

Grace,

What you say proves my point. We do not make the correct distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. You are wanting Government to do kingdom work. It can't happen. Government is not Project Compassion. It is about keeping order in society. The church is about forgiveness, compassion, works of mercy. Let's keep it straight.

The sadest thing is that Ms. Clinton can probably answer most of those questions positively. Unfortunately she has no regard for the life of the unborn. It appears to me that we may be better off with a Republican reprobate who seems to be very familar with the divorce laws and feels quite comfortable to confessing adultry in a very public way . Perhaps its time to pray for a good leader who models justice and truth to both the nation and his family.

Just a thought

Why has this struck a nerve? For me, I am really struggling with myself as to how to vote, how to even understand the political scene here in America, or even what are good questions to talk about. I am not comfortable with either party or most candidates. Hillary may be prochoice (which is wrong but to the best of my knowledge she never had an abortion) but Rudy (somewhat? prolife?) had flagrant affairs known all over New York. I pray hard and ask the Lord for mercy over our country, our leaders, and ourselves. I go back to my place as a follower of Jesus in community-am I living out his life? Maybe we should ask that question of ourselves as much as we want our leaders to do at a national level?

It's hard to address a nearly 6000 character posting in 1500 characters or less, so I will answer one a day, and see how long it takes...

I'm not sure I agree with his assumptions as to what the government’s responsibility is.

It seems in many of them he is confusing the church's responsibility with the government’s role. It reminds me of an ongoing discussion I have had with my brother-in-law, as to whether the church has abdicated it's role in its social responsibilities to the government, or the government has seized it from the church, offering the same thing the church once did, but without the moral teaching that traditionally went along with it. (through it's social programs).

As I read the article, I was also surprised to see the subject of abortion was not even mentioned. That's a pretty drastic oversight considering that every hour, 155 children die from abortion.

I have several books by MacDonald, and he is usually very insightful, but I think he is swallowing the "worlds" bait hook, line and sinker on this one.

I will quickly go point by point…

1.Can he/she give us a government that will recoup our reputation in the world as a generous and compassionate nation?

The fact is Actual dollar contributions reveal that the U.S. is the world’s largest donor. The OECD calculates U.S. development assistance (based on bilateral assistance, humanitarian assistance, and contributions to multilateral institutions like the International Development Association of the World Bank) in 2003 at $16.2 billion—more than double the amount given by France, Germany, or any other European nation. And that doesn't include private (church related) giving. (Heritage Foundation, Dec 30, 2004). I think those with an agenda have falsely sullied our “reputation”.

In Christ,

Tim M.

A friend of ours had a dream months before Bush became president.

In this dream Bush becomes president and has a choice of whether to go to war or not. If he chooses to go to war it would be a choice that caused many bad things.

She didn't even know who Bush was or if he was running for president at the time. I informed her he was a canidate for the presidency.

I then marveled as history unfolded with Bush's election and the development of the war.

I saw Christians raise up with patriotic pride under the banner of America to "live by the sword". It seemed for a while, that if you were against the war you were less then American or Christian. But all along I knew what God had revealed to us by that dream.

It seems to me that Christians are not listening to God and His perspective on things when He so clearly seemd to be warning of consequences of war.

Christians were among the ones loyal to, promoting, and looking down on anyone opposed to the presidents agenda and war councils.

This does not mean all Bush did was wrong. He just personified the fallacy of trusting in and giving allegiance earthly system of government rather then the kingdom of God.

And now prepare for a pendulum swing that will change this nation forever.

No election will solve the issues of this nation, none ever will. But Christians keep wasting time thinking they can get back something they lost. They are fighting with the arm of the flesh, a battle they cannot win, and God WILL NOT let them win.

But of course like the Pharisees; religious men and women will keep trying to "restore the kingdom" and resist anyone who tries to get thier focus off the world and unto God's perspective.

I can only hope that Christians can put
aside their obvious and strong differences
with Mitt Romney's religion, because he is
clearly the far-and-away best choice to be
our national leader, our president.

His ethics and reputation are above any
reproach. His track record of academic
and business achievement if far better
than any.

It's unusual for such a clearly superior
choice to emerge so early, here in 2007;
but it remains true: Romney is the best
choice for Christians and for Americans.

Well I guess it is time I came out of the closet. I am a.... Republican! And, as best as I can tell I am also a Christian. Have I just committed an oxymoron? But I am not responding to my brother Gordon's content. There's plenty of room for disagreement among Christians regarding all his opining.
Rather, I am far more concerned with what he did NOT write.
My brother, Gordon, What About the Unborn? We (USA) have now legally committed about 50 million abortions since Roe. I must ask,
"Is the deficit a greater concern to God than the plight of the unborn?"
"Is Social Security?"
"Is Climate Change closer to God's heart than the 50 million our nation has legally terminated?"
My brother, why have you not mentioned them? I ask this "why" question seriously. What possible (good) reason could you have for omitting them?
Though I am a Republican I gladly acknowledge that the Church - not the Republican Party - is the only true hope of the Unborn. For, have we Christians not historically called the unborn our "neighbors?" Are we not commanded then to love them? These least of the least of these are by far the most helpless of the helpless. If Christian leaders place issues such as climate change and deficits ahead of them... or virtually dismiss them altogether... if we are silent...
My brother, for the sake of the 50 million and for the sake of God's heart, please rewrite your points and generously include the unborn.
God bless you.