Election Day Communion 2012 Case Study

It Encourages churches to work together in local areas and supplies materials to help local churches work ecumenically.

I attended an event held by the Veritas Forum, “‘In ___ We Trust’ Finding where division ends and unity begins” on January 26th. Conversation ensued between Professor Gillespie and Professor Smith who shared their insight into government and their faith. They spoke about where they saw the government headed and the deep-seated religious ties that America has. Professor Gillespie said she had to have hope and believe that the right things would be done, while Professor Smith said he looked to the future to see how President Trump would handle his obligations and how he would respond to threats to national security. At the end of the discussion, Professor Smith stated that discussion between people from both parties was needed in order to move forward and work together.

This year’s presidential election is facing much controversy. The evangelicals are a vote candidates strive to earn along with many other special interest groups. Donald Trump, the nominee for the Republican party, met with prominent evangelical leaders of America on June 22, 2016 to discuss many of the issues that he will face if elected president. It was a closed conversation that included Jerry Falwell Jr., David Jeremiah, Ben Carson, Franklin Graham, and other evangelical leaders. In the conversation, Donald Trump gains the vote of evangelical leaders and their followers not through his extensive knowledge or political background, but by appealing to their emotions, using precise and compelling language, and convincing the audience that

Bush had with Christians, Obama partook in religiously focused events in hopes of structuring an evangelical backing as well as quieting down his supposed Muslim faith. In the face of creating an advisory council specifically to reach Catholic voters and citing the Bible at different events, Patricia Smith in “Religion & the White House” claims that “18 percent of Americans still believe he’s a Muslim, according to a 2010 Pew Research Center Poll.” An individual can only go so far to convince an assemblage of people of a particular lifestyle before it simply becomes ignorance. In the 2012 presidential race, it was Barack Obama’s competition that was at the forefront of the religious

Though the order was meant to fulfill Trump’s campaign promise to repeal the Johnson Amendment of 1954, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations from endorsing or actively opposing political candidates, a recent study has shown that most Americans — and Christians — do not believe religious leaders should endorse or oppose political candidates from the pulpit. A LifeWay Research study has shown that almost 80 percent of Americans disagreed with the idea that “it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse political candidates during a church service.” Only 20 percent of Protestants, 13 percent of Catholics, and 25 percent of evangelicals supported the idea.

Although there were calls by politicians warning church to stop dictating governance of the government. Other denominations felt that evangelical had taken the country and followed backlashes because of scandals of leaders of the church.

I’ve read this and been thinking about it. Here is my response to this the editorial. First of all, OF COURSE Christians should try to influence elections… so should everyone else! My concern about the focus is that so often it seems that the Christians Mr. Grudem is trying to influence try to tie their political opinions, policy positions, and those whom they support with their religion. I very rarely see this link as being positive; typically it is short sighted and replaces critical thinking of far-sighted potential ramifications of a policy to blind obedience to a faith based system of thought. That is not healthy, and it is certainly not Christianity. So I agree with the principle, but I am reading something sinister between the lines. Paranoia on my part? Possibly, but recent history of certain religious groups selling out to a certain political party suggest otherwise.

Introduction: the whole thing is about peace in the world because without peace, we would have war everyday. A few months ago polices were getting injured or killed because the police would do things that was not supposed to do. And also there was a lot of action that made people mad and that would do crazy things and people couldn't control themselves threw out these few months. What would the world become with a president that will only want war in the country? I think the world with a president that only wants war in our community will only allow people that are his skin color do what they want and the other people with a different skin

It was starting to look as if politics were beginning to become more secular. As it is well known, after Kennedy’s assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson carried out the rest of Kennedy’s term, and then ran for reelection in 1964. Johnson, a left-leaning Democrat found himself up against Barry Goldwater from the right-minded Republican Party. Early on in the 20th century, many of Protestant denominations had adopted progressive, social reformist doctrines, that many people still value to this day. Despite being Protestant, Goldwater’s platform took a much more conservative approach. This ended up backfiring on him, however, as many Christian publications stated that they opposed Goldwater’s policies. He was further stigmatized by the religious publication The Christian Century as turning his patriotic rhetoric into “religious nationalism.” To make matters worse for Goldwater, in October of 1964, less than a month before the general election, 725 Episcopalian clergy and laymen from forty-one states signed a resolution accusing him of “a transparent exploitation of racialism.” Richard Nixon, a Republican and ex-Vice President at the time, claimed that these allegations were “the most vicious in political history.” As a result, Lyndon Johnson won the 1964 election in an unprecedented landslide victory, with Barry Goldwater only winning six states: his native Arizona, and five states in the heart of the Bible Belt (Kosmin 1993:174-5). While religious leaders in the end

For the Christian, this unmistakable tension can bring great concern, unsettling worry, and sleepless nights. The follower of Jesus may be asking: "What if the wrong person gets elected as President?" "What if my guy or girl botches the race for the Whitehouse?" "What will happen if my side loses?" Are you ready for a comforting truth? Christians will gain no matter who prevails in the Presidential election.

As Christians, we have a lot of responsibilities, ranging from: sharing the gospel, being good influences, helping the orphans and widows, and, some may say, voting. Today, people may feel as if one should vote, as a duty to provide the leadership that would most uphold biblical precepts. Some say that Christians should choose the better of the two candidates; others say believers should not choose between the lesser of the two evils. Nevertheless, Christians undoubtedly have a strong role in voting! However, what is the role in its entirety?

As I grow up more and more, I’m starting to realize how important in my life and as a Christian political decisions are. In 2016, the politics are really coming to life because the two leaders that we as a country have chosen aren’t exactly the greatest or the examples I would want to lead our country. Matthew 16:18 says, “all authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” We were asked earlier what the role for Christians was and for me personally I think it is to be submissive to God and trust what he is doing in our life because He knows the big picture and we don’t. As I am getting closer to the age of voting, I am seeing the impact that not voting can have on an election. I now see voting as a responsibility as a Christian rather than a casual, maybe kind of

I know that many of my Facebook friends are Republican through and through. And I 'm willing to bet that this is because of their Christian faith. Growing up a Christian, I think it’s considered the “norm” to throw your allegiance at the Republican candidate. Typically, the candidate holds

In contrast, church sermons are more meaningful than campaign speeches. Church sermons are meant for Christians who are trying to better themselves as the Lord’s children. The sermons help people lift back up to their feet after the Devil knocks them down. The sermons are so powerful that they can speak to someone from the inside

In the aftermath of the disaster of an election in 2016, the political parties’ were even more combative than usual. Even citizens who were not previously politically active were taking to the streets (of Facebook) to declare the supremacy of their beliefs, candidate, party, etc. Words like “liberal”, “conservative”, and “snowflake” (of all things), became insults sandwiched between obscenities. The circumstances of the election illustrated the country’s polarization, even though I believe most of it is an illusion.