The Christian Post site is publishing articles by Christians who are making a case for Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
I can’t understand how a Christian can vote for someone who supports abortion on demand and homosexual marriage. “President Obama said Thursday [October 25,] that he is formally endorsing same-sex marriage in the states of Washington, Maine and Maryland, joining Minnesota, where he has already lent his support to the issue earlier this year.” There is no way a Christian can support President Obama, especially if the Bible is the standard.
Even so, there are some Christians who will vote for Obama. Here’s the rationale from Rod Snyder from Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia. He serves as president of the Young Democrats of America.
“For some people it might seem counterintuitive that I would end up as president of a progressive political organization like the Young Democrats of America. But the truth is that I support President Obama and Democratic policies because of my faith, not in spite of it.
“Scripture teaches us that, ‘Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me’ (Matthew 25:40). When viewed through the lens of Christ’s own words, the contrast between the two candidates for president this year could not be clearer.”
Mitt Romney created more jobs through the private sector at no cost to you and me than Barack Obama did. President Obama took money from some Americans and gave to other Americans. Mr. Snyder, please find me a verse in the Bible that supports that.
The Bible has a great deal to say about helping the poor (as it does about abortion and homosexuality), but I can’t find a single verse where it empowers the State to tax the prosperous so it can be redistributed to the less fortunate. Mr. Snyder’s use of Matthew 25:40 is not a call for the State to develop a welfare system.
Tony Campolo, an advocate for the worldview adopted by Mr. Synder, declares “that there are more than 2,000 verses of Scripture that call us to express love and justice for those who are poor and oppressed.” What Campolo needs to find in these 2,000 verses is one verse that gives authority to civil government to redistribute wealth. Campolo takes verses that are directed at individuals and turns them on their head by giving them a political twist. Here’s a representative example:
Most important, when we reflect on all Jesus had to say about caring for the poor and oppressed, committing ourselves to His red-letter message just might drive us to see what we can do politically to help those he called, “the least of these” (see Matt. 25:31–46).
On the day of judgment . . . [God] will ask whether or not we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, received and cared for aliens, and brought deliverance to captive peoples (see Matt. 25:31–46).
Campolo sees a political solution in these verses when Jesus is addressing what individuals have or have not done. By politically, Campolo means government intervention and wealth redistribution.
To base government programs like welfare, food stamps, and social security on Matthew 25:31–46 is without foundation. The division in Matthew 25 is between sheep and goats, that is, individuals in nations. Nations don’t visit people in prison; private citizens do. Governments put people in prison; private citizens do not.
Civil governments are the biggest hindrance in helping the poor, and it’s not because they don’t tax enough and redistribute wealth efficiently. High taxes and control of the money supply (inflation/deflation) enable civil governments to control people and their property.
Wealth redistribution policies, with all their good intentions, have the effect of hurting the poor and making them dependent on civil government — forever. Mr. Snyder is advocating what Jesus condemns the Pharisees for in Mark 7:1–13, nullifying the Word of God for the sake of a political tradition that is neither biblical nor effective.