A Christian as President?

 

flag

A Christian as President?

A Christian as President?

Richard Hollerman

Many “Christian” political activists of our day hope and long for the day when a Christian will be elected to the presidency of the United States of America.  Many professing “Christians” rejoiced when Jimmy Carter became president, only to be deeply disappointed with this president who was assumed to be “born again.”  Others campaigned for Ronald Reagan but soon were dismayed with this president who professed to be a Christian (but was the first divorced one of which I am aware).  Then numerous religious, conservative people campaigned for Pat Robertson but were disillusioned when he failed to even win the nomination.

More recently, some looked on George Bush as a Christian because of his opposition to abortion and perhaps other conservative issues. In 2008, Mike Huckabee (a Baptist preacher from Arkansas), Alan Keyes (an outspoken conservative), and Sarah Palin (an Evangelical from Alaska), all had aspirations of being president or vice-president—all to no avail. In 2012, Rick Santorum (a conservative Catholic), Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann (an Evangelical), and Rick Perry (a conservative Evangelical from Texas), all claimed to be Christians and all of them failed in their attempts.  Then there were Barack Obama (an ultra-liberal member of the liberal United Church of Christ) and Mitt Romney (a faithful Mormon and member of a renowned American cult) who contended for the presidency. When we come to 2015-2016, we know that people like Huckabee and Carson (a Seventh-Day Adventist) also claimed to be Christians but failed miserably in obtaining the needed support.

White house

A Christian as President?

Let us look at this matter more carefully. Could a genuine, consistent, Christ-centered, Scripture-guided, uncompromising man run and be elected as President of the United States? Is there any remote possibility whatever of this happening?  We don’t’ refer to a loyal church member, a professing religious person, or even one who claims to be a Christian. We are referring to a truly saved, born again, and consistent follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us briefly notice a number of points which reveal the impossibility of this.

Why a True Christian Could Not be President 

1.   He would seek to please God rather than human supporters.

Those in political office must represent those who are governed.  They must please their constituency. To even be elected, they must please their prospective voters. Would it not be difficult or even impossible for a consistent Christian to do this?  The following scriptures show how impossible it would be for anyone who would be a consistent Christian:

“Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men?  If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).

“Not as pleasing men but God, who examines our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4b).

2.   He would be unable to have close fellowship with various key supporters.

The believer in Christ is not permitted to have intimate fellowship with those who are unbelievers and those in sin. This would severely limit his ability to work with important political backers. In fact, it would be utterly impossible for him to work in this arrangement. Notice these verses:

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness with lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? . . . Come out from their midst and be separate” (2 Corinthians 6:14-15, 17).

“He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm” (Proverbs 13:20.

“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals’” (1 Corinthians 15:33).

3.   He would not engage in slander, back-biting, strife, gossip, “mud-slinging,” and other verbal sins common in political contests. 

His speech would be the opposite of what is commonly found in political debates and campaigns. He wouldn’t be able to verbally interact in ways that the president always does. He would not be mean-spirited or combative or filled with strife.  Notice this:

“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).

“Put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth” (Colossians 3:8).

“Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice” (Ephesians 4:31).

4.   He would be hated by large numbers of the American public.

A president must be chosen and endorsed by the majority of the voting public.  In view of Christ’s many warnings this seems impossible since the vast majority of Americans are part of this fallen world system and are opposed to the radical ways of God. For instance:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19; cf. 16:33; 17:14-16).

“Woe to you when all men speak well of you” (Luke 6:26a).

5.   He would not receive the backing of large segments of the American public since he would oppose their special interests which conflict with the ways of God.

For instance, he would vocally oppose (not silently condemn) evolution, thus he would be vehemently opposed by evolutionists—who constitute at least half of the population (and evolution effectively controls all of the museums and universities in the country). He would oppose abortion (the killing of preborn babies), thus he would be opposed by the majority of Americans (while some generally oppose abortion, most would make allowance for at least some killing of babies).  Similarly, he would be opposed by sodomites or homosexuals, labor unionists, adulterers, fornicators, feminists, atheists and agnostics, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, euthanasianists, drug users, tobacco producers and users, liquor consumers, teachers in labor unions, and many others.  Obviously, there would be very, very few who would be able to wholly back a consistent, uncompromising Christian president!

“Have I therefore become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16).

“They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks with integrity” (Amos 5:10).

6.   He would not compromise the will of God with the ethical relativists of our day.

His values would differ markedly with the vast number of Americans who permit some sin under some circumstances.  Thus he would not be well-received by the majority.

“We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

“Why not say. . . ‘Let us do evil that good may come?’ Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8).

7.   He would openly seek God and His kingdom first, beyond the welfare of the country.

Because of the demands of this position, a president must have the United States first in his heart and devote almost all of his time to matters of state.  The Christian has made Christ his priority instead of the country.

“Seek first [God’s] kingdom and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33).

“One thing I do. . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:13-14).

8.   He would openly share his faith in Jesus Christ and the truth that Jesus is the only way to God and eternal life.

Obviously, the American people could not endure such an outspoken president.  They would consider him a bigot, narrow-minded, and exclusivistic.  They would not at all agree with him for they generally would be much more liberal and inclusive in their views of those in God’s favor.

“Whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38; cf. Matthew 10:32-33).

9.   He would truthfully speak out against the false world religions.

How would it be possible for a president to publicly reveal the truth that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Confucianists, and others are lost and will be condemned to hell?  Most nations of the world would arise in antagonism against him. They would riot in the streets and most Americans would not support what they would consider to be a dogmatic, bigoted stand.

“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me’” (John 14:6).

“You shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins” (John 8:24; cf. 1 Timothy 2:5).

“There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which he must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

10. He would not be able to endorse all elements of the “party platform.”

Since this would be formulated by men and women, most of whom would not be genuine Christians, there would generally be various elements of it lacking in true Scriptural values (even though certain “planks” may be true).  Since most Americans, as part of this fallen world system, would not agree to the full truth and unadulterated moral and spiritual values, it would be impossible to formulate a platform reflecting total truth and yet receive support from more than a small handful of people.

“I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable. . . . I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:20, 27).

11. He would refuse to devote all of his time and energies to his duties as president.

His time for prayer, Bible study, Christian fellowship, and family fellowship and teaching would be a priority, just as it should be for every believer.  Therefore, others may accuse him of not fulfilling his presidential responsibilities.

“Keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth” (Colossians 3:1-2).

12. He would refuse to be nationalistic in attitude, speech, and action.

His loyalties would ultimately be to God and his citizenship would be in heaven.  It would be intolerable for a president of the United States to refuse to be nationalistic—for this is just what the citizens would expect and demand of him. They would want him to believe, “America first—right or wrong!”

Such a person would refuse to ignorantly, prejudicially, pridefully boast of this country’s accomplishments and history.  Nor would he hide the innumerable sins in the history of this nation committed from the very beginning.  He would realize that he is a part of a spiritual family and nation that transcends the nations of this fallen world.

“Our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20).

“My kingdom is not of this world. . . as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm (John 18:36).

“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possessions” (1 Peter 2:9; cf. Revelation 7:9).

13. He would refuse to harm his enemies.

In the case of “national enemies,” his love would be interpreted as foolishness and his refusal to harm them as weakness.  How could the “Commander and Chief” of the Armed Forces refuse to appropriate funds for the military, refuse to declare war, or refuse to “drop the bomb” or “send the missiles”?  It is preposterous to think of a Christian who is ruled by love to command the military to use the sword—the symbol of power and wrath. (Although it is God’s design that the secular government bear the sword—Romans 13:1-6).

“Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Corinthians 16:14).

“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6:27-28).

“Do not resist him who is evil” (Matthew 5:39).

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21; vv. 14-21; 13:1-7).

capitol

A Christian as President?

14. He would have an impossible task dealing with congress.

The senators and representatives would be of the world, with values different from the Christian.  How could any of his legislation be passed and his plans be realized?  How could the defective legislation of congress fail to receive his veto?  They would usually be on opposite sides of issues.

“What partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” ((2 Corinthians 6:14).

“Do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light. . . . Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them” (Ephesians 5:7-8, 11).

15. He would have difficulty with the inauguration ceremonies.

For instance, could a man be inaugurated if he refused to swear an oath or refused to superstitiously place his hand on the Bible?

“Make no oath at all. .  . . But let your statement be ‘Yes, yes’ or “no, no’; and anything beyond this is of evil” (Matthew 5:34, 37).

“Above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no, no; so that you may not fall into judgment” (James 512).

16. He would not wear the fine clothes expected of the President of the United States.

A president must be a model to the citizens and bring pride to them as he visits with international leaders and “dignitaries.” The Christian does not seek to impress others with such externals.

“. . . not with costly garments” (1 Timothy 2:9b). “expensive clothes” (NIV, NEB).

17. He would be considered unsociable on many occasions.

He would not participate in the drinking, dancing, and carousing of the party’s conventions, the inaugural balls, and the frequent social engagements expected of the president.  In fact, he probably would not go to many of them!  The American public, especially the socialites, could not tolerate this, and would describe him as unsociable, too serious-minded, exclusivist, and a “goody-goody”!

“The deeds of the flesh are evident . . . drunkenness, carousing . . . those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:18, 21).

“Live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. . . . having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties. . .” (1 Peter 4:2-3).

“Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness. . .” (Romans 13:13a).

18. His wife would not fit the public’s conception of what the nation’s “first lady” should be.

As a woman, the president’s wife would have “a gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Peter 3:4); she would be submissive to her husband and men (1 Corinthians 11:3); she would not teach over the man, but take a quiet, retiring role (1 Timothy 2:11-15); she would be modest, decent, and feminine in her clothing and demeanor (1 Timothy 2:9-10); she would have long hair without an elaborate hairstyle (1 Corinthians 11:14-15; 1 Timothy 2:9; 1 Peter 3:3).  Could the public accept such a woman of God (cf. Proverbs 31:10-12, 26-31) or would they demand a Hillary Rodham Clinton or Michelle Obama?

“Women to adore themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness” (1 Timothy 2:9-10; cf. 5:10, 14; 1 Peter 3:3-4).

19. He would speak the truth and refuse to be hypocritical.

A president learns to tell “half truths” and practice hypocrisy for the purpose of diplomacy.  He seeks to pacify the opposition by saying “nice things” whether they are true or not.

“Speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15a).

“The wisdom from above is . . . without hypocrisy” (James 3:17).

“Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who deal faithfully are His delight” (Proverbs 12:22; cf. vv. 17, 19; 6:16-19).

20. He would not endorse or participate in the entertainment expected of the president.

Since he is not of the world, the Christian would not participate in the pastimes, amusements, and forms of pleasure common to presidents and found at the White House: musical programs, movies, Easter egg hunts, Christmas celebrations, and other items.  Could there be a president who does not golf or who does not throw baseballs at the World Series?  How could the American public and the national media endure such an attitude, interpreted as negativism and bigotry?

“Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If any one loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15; cf. vv. 16-17).

“They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:14).

“Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2).

“. . . keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27).

“Friendship with the world is hostility toward God. . . . Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

21. He would remember that the Lord’s day is truly the Lord’s day.

Usually the President treats the Lord’s day as any other day, although occasionally a President has attended services at a local cathedral near the White House.  Could the government function if the President consistently reserved one day exclusively for the Lord and fellowship with the believers?

“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight” (Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2).

22. He would want to be loving, caring, and hospitable to his brothers and sisters in the Lord and would regularly meet with them.

Would While House security allow his fellow believers to come and go at his house?  Would they allow gatherings for teaching and worship to be held there?  Think of the security problems entailed if he frequently met with the saints elsewhere.

“Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor. . . . contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality” (Romans 12:10, 13).

“Not forsaking our own assemblying together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near” (Hebrews 10:25).

23. He would be accused of favoritism.

This is a nation which is ultra-sensitive to partiality or favoritism, to “civil rights” for all segments of society—regardless of ethnic origin, color, gender, religion, or morality. While the Christian would be very fair and impartial to all peoples—through conviction and not through legislation—he very definitely is partial in one sense.  He is partial to genuine fellow-believers over those “outsiders” in the world.  Therefore, a great cry of monumental proportions would arise from the world, fanned by TV, radio, and the newspapers.

“Let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Galatians 6:10.

“Always seek after that which is good for one another and for all men” (1 Thessalonians 5:15).

“Give preference to one another in honor” (Romans 12:10b).

24. He would have difficulty or find it impossible to appoint a cabinet or a Supreme Court Justice.

Could such a president find a “Christian” judge who would consistently render right decisions?  If so, there is no possibility he would be approved by congress.  Since such a Christian would know that he cannot “walk in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalm 1:1), could he appoint a fellow Christian and not have the congress disapprove of him?  On the other hand, could he appoint a person to a position that would entail wrongdoing?

“How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers!” (Psalm 1:1).

“Do not . . .  share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin” (1 Timothy 5:22).

25. He would be radically, decisively, strongly anti-immorality in his views.

Imagine the marching, demonstrations and riots that would occur by the Sodomites, adulterers (including most remarried people), fornicators, pornography purchasers and producers, child abusers, prostitutes, movie-goers, and others espousing immorality in its various forms! Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and like organizations would unceasingly be aroused against him.

“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).

“No immoral or impure person . . . has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (Ephesians 5:5; cf. vv. 3, 6; Colossians 3:5-7; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).

26. He would not cater to the homosexual constituency but would strongly oppose the perversions of sodomy or homosexuality.

In our day over half of the United States population are favorable toward the sexual sin of homosexuality and it is “politically correct” to side with them in their efforts to make this perverse form of sexual immorality appear “normal” and “acceptable.” A Christian would in no way tolerate a lifestyle that demeans the God-ordained arrangement of one man for one woman for life.

“God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error . . . . those who practice such things are worthy of death” (Romans 1:26-27, 32).

“The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. . . . Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals . . . will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; cf. 1 Timothy 1:10).

27. He would not accept the murder of babies as an acceptable practice.

Regardless of the fact that there have been tens of millions of killings of unborn (and partially born) babies in the United States, a Christian would not agree to this barbarous, inhumane, and wicked practice. Although the majority of the American public now agree to such murders, the Christian could not tolerate this wholesale murder and would do all he could to put a stop to it.

“. . . being filled with all . . . murder. . . . Those who practice such things are worthy of death” (Romans 1:29, 32).

“. . . for the . . . murderers . . . their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8; cf. 22:15).

28. He would be anti-feminist in his views and positions.

Notice that he would not be anti-woman! Rather, he would be strongly pro-woman, pro-wife, pro-mother, and pro-homemaker.  He would be strongly pro-family. But he would be decidedly, uncompromisingly, and Scripturally opposed to the anti-woman “feminist” movement (especially of the radically “NOW” version).  He would not encourage or endorse women in leadership or unwomanly places—even government. This position would be strongly opposed by the majority of the population, especially those not guided by Scripture.

“Encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands” (Titus 2:4-5; cf. 1 Timothy 5:9-10, 14; Ephesians 5:23-31; 1 Peter 3:1-6; Colossians 3:18-19).

“I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3).

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:11-12, cf. vv. 13-15; 1 Corinthians 14:33-37).

29. He would not make unfounded, unrealistic, and impossible “promises” while realizing that they would be impossible to execute.

Such “promises” made during the course of the campaign are meant to raise the hopes of the prospective voters and appeal to their greed or dreams.  Subsequent history generally shows a disregard for such promises, an alteration of them, or the impossibility of them in light of opposing forces.

“Everyone who deceives his neighbor,

And does not speak the truth,

They have taught their tongue to speak lies;

They weary themselves committing iniquity. . . .

Shall I not punish them for these things? (Jeremiah 9:5, 9a).

“Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who deal faithfully are His delight” (Proverbs 12:22).

“. . . all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8).

30. He would create serious trouble in the various governmental departments.

For instance, think of those elements of the Department of Education that he, in good conscience, must oppose: the elimination of God and Scripture (the source of humanity and truth); secular humanism that entirely permeates the public schools; the evolution taught in every single state of the Union; the cesspool of immorality; the textbooks used in the classes; the teachers’ educational background; the sports programs; the immodesty; and a hundred other elements! How could he hope to work with even this one single department which is so antithetical to Christian, Scriptural, moral standards?

“He Himself might come to have first place in everything. . . . Christ is all” (Colossians 1:18b; 3:11b).

“The whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19b).

31.He would not have the endorsement of vast numbers of the American public, thus he could neither be elected nor could he successfully carry on the duties of the presidency.

Think of the many elements of American society that would oppose his “puritanical” work as president: the labor unions would oppose him, the entertainment industry would oppose him, the librarians would oppose him, and the educators would oppose him.  The tobacco and liquor industry would oppose him, the gambling establishment (including state lotteries) would oppose him, and food industry would oppose him (because of his promotion of health and nutrition and opposition to junk food).  Almost all elements of society would oppose his spiritual and moral stands on many different subjects.

“In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you” (1 Peter 4:4).

“If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you” (John 15:19).

32. He would consider himself a part of God’s kingdom rather than the kingdoms of the world.

The Lord Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm” (John 18:36). Every child of God is part of Christ’s kingdom (Colossians 1:13) but this kingdom is very different from political, earthly domains. Because of this, people of this earthly realm would oppose a President who acted according to heavenly standards.

“The world has hated them, because they are not of this world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:14).

“They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16).

33. He would have an entirely different view and response to enemies.

The people of the world or citizens of an earthly nation respond to enemies with threats or outright violence. The Christian responds to enemies with love and kindness, with prayer and good deeds.  Paul speaks of the difference between the Christian’s response to enemies (Romans 12:17-21) and the state’s response to evildoers (Romans 13:1-6).  The state does have a right and responsibility to protect citizens and to punish evildoers (1 Peter 2:13-14, 17; Titus 3:1), but the follower of Jesus has an entirely different perspective (Luke 6:27-28). The President is the “Commander in Chief” of the armed forces and this would be entirely antithetical to the sphere of the holy and harmless child of God.

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).

“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27-28).

“See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people” (1 Thessalonians 5:15).

* * * * * * *

This discussion should be sufficient to convince anyone—believer or unbeliever—of the sheer impossibility of a true, consistent, uncompromising Christian being elected or serving as President of the United States.  This should not be surprising to anyone thoroughly acquainted with Scripture.  If “the whole world [including the United States] lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19b), and if the “domain” and “glory” of the “kingdoms of the world,” including the United States, is given to Satan, the “god of this age” (Luke 4:5-6; 2 Corinthians 4:4), then it is not unreasonable to assume that a genuine follower of Christ could not be selected to govern one segment of the world.

Presidential contenders are dependent on the votes of the American people. Since the vast majority of these people are not true Christians (even those who are church members), we can understand that they would not fully sympathize with a Christian’s values, standards, beliefs, and lifestyle.  How could they vote for one whose entire life is Christ (Philippians 1:21; Colossians 3:3)?  How could they elect one whose every decision is based on the will of God revealed in His authoritative Word (Matthew 4:4)?

We must come to understand and understand thoroughly the incompatibility of the way of Christ and the way of the civil state.  Hopefully, this short study has helped us to clearly see the great gulf that stands between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men—including even the United States of America for which the Christian prays and is deeply grateful (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

Remember also that although we have been referring to the office of President in this study, many of the elements would be equally applicable to other offices, such as Governor, Mayor, Senator, Representative, and others. Further, although we have had the United States in mind in this study, these same things could be said (and probably more fully so) of the other 200 or more nations of the world.  Let the discerning believer make his own applications.

 

 

 

 

Comments are closed.