Since I don’t know your life, I will accept your statement at face value and on faith that your writing about Obama and his actions is related to working out the gospel in your life.

So, yes.

I vote too . . . so without any hand wringing I like to discuss voting to see if my opinions work . . . to learn . . . and to persuade.

It is not the most important thing, but I take it seriously. I have never so far as I know wrung a hand about anything . . . but I do like “speaking the truth to power” as the cool kids said in some decade prior to this one.

John Mark

I just think we can’t keep going the same way, rehashing the same this-worldly worries and concerns, and expect different results, either in this election cycle or this side of the new heavens and new earth.

But I do vote. :-)

One reason to talk about politics is to have someone to blame so we can feel better about ourselves. That can be a form of hypocrisy, and at the very least it distracts us from what’s most important without accomplishing any good.

Another motivation is to feel like we have something that will save us besides Jesus, and that’s idolatry.

I think it’s very hard to avoid either of those. But someone might also be genuinely motivated by the prospect of having some material impact in terms of large-scale right and wrong. While the focus on the gospel should be primary for Christians, even when we’re thinking about social change, it isn’t inconsistent to do that and to point out when the president, for example, is doing something that voters ought to know about that’s not being disseminated by the mainstream media in an accurate way or to give an argument for why his policies are subject to moral criticisms despite being very popular.

So I think sometimes it’s appropriate as Christians to think through the actions of our governing authorities out loud and even online, as we pray for them and seek to figure out who we should vote for next time around. I do think that counts as part of the gospel mission, not in any direct way but because the gospel transforms us to care about what’s good and what’s right and to promote goodness and righteousness through discernment-guided love. I don’t see why that’s inappropriate (in principle) to be under the banner of Evangel.

That being said, I’m not offering this as an attempt to defend any particular posts of any particular contributor to this blog, and for all I’ve said there may well be lots of posts here that aren’t justified by what I’m arguing.

That sounds right, but the trouble is, is that it’s fairly simply demonstrated that those who have the definition right are so far in the minority as to make their voice irrelevant to the discussion.

“Evangelical” as a term has been so badly co-opted as to make it a nothing word.
I suggest we stick with “historically evangelical” and supply the explanation when requested.

As long as Willow and Brian McLaren and Rob Bell and more and more even Mormons, grab the word for their own…well what’s the point anymore.

I mean people have seen that with Christian and tried to use that horrible term “Christ-follower”, but in a few short years that too has been torn from it’s original moorings.

Why not use something like ‘Biblical inerrantists’ or some other term that would make the pretend Christians puke, and use that?

“Jesus-doesn’t-primarily-want-to-make-me-a-good-person-ists”

or

“Repent-or-perish-eternally-ists”

or

“All-of-it-is-really-true-even-the-chauvinistic-morally-pure-parts-ists”

or

“No-we-don’t-all-believe-the-same-thing-and-Jesus-really-is-God-and-the-only-way-to-heaven-no-matter-what-ists”

You get the idea…