0 votes
by (120 points)

You already awarded deltas in this post, but I noticed one particular error you made in your post and in the comments. Why should a person who's been removed as President essentially be the person who chooses their replacement? The Presidential candidate has enormous say in their running mate. If they aren't qualified to be President, neither are they qualified to choose the President. The lowest is presidential appointment. For example, the President can hire his own Chief of Staff and fire him whenever he wants. Voters pick the President and the President picks the official. Voters have no additional oversight. Next is presidential appointment with congressional approval. For example, the President picks the Secretary of State, and the Senate approves or rejects the choice. Voters get to choose the President, and they get to choose the Senators who vote on the President's choice. Voters have some indirect additional oversight. The highest level is directly voting for someone. Voters directly vote for elected officials.



This includes the Vice President. You make it seem like the President chooses the Vice President. That's de facto true, but not de jure. This means officially the voters choose. If you look at an election ballot, you can see that you aren't voting for President. You are voting for a President-Vice President ticket. The person who is President can choose who they want to run with (and the VP can choose whether they want to run with the Presidential candidate), but ultimately, voters are directly choosing their own Vice President. This is why the President can't fire the Vice President. It's why Constitutionally, the Vice President takes over if the President dies. Voters directly voted for him to be the presidential backup. These rules are pretty good for the most part. The only time when the VP shouldn't take over is when they are also complicit in the President's crimes.



Such kind of aggressive role may include taking on national and political leadership. Other Christian's heart motivation is to be way makers, trend setters and pace setters. Fruitfulness in the lord goes beyond just preaching the gospel to win souls but it includes making a positive contribution towards our society and promoting the kingdom of our God. So our vocations are part of the greater plan of God for our lives and calling. God wants us to serve beyond church borders and reach out to mankind. Ministry is larger than what we have made out of it, it goes beyond church walls. I personally find nothing wrong with Christians being involved in community affairs. I encourage Christians to take up political positions because that is what God intended for man, to have dominion and rule on earth with fear and apology. Nations are our responsibility to govern; it's our stewardship to do so.



Discipling the nations for God is part of the greater calling and stewardship of the church. And congress God blessed them and God said unto them be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion. The best in us must be realized and properly released to our generation. Our communities lack spiritual leadership to disciple them for God. Desiring to serve at national level or in political leadership is very prophetic and apostolic. These functions are apostolic mandates. This kind of leadership is revolutionary and transformational. In my examination of what we ascertain or ascribed as doctrine, I have found nothing biblically and spiritually wrong with politics, but what I have found are bad politicians. So in my view, political leadership occupied by Christians is not forbidden in scripture but it is seen as stewardship of nation. It's only dogmatic theology, conservative theology and religiosity which discourage this kind of Christian involvement and responsibility. All great men of God in the old times both in the bible and our nation played a part in the political establishment and liberation of our countries.



Great men of God in the bible including kings, levites, priests, judges and prophets were spiritual leaders who played a part in social life and community leadership at society. They took the voice of God in all spheres of life. They represented the interests of God as touching the nations. They radical and drastically took part in the affairs of the nations as ambassador of God People who are reformers in our society tend to have a prophetic spirit or flow within themselves. For a long time, Christians whether protestant, Pentecostal, catholic and charismatic have debated the issue of politics and business. Many suggest a complete separation of Christians from politics and business why? Politics and business are secular and of the devil. Such mentality, attitude and poor theology is responsible for the careless growth of poverty amongst Christians and the body of Christ in general. Further such is to be blamed for gross wickedness and corruption in the political arena.

Your answer

Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Welcome to Newpost Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.
...