Christians, Don't Twist Scripture to Justify Your Vote for Roy Moore

If you want to vote for Moore, okay. But don't try to build a theological or moral case for doing so.

I've read a lot of bad theology in defense of voting for Trump, etc. and I have read a lot of bastarizations of Augustine's City of God and City of Man ideas, but this piece may take the cake. Want to vote for a murderer? Go for it with this. I read this piece twice and the greatest echo from it was of Satan trying to tempt Jesus in the wilderness. The stones will turn themselves to bread and if you throw yourself from the cliff, the angels will protect you.

There is no great firewall between the things of God and the things of man. You do not get to engage in all sorts of bad behaviors and endorse all sorts of bad behaviors and excuse it all away as being in the city of man, so it is okay. The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. The argument of the author in this pieces is that Christians can engage in the society of man looking no differently from others so long as they're advance the church's agenda. It is an argument of selfishness and devoid of repentance. Let's review it and, along the way, I should note that the entire article contains not an ounce of scripture to stand on and never once notes the need for repentance.

Unfortunately, many social conservatives, and Christians in particular, treat secular leaders as if they’re spiritual leaders, as if any stain on their character, fault from their distant past, or even theological apostasy disqualifies them from political leadership. They seem to fear that the personal sinfulness of a man will bring about the ruin of an entire party or nation. How many times have we heard that the “vulgar” Trump will singlehandedly destroy the GOP, as if he’s a divine prophet rebelling against God’s holy decrees? By erecting this standard, these critics come dangerously close to confusing the secular and the sacred, the city of man and the city of God. I would like to address this point in particular, not whether someone should vote for Moore.

What we are and have been arguing is 1 Corinthians 5:11-13. When a man declares himself part of the church, as both Trump and Moore have, and then behaves in a way to bring disrepute on the church, the church is supposed to shun them. Let me stop right here and say it is really amazing that the author spent as much time as she did making a Christian defense of Roy Moore and never once actually quoted scripture. She danced around it. Let me quote some for you.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

That's 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. Paul could not be more clear in writing this. When someone holds himself out as part of the church and is "sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler" we are not to associate with that person. Why? Because that person will drag the whole church down and discredit the church in the eyes of the world. This isn't rocket science. This is about bringing discredit on the City of God as it works in the City of Man. The church, if it does not police its own, will be viewed as no different from those outside the church and will lose its moral voice.

But then let's look further into what the author writes and be horrified how, like the devil tempted Jesus, she twists scripture to fit her ends.

Esther even allowed a man who was falsely accused of rape to meet his death because that was best for the Jewish people. The man had never touched her, but she allowed him to be falsely accused of sexual abuse because it was politically expedient—and it saved her people from death.

What an awful lie. Again, there is no scripture quoted. Let's go to the actual scripture and see what happens. You will recall that Haman had deceived the king into ordering the execution of all the Jews in Persia. He told the king about "a certain people" who do not keep the king's laws. He seeks to kill them all and the King gives his blessing not realizing Haman is talking about the Jews. So Esther invites Haman and the King to a banquet where the King tells Esther she can have all that she wants up to half the kingdom. Then the king, unable to sleep, turns to the record of his reign and remembers the good works of Mordecai.

At the banquet, Esther tells the King that all she wants is for her life and that of her people to be spared execution. The king is enraged to know they have been ordered executed as he did not order it. He demands to know who did it.

Esther said, “An adversary and enemy! This vile Haman!” Then Haman was terrified before the king and queen. 7 The king got up in a rage, left his wine and went out into the palace garden. But Haman, realizing that the king had already decided his fate, stayed behind to beg Queen Esther for his life. Just as the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet hall, Haman was falling on the couch where Esther was reclining. The king exclaimed, “Will he even molest the queen while she is with me in the house?” As soon as the word left the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face.

It takes a really creative reading to say Esther "even allowed a man who was falsely accused of rape to meet his death because that was best for the Jewish people." Haman was doing what Mordecai in the story refused to do. Mordecai would not fall on his knees and beg before Haman. Haman was willing to do that. And it was a capital offense in Persian custom for anyone other than the king to touch the queen. It is to read too much into "molest" here to say Esther let him be accused of rape. The king was already stewing with hatred for Haman and this action gave the king the final pretext he needed to execute Haman whether Esther defended him or not.

But there's a more distinct irony here in the author's use of this. She is going to claim Esther let Haman be accused of molestation or rape and she was justified in doing so because of the greater good. Does she not recognize the irony in making that claim when Roy Moore stands credibly accused of molestation?

The entirety of DC McAllister's piece is to excuse Christians from behaving in a worldly manner when the Bible repeatedly condemns God's people for doing so. The big difference centers on a word McAllister never even bothers using: repentance. She cites scores of sinners in scripture and never once mentions they repented. Even David who famously, in the Psalms, begged God to "create in me a new heart."

If Donald Trump or Roy Moore showed real repentance, it would be one thing to demonstrate Christian forgiveness. But they have not. Instead, they have doubled down and denied accusations against them all while also claiming to be Christians.

And it is one thing for you to not believe Moore's accusers and decide this is partisan politics. But to take the position that Christians are justified in voting for those who claim to be with the Church while refusing to repent of sin is no different than the Devil telling Jesus to throw himself down and the angels will catch him

Yes, God can and will use people like Donald Trump and Roy Moore to advance His kingdom. All things do work for the good of those called according to his purposes. And in this case, as in so many cases in scripture, God will use his people siding with sin as a means to discipline them and draw them back to him so that they may find their salvation in him, not in politicians and political powers.

McAllister's argument is an open invitation for Christians to embrace any sin as a means to an end while ignoring that Christ alone is the only means to a good end. Can Christians participate in the world? Absolutely. But we are to hold ourselves to a higher standard recognizing that the world is going to turn against us and hate us because the world hates the things of God. We should not provide the world every reason and excuse by embracing wordliness so that we do not look like the things of God.

So you are saying here that Roy Moore is guilty of something he needs to repent for. Do you want me to give you the scripture where it says this is wrong?

@Revelation29 I would be curious to see what you are thinking of.

@PokeyBug As I wrote, if you are convinced he did not wrong, vote for him. But the author of the piece I am responding to accepts that he did wrong and says people can vote for him anyway.

@mitchellvii If you think Moore did nothing wrong and the accusers are not credible, vote for him. But the author of the piece in question accepts the accusations and says to vote for Moore anyway because God uses bad people for good.

I don't think we can say that Moore has anything to repent of if we don't know for sure he did anything wrong. He says he didn't do these things and he does not even know these women. Many more people including many women have come to his defense as character witnesses. His wife who would know him best. And now we seeing information coming out about his accusers that shed a negative light on their character. I understand your point about those who will totally disregard anyone's behavior and vote for them anyway. Trump comes to mind, whom I did not vote for because my God given discernment would not allow me to. But I think these people are just being defiant. Because deep down they may think that these allegations can not be proven and are tired of crap being shoved down their throats. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. But that is how it feels to me. If any of these allegations could be proven, they may change their tune.

One word: Prudence.

Alabama voters (and all who don't vote) have the option to believe Moore's denials. We have the option to believe the accusations. Believing the accusations should disqualify Moore from receiving a vote from a Christian. Jones' views on abortion also disqualify him from receiving a vote. If there were a ballot option for both of them to lose and allow the seat to stand empty, that would win.

What you are saying is that as a Christian, I should not vote for Moore simply based on the accusations? That would be antithetical to my Christian values. Proverbs 12:22, Proverbs 6:16-19, Exodus 20:16, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Exodus 23:1, James 4:11, Leviticus 19:16, Romans 1:29-32 and many many more. Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

It is so plain to see how the Tares are growing up among the Wheat. The thing is, they aren't as hidden these days as the description painted them in Matthew 13. Hypocrisy is rampant within the "field" now. At this time of separating, we may soon be going Home!

I keep asking; what do we know about Mr. Jones' background? For us to make a decision, it has to be to decide based on facts. As far as I can tell, no one has looked at Mr. Jones' background. So, to use the background of one candidate and not another is not a decision, it is an abrogation. I agree with Erick that Christians should not try to justify Judge Moore's behavior, which he has denied repeatedly. Unfortunately, I think that the decision cannot be made on moral background, but on behavior as a public person since you don't have both sides of the issue.

If there's one portion of the Bible which is less than doctrinally correct, it's I Timothy 6:10. The love of money is not the root of evil. The root of all evil is the love of power and money is simply a kind of power. There are plenty of people who have doubts about Roy Moore's guilt and I respect. What we as Christian must never tolerate is the acceptance of an unrepentant sinner in our ranks simply for fear of losing, or failing to gain, power. How many pieces defending Moore mention the lack of proof but at the same time cry out against the danger of the loss of the GOP majority - the loss of power? For all the talk of wars on religion and real persecution those in the Church have faced since ancient times, the very worst thing a secular ruler has ever done to us was done by the Roman Emperor Constantine, when he legitimized the


Roy Moore isn't my congressman. Although I'm a conservative Christian, I honestly don't care what he did. I've got Obamacare Derangement Syndrome and the only thing I am concerned about is figuring out how I will insure my family for 2018 as I am looking at totally unaffordable premiums and horrible choices. If Roy's vote will help kick Ocare to the curb, then bring him into the Washington cesspool. He will fit in perfectly.

It doesn't make any more theological sense to not vote for Moore, based on accusations, alone. Can the accusers show that Moore has done those things, or are we just supposed to believe them over him? I think bearing false witness may be part of the problem we Christians should be considering, also. Telling me to do something that I can't rationalize as being a non-Christian act isn't any more Christian than carte blanche acceptance of unknown accusers. Moore's character and virtue is on the line, also. Is that being taken into account when you just blindly accept someone's allegations? Until Moore can be shown to have committed the allegations, I have to accept him at his word because I think the Bible tells me to not bear false witness, so, I have to believe him. Other's may be using selfish reasons, which I understand that does not have to be taken into consideration, but the fact that Moore hasn't been shown to have done the deeds, other than unsubstantiated allegations, that says there is doubt on the accuser's side, more so than Moore. I don't see why he should have had to defend himself.

Confused: (1) go ahead and vote for Moore, but don't do it for moral reasons. (2) Excuse me, what other reasons can a Christian have for preferring one candidate over another if not moral ones?

and "Who" is a perfect person? Even King David was plagued with sin but was used as an instrument of God, same for Trump and for Moore, IMO.

As a broken person, I am continually reminded (demonstrate) my need for God’s grace and repentance of my sins. Right on target Erick! Whether Roy Moore’s accusers are legitimate or not, Moore as a believer should recognize (and be able to publically state) that he’s as broken as ALL of the rest of us (which is completely broken and unworthy of saving). If he’s innocent of the particular charges made against him, he would be totally justified in telling everyone that he’s done a lot of bad things in his life that have been contrary to Gods will and glorification and desperately needs Gods grace. But the latest charges aren’t true. Nonetheless, he’s as much of a sinner as all of the rest of us and is helpless without Christ’s atonement. This is the response I would expect of a born again believer. Instead, he denies and applies moral indignation while admitting that he’s done nothing wrong (no evil in his heart) when he was admittedly trolling for young girls. And his followers/ advisors attempt to justify his actions via inane interpretations of the Bible. He then threatens to punish his enemies. (Love your enemies Roy? Ever read that anywhere?). This man is a wolf in sheeps clothing and should never be allowed to exercise power. He certainly doesn’t demonstrate to me that he has the heart of a saved and repentant believer.

Christian values in an upside down culture. Taking passages out of context, or just choosing what part of the Bible to emphasis. Teaching love without repentance. Separating judgement from discernment. Adultery and murder are both sins. When do actions become sins and criminal, and not just an annoyance? With Gods help people can change. We have the commandments, we have the, "Great Commission." Between Trump and Clinton the moral values at best are a toss up. The only difference was the Clinton actions were on the tax payers dime. Hypocrisy is bad, but if one comes out pro-life, respect for individual beliefs, limiting the LBGT.... agenda bad? Whom is to be believed when there is nothing of record and no witnesses? It is a she said-he said. If everything is sexual, how does one express compassion, patience. mercy, and patience? Abuse is not murder, but it is also not love. Truth is not defined by gender. Roy Moore has been hit for trying to protect the Ten Commandments and the U.S. Constitution. How would you fight false charges? The charges against Moore are over 38 years old. There are more recent records for the Clintons, Trump, and members of Congress. Pictures and payoffs are the beginning of proof. I have not lived in the hip pocket of these people. Hollywood and media connections can be guilt by association.

This back and forth with personal opinions on Moore’s innocence or guilt gets us nowhere. Here’s the bottom line (and I'm speaking to Christians here): if we are indeed true believers in God and His Word, then we will definitely have a relationship with Him. That relationship will include an ability to “hear” from Him via His Holy Spirit. That fact gives us an invaluable gift to use in discerning our part in voting for or against any person in politics. In Moore’s case, it’s the Alabama folks who need to seek His counsel. If I lived there, I already know I wouldn’t go near a vote for him; much like I didn’t go near a vote for Trump. No, that doesn’t mean a vote for the opposition; it just means hearing from and trusting God. Can we not just show faith in the Lord by seeking and obeying the understanding He puts on our hearts, and then trusting Him for the outcome? To non-Christians: good luck with all this.

This post is exhibit A is violating the Ninth Commandment. Eric, you seem to relish in hyperbole and hasty generalizations. I read and reread DC's post and you seem to have skimmed it at best. I agree generally with with her premises and think they are biblical. No - she doesn't quote Scripture: she was writing a public and general piece for The Federalist, not for the Christian ghetto where you seem to dwell.