Perhaps in a perfect world, there would never be a need to discuss politics among Christians or between Christians and unbelievers.

Maybe that’s not the case, but whether or not it is, such a need assuredly exists.

The funny little reality is, my support for a particular political perspective comes out of my belief in God and Christ and my attempting to follow the spirit I believe they engender in the lives of those who follow Them.

I can imagine that many people who take opposing political views to my own make similar claims. The problem is, I am entirely unable to reconcile their statements with the perspectives and resulting politics they support.

You see, it seems to me that Jesus took great pains to separate Himself from government. He not only made it clear He was not a “child of an Earthly Kingdom,” but really, He refused even to be considered a part of the ordered hierarchy of the Judaic government, or—inasmuch as it could be separated from the government—the leadership of the synagogues and Temple.

Further, it appears to me that He fully intended for the separation He made obvious in His actions and statements, to apply to the lives of His followers as well.

About now, you may be saying something like, “If that is true, why do you support any political position at all?”

The question is a good one, to which the simplest answer is, “In reality, I don’t.”

That having been said, I want to explain why I encourage those who do engage themselves in politics, to choose the folks I think most appropriate.

This will probably sound problematic to a great many people, but my primary reason for attempting to cause others to support certain political perspectives, is that I want to be left alone as much as possible. Further, I think true Christians ought to have the same perspective where non-Christian, outside influence is concerned.

The simple reality is, government is not either inherently, nor as a matter of constant course, Christian in nature. This means that, when government gets involved in things, they are likely to, if not immediately, at some point along the way, take a course that is inconsistent with Christianity.

Don’t believe me? I encourage you strongly, to look into the lives of folks like Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul the Apostle) and Peter, also an apostle.

You see, from the very beginnings of Christianity, Christians (and, in fact, even Jesus Himself), have been running afoul of the government in place in their times.

This should neither be a surprise, nor should it be something people think ceased to happen in the times of the early Church.

Literally from that time to this, Christians have been persecuted by both individuals and governments the World over. Believing otherwise is, in my mind, a sign that you have failed to understand the history of Christianity.

So true is this, that Jesus says (paraphrasing), “Know ye not that friendship with the World is enmity with God?” Or perhaps you believe that He was talking about just individuals? The problem is, there is no reason to believe this is the case. Even less so—as I have already said—when you look at the persecution of Christians by governments and their representatives around the globe.

All previous discussion leads to, at least in my mind, the inescapable conclusion that the minimum interference presented by any and all “outside forces” is what ought to be the preference expressed for and by all Christians.

You may be the type of person who believes The Church can and should be an “acceptable force” in your life as a Christian. I believe this is true to some quite small degree. In the end, you are “responsible for” you.

If this is true, what is The Church “for?” My answer is proselytization, and leading of young Christians. Being somewhat older in the faith, if I have a position in The Church at all—and I believe I do—it ought to be working to help people to understand there is a God, that Jesus is His Son and that they ought to believe on both of Them.

That being said, I do not look to The Church for leadership per se. That’s not to say that I cannot be upbraided or corrected by another in The Church, just that, as time goes on, I should be working to make that less and less possible, by doing what is right and proper in God’s eyes.

Those entities outside The Church however, should not be viewed in any wise to be things I should look to for correction (not to say God cannot equally use such things, but that if I am “facing God,” their use should be obvious, and be similar to God’s use of a rock or a donkey on my behalf).

Assuming my foregoing statements to be correct and accurate, if I were to use the concepts expressed to help others to make the best and soundest determinations as to who should be in government, what would I tell them?

The simple fact is that the government that most minimally affects its “charges” is the best. Put another way, unless there is a very strong reason for that government to interfere in the affairs of the governed, it should not do so.

This is the reason I will pretty much always point folks to people who at least claim they will reduce government in almost every possible way. The clear “winners” in that regard are those who refer to themselves as Libertarians.

Second in line are those who identify as Republicans and Conservatives—at least where United States government is concerned.

I don’t care about things like supposed skin color (pretty much everybody is brown, so I don’t really even get the skin color argument) or male versus female. What I do care about, is what a politician indicates (and more importantly demonstrates) is his or her “way of doing business.” The more he or she claims to (better yet acts to) reduce government in all but a very few ways, the happier I am to see him or her in office.

Here we are yet again “pushing the limit.” As a result, I must take this matter up in another post if I’ve more to say about it. With that having been said, allow me to wish you the best of days, and my profuse thanks for your taking the time to read what I have said.