Why I don’t think Christian political parties are the best option

This week the God and Politics blog ran an interview with Malcolm Martin, the lead candidate for the London Assembly elections for the Christian People’s Alliance. At the time I was inclined to respond but decided against it as I didn’t want to get drawn into a political debate, and I didn’t want to be seen as casting judgement on another Christian engaging in politics – something I am passionate to see more of. Then this evening came a bit of a discussion (not really a spat as I originally wrote) on twitter about the relative validity of the Christian People’s Alliance and whether Christians should vote for them.

So being unable to express in 140 characters some nuanced thoughts, here comes a quick fire summary of why I don’t think that Christian parties are the best way for Christians to engage in politics.

Firstly, a caveat, I think people should vote for who they support and would like to see in government. That means that for some people the candidates running under a Christian ticket may well be the best candidate for them. Gillan Scott, who’s set up and quickly established the God and Politics blog as a go to destination, has taken a bit of flack for running the interview, which is perhaps a little unfair, I think like everyone the Christian People’s Alliance have a voice that deserves to be heard. Occasionally I speak to churches about political engagement, almost invariably I will be asked a question about whether Christians should vote for Christian political parties, this is more or less what I say.


I do not believe that there should be any suggestion that for Christians the best party to support is the party with Christian in the name.

And this is why:

  1. Pragmatic.

The two Christian parties that operate in the UK, the Christians People’s Alliance and the Christian Party are both very small in terms of the votes they garner and the seats in which they stand. This means that it is highly unlikely that they will be in a position to win seats, and even were they to, to influence political decisions.

  1. Political

This should not, in and of itself, be a reason not to vote for a party, often key voices come from the margin, and people not in the centre of decision making are able to take a view counter to the political mainstream. However, politics is about programmes and about delivering on these programmes. Therefore there needs to be an ability to do more than protests about problems with the current system. Fringe political parties, and by their electoral results the CPA and CP can both fairly be defined as such, are little more than pressure groups, and when I cast a vote I am voting for someone to govern not for someone to issue press releases.

  1. Philosophical

There are two Christian political parties. This should be enough to demonstrate that Christians don’t agree on political issues, the CPA are more centrist and the CP are more right wing. All of the political parties contain things in their platform that I disagree with. If I wanted a party where I agreed with everything it would have a membership of one: me. If we are to engage in the political process then we have to accept that disagreeing with things that a political party says is not a barrier to engagement. And if we want to see political parties stand for things that are closer to what we believe, then it is more vital than ever that we engage in them and advocate for those policies we wish to see.

  1. Theological

I wanted to find another ‘p’ to say this but my brain was struggling. This is the reason why in the end I don’t think that Christian political parties are the best choice for Christians, that’s over and above the other reasons outlined above, which in the right circumstances could all be ameliorated.

The idea and operation of Christian parties promotes an approach that verges on theocracy. It suggests that as Christians we will rule the country in a Christian way, and in a way that only Christians can. I am aware that those involved in the parties mentioned would dispute this.

But we live in a country where many people are not Christian, and to govern through parties that are identified as Christian with an explicitly Christian programme would suggest that we are seeking to introduce a political programme that is actually the enforcement of religious belief.

I don’t think that Christians have all the answers. I think that in the end, God’s Kingdom will come, and in the meantime God works through us to bring that Kingdom into our world a little bit at a time. But there are good ideas and aspects of that greater good that comes from sources outside the church. It is important that we recognise this. Politics is about making things work, for Christians it is about accepting that while overall authority lies with God he gives us a mandate to act on that authority.

The gospel is also about freedom, it is the thing that brings true freedom and it sustains freedom. The gospel is about the choice to follow God, and any attempt to legislate for religious belief, or even to try and enforce morality through the legal system will not only engender hostility towards Christianity, it is simply not the way that the gospel works.


In summary, Christians, like all people should vote how they wish, and in the Mayoral elections that may mean voting for the Christian People’s Alliance, but as someone passionately committed to seeing more Christians engaging in politics, and making a difference in the political sphere, it is not the route that I would advocate. I would suggest joining one of the mainstream parties, which ever one comes closest to you views. I would suggest getting involved, putting in the hard work, and seeing how, we can not only speak what we believe, but live it and see others changed by how we live and what we support. For more information I’d recommend the Christians in Politics website.

19 thoughts on “Why I don’t think Christian political parties are the best option

  1. Thanks for writing this! I seem to have stirred up some useful debate, which is fantastic and partly what I hoped for. I may have given the impression that I’ve been supporting the Christian Peoples Alliance so it’s fair that people tell me what they think and I’m happy to share my position, which is basically the same as the one you’ve laid out. It was interesting talking to the CPA. I learnt a bit more about them and education is always a good thing.

  2. Danny
    Thanks for this. Thanks too to the ‘God and Politics in the UK’ blog on the question (which however doesn’t seem to have a comments section). While I agree with much of the good sense in both these posts, I do think that British discussions of the issue of Christian political parties tend to suffer from being extremely parochial – reflecting, I’m afraid, the general insularity of much British (or at least English) political debate. While they may acknowledge continental European Christian democratic parties in passing, they rarely display any real knowledge of their origins, history, policies or modes of operation. If they did they would not set the option of a Christian political party aside so breezily. Thus for example, ‘God and Politics in the UK’ says that the ‘danger is that such a party will be perceived as working towards a theocracy where the government subjects its people to what they believe is God’s will and of course because it’s God’s will it can’t be questioned’. But this is a caricature of European Christian democratic parties (on which CPA was originally modelled), even the more conservative ones, and doesn’t even try to define ‘theocracy’, one of the most over-used but least-understood terms in the debate. I’m neither endorsing nor rejecting CPA (though I know some fine people who have been associated with it and like quite a lot of what they stand for, if not always their political tactics or rhetoric), but I would plead for a more careful use of terms and a better understanding of European political systems. Try Emiel Lamberts, ed., ‘Christian Democracy in the European Union 1945-1995’ for a start as a survey of the remarkable (if flawed) achievements of that movement.

  3. Dear Danny,
    You appear to have written a blog that is representative of the Christians whose understanding of the aims of CPA is somewhat lacking. If I may say so, it is typical of Christians whose approach to Christian politics, is based primarily upon unfounded fears, rather than grasping what a party like the CPA is aiming at. I wish to draw to your attention the following misconceptions that you have about the CPA.

    You said “The idea and operation of Christian parties promotes an approach that verges on theocracy” – You either don’t know what a theocracy is, or you haven’t understood the CPA’s literature. The CPA is very open in its aims and objectives. In no way, has it ever had an objective to establish a theocracy in any shape or form. Its aims are in fact the opposite! It aims to promote free and fair democracy, whilst having policies which offer values that Christians and many non Christians may welcome. You further said “those involved in the parties mentioned would dispute this” – but in reality, you are simply making an unfounded castigation here, for which you would need to provide proof, if your allegation had any truth in it. The suggestion that the CPA is working towards ‘theocracy’, is a claim, totally without foundation and is misrepresentative on your part. It is effectively a smear that cannot be a credit to your blog, if you wish people to accept your information and opinions as being validly, truth and reliable.

    Again you said “many people are not Christian, and to govern through parties that are identified as Christian with an explicitly Christian programme would suggest that we are seeking to introduce a political programme that is actually the enforcement of religious belief” – Not at all! This is not the suggestion of the CPA and neither does the CPA have a programme to “enforce religious belief”…where do you get this stuff from?? You see Danny, when you make up things like this from your own imagination and then publish it, you are actually misleading people and discrediting the CPA, based not upon what the CPA is, does or aims at, but purely upon your own presumptions, fears and prejudices!

    The last point I take you up on is your statement: “The gospel is about the choice to follow God, and any attempt to legislate for religious belief, or even to try and enforce morality through the legal system will not only engender hostility towards Christianity, it is simply not the way that the gospel works” – Every Christian knows the gospel is by freedom to choose it and freedom of conscience to act upon it in the belief of God and love of Christ, including Christians in the CPA, whose committment to Christ is demonstrated in their willingness to stand up for Christian morals in the public arena. Many others, hide their faith for fear of ridicule and criticism, including many whose fears of a “theocratic take over”, predominate in their mind, instead of the reality that unless people are prepared to stand up and be counted for Christian morals, the Christians in the UK will in time be effectively politically silenced.

    The CPA is not in the business of “enforcing morals” in general or of “enforcing religious belief”, both of which are claims that you have made about the party. Instead, the CPA aims to make a society in which all religions and none can live peacefully and harmoniously together with compassion for one’s fellow man. There is no enforcement of religious belief at all.
    If there is one Christian moral that the CPA would legislate towards, it is to reduce the abominable number of mass abortions for convenience, that are taking place in the UK, every year. I for one, make no apology for supporting such a policy, given that there are approaching 200,000 abortions per year in the UK. In 5 years this is 1 Million babies. In 10 yrs, 2 Million babies etc. Many of these abortions are caried out under the protection of the law providing for the “health and well being of the mother”, when in reality, they are simply the result of a doctor agreeing to their abortion because the pregnancy is “inconvenient”. Considering the Commandment no.6 “Thou shalt not murder”, abortions for ‘inconvenience’ of innocent babies, must be the vilest of sins and must make God extremely angry, for which we as a nation are already, I believe, starting to pay the price of God’s judgement.

    • Hi David,
      Thanks for your comment, I’m just going to make a few quick points in response, because while I understand your points I feel that we approach this issue from quite a different perspective. So while my wording may not have been as clear or careful as it could have been the substantive points I was making I stand by.

      Firstly, my point about theocracy is not one about the CPA in particular, it is about the concept and operation of a political party that is both Christian in name and in the way that it operates, something which would apply to the CPA but would not, for instance apply to the CDU in Germany. I think that any such party operates within a framework that is not divorced from the idea of a theocracy, therefore it is not necessary for the CPA to advocate a theocracy or policies which approach this, for the party and it’s policies to be interpreted as this.

      Secondly, I never said that the CPA advocated the enforcement of religious belief, I just said that the approach taken by parties such as the CPA can be seen as trying to enforce religious belief. I think there’s an important distinction here.

      Finally, I think as far as possible when we engage with wider society and seek to promote the values that we believe are good for society it often makes it easier for people to reject what we have to say if we promote it as a Christian idea. I don’t think that’s about hiding your faith, I think it’s about doing all that we can to see God’s kingdom come.

      Anyway, thanks for your thoughts,

      • Dear Danny,

        I’ve read and re-read your piece “Why I don’t think Christian political parties are the best option” and find that my sadness and sorrow just increase. Sadness because of your apparent lack of awareness of political history and current political developments; sorrow because of the poverty of your philosophical and theological thought.

        The difference between us is exemplified by the way you start from the pragmatic and then work your way through to the theological. My preference is to start with the theological and work out from that; here, through that which you call philosophical and then political, to see if there is a pragmatic way of offering policy for civic society to accept or reject. And, in replying to you, I shall follow that schema.

        1. Theological

        I was going to start from an assertion that I thought we could both agree on – the authority of Jesus as Lord (even if we might disagree on the outworking of that lordship) in the here and now. Having re-read (again) that which you wrote:
        “I think that, in the end, God’s Kingdom will come, and in the meantime God works through us to bring that Kingdom into our world a little bit at a time”

        it is genuinely not clear to me as to whether the authority of Jesus as Lord in the here and now is your position or not. Whilst I fully accept, as you indicate, the full realisation of that Lordship will not be revealed until the time he comes again (Phil 2:11), I also believe that when he said:

        “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”

        his use of the past tense was quite deliberate; and that his authority is not limited to just either spiritual and/or social action. This concept is, I suggest, repeated in Paul’s assertion ‘If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved’. For in a time when Caesar is Lord, and any confession with your mouth of an alternate Lord is treason, Paul’s statement is not just salvific but a political one (and an intensely political one) as well.

        This is not to say, as you appear to suggest, that Christian parties:
        “are seeking to introduce a political programme that is actually the enforcement of religious belief”

        or “attempt[ing] to legislate for religious belief”.

        For those suggestions, which traduce that which I and others believe and for which we stand, are also the very antithesis of the One we seek to follow, and of any policy or programme (whether political or otherwise) based on his teachings.

        You will be aware of the words of Isaiah “a bruised reed he will not break” which reject and repudiate the theological imperialism of which you appear to suggest we are guilty; or, indeed the words of Jesus “My kingdom is not of this world”. As Tom Wright, writing of these words in God & Government (2009; Eds: Spencer & Chaplin) says:

        “This, we must insist, does not mean Jesus’ kingdom is a ‘purely spiritual’ one, a Gnostic dream of escape that has nothing to do with the present world and hence has no challenge to offer to Caesar. No: Jesus’ kingdom does not derive from this world, but is designed for this world. But precisely because it is the kingdom of the wise Creator God who longs to heal his world, whose justice is aimed at restoration rather than punitive destruction, it can neither be advanced by the domineering, bullying, fighting kingdom-methods employed in merely earthly kingdoms. Jesus thus redefines what it means to be ‘lord of the world’…..(original emphasis)

        Thus I, and others in Christian parties, seek to formulate policies, that we can then offer to the electorate. Yes, these policies are based on our basic theological understanding that the revealed Will of God in and through Jesus is the best basis for civic society to live, function effectively, and have a fullness of life in all its aspects. But we offer such policies to the electorate, as is appropriate in a democratic society, so as to serve civic society. And we fully recognise that, with the freedom of choice given to all, each individual in the electorate has the opportunity to accept or reject that which we offer. Which is precisely the same with all that is properly offered in the name of Jesus (eg Mk 10:22 and other passages), the very opposite of theocratic imposition.

        I’m aware that, in your response of 5 May 2012 to David you have sought to clarify, whilst also repeating, your remarks. For there you state: “I think that any such party operates within a framework that is not divorced from the idea of a theocracy’ – a concept which, as I have set out above, is completely alien to those I know and work with in the CPA. Whilst I accept that, at present, you ‘think’ this, you have not produced any evidence to back up your assertion that this is actually our framework.

        Whilst It is always possible for the CPA and its policies to be misrepresented as theocratic (as such misrepresentation is possible of any political party or its policies by those who oppose them) I am sorry to see such misrepresentation from you, whether you are writing personally or, when speaking to churches, if ‘this is more or less what I say’.

        The thrust of your piece, however, goes further than misrepresentation of the nature and purpose of Christian parties. For you also appear to be suggesting that the only way Christians should operate in politics is to engage in the larger political parties, voting for someone to govern. There are, I suggest, two main theological issues with that approach.

        • First, I would need to accept that the political ideology of any party I joined over-ruled the authority and lordship of Jesus. Far from “rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s” there would be times when I would be party to, and working for the election of people who will introduce policies, that I believed to be fundamentally wrong, and so rendering to Caesar (whether that be Cameron, Milliband, Clegg or just ‘The Party’ ) that which is God’s.

        • Whilst I do not dispute that God calls some Christians to work within parties that are based on a secular ideology (and I do not criticise them for that), the fact that He calls some to work in politics within those parties does not mean, as you appear to imply, that all those He calls into politics are called to work within the secular parties. If that is your position, you offer no theological justification for it.

        2. Philsophical

        I’m not quite sure what your ‘philosophical’ objection is. If it is that there are two Christian parties, then it is self-evident that Christians disagree about the implementation of theological truth, even when they are able to agree on what theological truth is. So, the very website you advocate, Christians in Politics, has three groups represented on it: Christian Socialist Movement, Conservative Christian Fellowship, Liberal Democrat Christian Forum. And, as you will be aware, there are many other specifically Christian groups in politics, whether in or out of the three larger parties. And within each of those will be individuals who do not agree with everything their party stands for but who, as you write elsewhere,

        “vote for the party that mostly closely reflects your values, and then see how you can get involved to influence those values and the policies that arise from them”

        Which is precisely what those of us in Christian political parties do.

        But if your ‘philosophical’ objection is that such involvement should only be done through the three larger parties, then I suggest that this concept is philosophically bankrupt for two reasons:

        a) One can only “engage in them and advocate for those policies which we wish to see” if your core political values are aligned with one or other of those parties. And, as Jonathan Chaplin suggests in your Comments suggestion, the concept of Christian Democracy is ill understood in this country. For although that has elements in common with each of socialism, conservatism and liberalism, it also has elements distinct from each of these. (A fairly basic entry paper on this can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy).

        b) in the current UK political world, the result of such engagement has to be seen, as well as just hypothesised. To take two aspects – the creation and now the working through of the current economic and social crisis – where was the influence (and, if there, what effect did it have?) of Christians in the Labour Party when Blair and Brown were advocating ‘light touch regulation’ of the financial institutions?; and, subsequently, when Brown was turning the budget surplus of 1998-2001 into the increasing and unsustainable budget deficits of 2002-2009?

        Or where is the influence of Conservative or Liberal Christians to ensure that the Coalition Government will ameliorate the social and financial consequences of austerity – eg one in five mothers regularly going without a meal to ensure their children are fed (Netmums Survey http://www.metro.co.uk/news/890468-70-per-cent-of-british-families-on-the-brink-of-poverty-research-claims) with 5% taking out payday loans (where are the caps on APRs?); or Marmot’s warning that austerity programmes will increase mortality rates, including suicides (British Medical Journal 28 April 2012 p3 [BMJ 2012;344:e2887]) with all the social and financial consequences of that for the families involved.

        Whilst you can argue, philosophically, that Christians can get involved in the three larger parties to influence those values and policies (of course they can) then, I suggest, you also need to show that this actually works – that is, how that influence has affected those values and policies in tune with Kingdom principles. There may well be instances that you can advance – but, like any good ‘mainstream’ Mayoral candidate, you have set out the generalities of your view – but not put forward any specifics.

        3. Politically

        There is no disagreement between us that ‘there needs to be an ability to do more than [make] protests about problems with the current system”. But before “delivering on….programmes” to deal with those problems, the policies and programmes need to be determined. And, as you note, “often key voices come from the margin and people not in the centre of decision making are able to take a view counter to political mainstream”. Indeed, any alternative suggestion that the three main secular parties have a monopoly on wisdom is risible. To see that one only has to look at the current economic situation that we are now in.

        And, as you will recall from the EA Hustings, it was Ken Livingstone (Labour) who gave the credit to Jenny Jones (Greens, only founded 1973) for being the force behind they implementation of the London Living Wage. It is this increase in income, a policy from that which (in your terminology) was a fringe political party just a few years ago, that will be one of the main drivers in increasing equality of health across the postcodes of London (Marmot Fair Society, Healthy Lives 2010). In addition, the manner in which the environment has come onto the political agenda is due, to a great extent (although not entirely) to the effect of the Greens.

        Your dismissive, almost contemptuous, remark that when you cast a vote you are “voting for someone to govern not for someone to issue press releases” shows only that you fail to understand the effect that the smaller parties can have on the wider political scene (for good or bad) by highlighting an issue and proposing remedies or alternatives. From a purely CPA perspective I would refer you, for example, to our integrated approach on Reducing Youth Violence (http://www.cpaparty.org.uk/resources/ReducingYouth_Violence_2012.pdf). Whilst that may not be perfect, and may benefit from further insights from others (whether from a faith or non-faith background) we believe it provides a far more effective way forward in this field than the somewhat sterile debate between the two larger parties of who was going to put more police on the streets.

        4. Pragmatic

        All of which brings me to the pragmatic. Yes, the Christian political parties are small in the votes we garner and, currently, in the number of seats in which we stand. In terms of theological pragmatism that does not bother me. Someone once started with twelve, who then became 120. Somehow He changed the world. Or, if you would prefer to think in terms of political pragmatism, I can see just your advice to Keir Hardie in 1892 – “you only stood in nine seats, got only 22,198 votes, less than 0.5% of the total, with only three elected. You’re just a fringe party. Far better to join the Conservatives or Liberals and advocate the policies you believe, than set up the Independent Labour Party”. No doubt you would have repeated that just 3 years later, in 1895, when they lost all 28 contests, getting only 44,325 votes or just 1% of the total votes cast; and especially in 1897 when Keir Hardie was converted and became a Christian? Perhaps it was just as well that you were not around then – although I suspect that, if you were, Hardie would not have taken your advice, knowing that his political philosophies and theology did not fit in the larger parties.

        Or, if you prefer to be more modern, no doubt you would have given the same advice to Mike Benfield, Freda Saunders, Tony & Leslie Whittaker in 1973 or Alen Sked in 1993 – I suspect Caroline Lucas and, this weekend, the London Greens, as well as the 12 UKIP MEPs, are glad you were not around then or, if you had been, that their founders also wouldn’t have taken your advice.

        Nor does your view take account of the current and growing development of proportional representation, allowing the smaller parties to gain seats and so further influence policy and programmes, even when they cannot win when fighting on first past the post against the two main parties. So, in ‘first past the post’, Labour and Conservative took all the London Assembly Constituency seats, yet the Greens and Liberal Democrats also gained seats and political influence in London. Indeed, to have done otherwise would have disenfranchised approx 339,000 people who voted for them, some 15% of those who voted.

        Taking this one step further, had your advice been taken by those of us in the smaller parties in London, 145,000 Londoners (245,000 if one includes UKIP) would have been disenfranchised from voting for that which they believe. That may be your idea of democracy – a choice between one of three large parties (but which would you now choose as the third in London?), but it is not mine.

        So, whether theologically, philosophically, politically or pragmatically I believe your argument is flawed. Not that Christians should not work within the larger parties, but that is not, necessarily, the best option for all Christians – whether with regard to working or voting.

  4. Dear Danny,
    This is what I object to – “I think that any such party operates within a framework that is not divorced from the idea of a theocracy, therefore it is not necessary for the CPA to advocate a theocracy or policies which approach this, for the party and it’s policies to be interpreted as this” – this admittedly is prefixed by “I think” and is therefore your own biased opinion. I accept this, but where you are going ‘off scale’ is “party operates within a framework that is not divorced from the idea of a theocracy” !! I will repeat for you once more: The CPA is NOT involved in theocracy, nor does it in any way operate in theocratic ways, either internally or externally. The reality is Danny, that you are actually stating something which is untrue! This is what I object to. You are promoting something which is untrue and trying to present it as fact or at the very least a “belief” based on some reality, whereas in truth, there is no foundation at all for your statement. The CPA is NOT “theocratic”. It is totally “Democratic”.

    “I never said that the CPA advocated the enforcement of religious belief, I just said that the approach taken by parties such as the CPA can be seen as trying to enforce religious belief” – Danny, this is complete nonsense! The CPA has NO agenda to “enforce religious belief”. This would be like me saying that the Green Party has an agenda to force everyone to become Vegetarian. If it isn’t in their manifesto or in their internal or external practice, then don’t make up smears that have no basis in reality. Stick to the truth and you won’t go far wrong! It is smearing your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ with things that are not true that will contribute to a less godly society not a more godly one.

    Then you said “I think it’s about doing all that we can to see God’s kingdom come” – but you will never see God’s Kingdom coming, by hiding what God has already taught us. You can only see the UK become more godly by obeying God’s word and applying it in the Love of Christ.

    You will achieve nothing for God, by misrepresenting and trying to pass off your own prejudices against the CPA, as somehow being truth, when there is no truth in them. A sincere approach would instead be to pray for the CPA and its work to be successful. Have you prayed and are you praying for the CPA, its leaders and members to be instruments for good in the UK? The Bible says this is what you should be doing, not criticising them and still less, not misrepresenting them untruthfully.

  5. David and Malcolm, thank you for your comments. I’m going to have a think about this a little and probably respond with a follow up blog later this week. However, I will reiterate what I said in response to David: I was not suggesting that the CPA advocate a theocracy, but that Christian political parties run the risk of being perceived as doing such. This might seem like a technical distinction but it is an important one because I am not levelling this charge at the CPA.

    The only other point I want to make right now is that while I do not think that Christian political parties are the best approach for Christians to take, this is not a view that I think all Christians should hold. And I have the utmost respect for any Christians seeking to engage in politics, whether this is through secular parties or Christian parties, and they are the focus of my prayers.

    I was not seeking to misrepresent the CPA, and I am sorry if I have done so. Likewise, I have not intended to present my opinions as fact, and I apologise also if I have done that. However, I think it is vital I can hold to a view that I do, and when I talk of what I think, it is only that, and when I talk of how something is perceived it is recognised that I am talking about how something is viewed, which is, by necessity open to interpretation.

    Partly because I wrote the above post in haste, and may now be learning the lesson of not crafting my thoughts into words as carefully as I should, I am intending to take some time to think over a fuller response.

  6. Democracy depends on the votes of gays, lesbians, criminals, drunks, and many more. Politicians will never condemn them for fear of losing votes. Proper Christians have to. (1st Corinthians 6:9-10) We have no choice. If we don’t we are no longer Christians, and if we do we won’t get their votes. There is only one way forward. A compulsory Christian Church for all, from birth, from which must come leaders of a higher standard. Voted on to the next step up by the members. From which would come a King worth having. God will never accept democracy. Democracy breeds corruption. Pray for it’s end.

    • I disagree with all of gdicm’s comments expressed above. It is not our role to condemn, or to misuse 1 Cor 6:9-10. A compulsory Christian Church is a contradiction in terms. A compulsory church will not produce ‘leaders of a higher standard’, but those who reject servanthood as leadership and instead use exactly the form of ‘leadership’ that Jesus warns against in Jn 13. God has accepted democracy – He does not just allow, but grants, freewill – and as such, gives humanity the freedom to choose democracy as an appropriate form of government. It is not democracy that breeds corruption, but the human heart. There is more I coud write, but in view of time pressures, cannot. I had no wish, however, to leave gdicm’s remarks unchallenged, lest any think that, by these not being challenged in the context of the posts above them, they represented my view or that of the CPA.

  7. I don’t write a comment, however I looked at a few of the responses here Why
    I dont think Christian political parties are the best option | broken cameras & gustav klimt.
    I do have a couple of questions for you if it’s okay. Could it be just me or does it look like
    a few of the responses look like they are
    written by brain dead visitors? 😛 And, if you are writing at other sites, I’d like to follow anything fresh you have to post.
    Could you make a list of all of all your public sites like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

  8. Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it’s truly informative.
    I am going to watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you continue this in future.
    A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  9. I seldom drop comments, however I read a few of the remarks
    on Why I dont think Christian political parties are the best option |
    broken cameras & gustav klimt. I do have a couple of questions
    for you if you don’t mind. Is it simply me or do some of these
    comments appear as if they are left by brain dead people?
    😛 And, if you are writing at other places,
    I’d like to keep up with you. Could you make a list of every one of your social sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

Leave a Reply to David Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s