Mark Creech: God Chooses the American President, Not the People

Most Americans probably believe that they have some say in who is elected president. After all, it is an election where they vote, right? Even if corporations and special interests have too much power, it still comes down to getting enough votes, right? Well, Christian Nationalists disagree. They believe that the president is chosen by God, not the people. Your vote really doesn't count in their eyes. Even worse, this is a legitimate Christian doctrine, not some weird idea cooked up by extremists.

The nation is only as strong as the content of its character. America needs a leader who has it right on the social issues, even when that leader may not be as strong in other areas.  

Most troubling, however, is that many conservative evangelicals are now acting as though God were not sovereign in the political process. Have we become more focused on the process than on the God who controls it? Granted, we must diligently seek to influence the culture for righteousness sake. Nevertheless, evangelicals are not sailing the ship politic and never were. There is but one Captain -- the Lord -- and He raises to power whomever He wills. Infighting and laying blame is counterproductive to advancing the kingdom.  

These experiences test our faith in God’s mysterious ways. And they strain our commitment to Christian liberty -- the very foundation of our belief in political freedom. Let us lay aside the attacks on our brethren.

Source: One News Now

Mark Creech is arguing against evangelicals pulling out of the political process simply because they are not happy with the Republicans running for president. Why should they be so engaged, though, if God will raise up whomever God wants, regardless of what the people want? What's the purpose of being active in democratic politics if popular sovereignty, the basis for democracy, is false?

This doctrine can be traced to both the Old Testament and the New Testament:

Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, for wisdom and might are His. And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and secret things; He knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with Him. I thank You and praise You, O God of my fathers; You have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of You, for You have made known to us the king’s demand. (Daniel 2:20)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained [1] of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (Romans 13:1-2)

Such passages probably reassured Christians in the past when leaders did things they disliked and made them feel triumphant when leaders did things they liked. Either way, though, it meant they were not in control of or responsible for their own political futures. They didn't have to make wise choices or feel guilty for poor choices. This made possible the political doctrine of the divine right of kings, allowing the existence of absolute monarchs and ensuring that resistance to a ruler was treated as resistance to God's will.

Could such doctrines also make a Christian assault on democracy possible? Perhaps, because if God is sovereign and the sovereign chooses the rulers, then what value can there really be in a democratic election? If someone is convinced that they know the will of God — and how often do Christian Nationalists not take this position? — they could easily justify to themselves any attempt to install or support a leader who has no democratic support.

Most Christians have abandoned such ideas, fortunately. Influenced by secularism and the Enlightenment, they accept the principle of popular sovereignty which lies behind modern democracy. This is good, but moderate and liberal Christians will have trouble arguing against the legitimacy of the biblical principle that God, not the people, is politically sovereign. Mark Creech's denial of popular sovereignty is contrary to the principle of democracy and should mark him as too far outside the mainstream to take seriously — like someone who supports the creation of a king of America — but in reality he's offering a basic biblical idea.

Secular atheists don't face the same problems because they don't concede one of the basic premises of Creech's position, namely the authoritative status of the Bible. They can easily dismiss Creech's position as immoral, illiberal, undemocratic, and unworthy of serious consideration because they also dismiss the Bible — and on similar grounds, too. This is one reason why some atheists argue that liberal and moderate believers inadvertently provide "cover" for more conservative, fundamentalist, and even extremist believers. In this case, for example, liberals and moderates make it easier for others to argue against popular sovereignty by conceding a premise which makes the argument possible.