An Election Day Prayer

“It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD, and to sing praises unto Thy name, O most High . . . For Thou, LORD, hast made me glad through Thy work: I will triumph in the works of Thy hands. O LORD, how great are Thy works! and Thy thoughts are very deep.

“A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever: but Thou, LORD, art most high for evermore. For, lo, thine enemies, O LORD, for, lo, Thine enemies shall perish; all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered. . . .

“Mine eye also shall see my desire on mine enemies, and mine ears shall hear my desire of the wicked that rise up against me. The righteous shall  flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. . . . To shew that the LORD is upright: He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.”

Psalm 92

May the best man win, as best chosen by the Lord and as best deserved by the voters.


  1. Esther November 4, 2010 at 6:16 am #

    Praise the Lord for the results in the House!

  2. Michael November 8, 2010 at 5:58 am #

    Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places… ye that fear the Lord, bless the Lord… – Psalm 135
    But God is the Judge: He putteth down one, and setteth up another. – Psalm 75

  3. Michael November 15, 2010 at 9:37 am #

    With a terribly liberal and communistic executive, and a reasonably conservative House, we are still out of “balance” with a liberal Senate. But even that kind of “balance” is not necessarily healthy for us. If our country is going to avoid suicide, we will need to return to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ as the ultimate restraint of evil. Government servants, business servants, and we the people as a whole need to realize that we are all under God and subject to His rewards and His judgments, regardless of what we would like to think is “right”.

  4. Denise November 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    If the gov’t is heavily placed on one side or the other then there is no balance. “Compromise” is neither a blasphemous word, nor is it evil, yet elected officials on both sides of the fence act as though it is. Theocracy is not the answer either. What the gov’t needs at both the state and federal level are elected individuals that care enough for the people they serve that they are willing to serve them for free…pro bono…just because they want to do right. People from a variety of christian backgrounds that can come together and rediscover the golden rule. How about holding elections where candidates are not labeled as belonging to a specific party but just state the facts as to what they want to accomplish for the people they hope represent? Let’s outlaw negative ad campaigns that bog down voters with hateful statements. If we are all indeed under God, then we (including those who represent us in gov’t) need to start acting like it, and some candidates need to refrain from acting as though God belongs to them and them alone.

  5. Michael November 25, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    Denise, I think I agree with everything you said, except that, in a way, a theocracy is a good thing – because if all our elected officials were to care enough about the people to serve them in a way that conforms to the love of God, that would ultimately be a theocracy wouldn’t it? Anyone who is in a position of authority over other people, whether it be a store manager, a parent, or a U.S. Senator, needs to realize that he will answer to God for the choices he makes. When those who rule are ruled by God, God is ultimately the ruler. Anyone who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God (2 Sam. 23:3).
    And I don’t really think we need to outlaw negative add campaigns – I kind of think voters already dislike it enough that it turns them away from the one doing the bad mouthing.

  6. Denise November 28, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    Well plenty of monarchs through out time thought they answered to God, then decided that since God made them monarchs whatever they decided was okay with God. See, that is the human fallicy. God made me a leader therefore I am God’s chosen one and whatever I desire I can do because God put me here. I can be stark raving mad (Henry VIII) but whatever I decide is because I am God’s chosen one earth. Henry went from believing he was ruled by God, to believing he was God’s ruler on earth. So, if the US reverted to a theocracy, how do you suggest that those who aim to lead do not fall into the madness that leads them to believe their personal desires are determined by God? What happens when those that are ruled by God suddenly think that they rule for God? And would those who make a mint while leading others to their form of God be allowed to run for office or contribute to those running for office?

  7. Michael November 30, 2010 at 6:47 pm #

    Denise you’re right, that is a very serious human falicy. It is amazing how we as humans can foolishly lift up ourselves in pride. It is a tendency everyone must deal with, no matter what background or belief, whether you are king Asa, king James, a U.S. president, Hitler, Castro, Mao, or the homeless man under the bridge. That is exactly why the fear of the Lord is so important. The fear of the Lord involves knowing we are under God, not above or equal to God. It involves knowing that God will judge the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, the smart and the simple without respect of persons. Pride is entirely incompatible with the fear of God. “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.” Prov. 8:13.

  8. Denise December 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    When I define the saying “God fearing” I think of those who exercise decisions in good conscience; those who aim to “do right” for others, especially the little people that they serve. When I was a young girl I walked into church one day and I saw a banner that read “I am here to serve not to be served.” For some reason, that saying has resonated with me through out the years. I am here to serve God, I am not here so that he can serve me. He can bless me if he chooses to do so, but my purpose on this earth is to serve HIM.

    That said, I feel, in my opinion, that the majority of “servants” in our current congressional government see us, the regular joes as their true servants rather than visa versa. Congress has decided to freeze the wages of Fed workers for 2 years. Congress as well decided to freeze their own pay raises for the next two years as well. Looks good on the surface. But scratch the surface some…

    The salary for the Speaker of the House is 223,500. House and Senate Majority and Minority leaders make 193,400/yr. House representatives, senators, and delegates make 174,000/yr. Yeah, I guess they can afford to have their salaries frozen. The GS 4 making 25,600,not so much. Also,know this…261 members of congress are millionares (nearly 50 percent), and 55 of the 261 have a net worth of over 10 million. Numero uno is Darrell Issa a republican representative from CA who is reported to have a net worth of 451.1 million.

    I say lets go back to the early era of congressional representation when being a congressman was a part time gig, and one was paid a per diem rate only during days congress was in legislation. In 2010, congress was only officially legislating for 137 days. All the rest of 2010 was for recess, meeting with constituents, or campaigning for self or some one. Well back in the colonial era, a congressman was only paid when they legislated and all other things they did for their constituents were on their own dime/time.

    And though I can understand that the federal worker pay freeze can help the deficit, re-tooling congressional pay (and their thousands of staffers’ pay) might be a better option from those who aim “to serve”.

  9. Michael December 8, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    Yeah, well said Denise. That would make a good blog post. In our time it might not be feasible to serve 137 days entirely for nothing (unless you’re already wealthy) – maybe a small wage would do – one that would be humbling for a proud and selfish person to take. 🙂 Now, you’re not intentionally picking just on the House without mentioning the Senate or the executive or judiciary are you? 🙂

  10. Denise December 10, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    Why no, I’m not picking on either the House or the Senate, nor am I picking on Dems over Repubs. The top 10 richest Senators and Representatives are as follows: (net worth btw)
    Sen Dianne Feinstein D. (CA) 108.1 million
    Sen Jay Rockefeller D. (WVa) 136.2 million
    Rep. Michael McCaul R. (TX) 201.5 million
    Rep. Vern Buchanan R. (FLA) 366.2 million
    Sen. Herb Khol D. (Wisc) 231.2 million
    Rep. Jared Polis D. (CO) 285.1 million
    Sen. Mark Warner D. (VA) 283.1 million
    Sen. John Kerry D. (MA) 294.9 million
    Rep. Jane Harman D. (CA) 435.4 million
    Rep. Darrell Issa R. (CA) 451.1 million

    And that is only the top ten of the 261 millionaires currently serving in our gov’t. And they are only the top ten of the 55 sen. or reps. worth 10 plus million. And this is NET worth.

    In Ben Franklin’s time congressmen were paid a per diem rate of 6.00/day for the days they showed up and legislated. Now in the colonial era 6.00 went very far. However, those early senators and reps did not have the luxury of speedy travel, cell phones, TV, radio, telephones, twitter, facebook, or billboards. They also had farms/businesses to run, families to deal with, etc.

    Please note that of the list above, only the republican senators and representatives, along with Rockefeller ( a democrat) voted against ending tax cuts for millionaires. All the other Dems on the list above voted to end tax cuts for those making over one million dollars a year.

  11. Denise December 10, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    Please let me amend what I said above as far as tax cut are concerned…

    The House proposal to end tax cuts for those making in excess of 250K per year was unanimously voted against by the GOP and the following Dems and I’s:
    James Webb (VA)
    Joe Manchin (WVA)
    Russell Feingold (WISC)
    Joe Leiberman (CONN)

    Sen. Charles Schumer’s (NY) proposal to let tax cuts expire for those making more than 1 million dollars a year was unanimously voted against by the GOP along with the following democrats:
    John “Jay” Rockefeller (WVA)
    Richard Durbin (ILL)
    Tom Harkin (Iowa)

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via email.