On the one hand, I grant that it’s open to interpretation. People clearly (and frequently) get it wrong. On the other hand, what pleases God is actually fixed and doesn’t change because someone fails to understand it. If you say something in a crowded restaurant and I perceive you to have said something you didn’t, that doesn’t change what you actually said. You said what you said.

Someone who’s a believer should be living his or life, in all areas, in a way that’s pleasing to God. If you’re a sanitation worker you should collect trash in a way that pleases God. Likewise if you’re a legislator. Likewise if you’re Ilhan Omar.

That doesn’t imply I must support every person who’s endeavoring to please the God of the bible, or Allah, or any other God, since that person may be severely mistaken about what actually pleases God. This is almost surely the case with Drollinger.

From my reading of the bible, the set of policies that are pleasing to God are largely the ones we categorize as “progressive” (with the one big exception being abortion). The over-arching principle is to support policies that maximize human flourishing, care for the poor, sick and old, care for creation, recognize citizens of other countries as equally valuable in God’s sight, and curtail freedom only when necessary to protect us from directly harming one another.

Per those principles, here are some things I think are *not* pleasing to God:

* mistreating would-be immigrants and asylum seekers
* excessively limiting immigration due to fears of cultural change
* making gay sex a crime
* making porn a crime
* imposing the Christian understanding of marriage on a secular nation
* weak laws that allow corporations to pollute the environment
* allowing (some) hard-working citizens to struggle to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of living
* allowing incarcerated individuals to be abused in all manner of ways
* punishing Americans (and particularly those of color) for using, possessing or selling a substance that’s not significantly more dangerous than alcohol
* so-called “blue laws” that, e.g., prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays
* empowering public school teachers to proselytize their students and/or lead them in faith-specific activities during class
* refusing to account for biological differences related to child-bearing that disproportionately impact women in the workplace

On the one hand, I grant that it’s open to interpretation. People clearly (and frequently) get it wrong. On the other hand, what pleases God is actually fixed and doesn’t change because someone fails to understand it. If you say something in a crowded restaurant and I perceive you to have said something you didn’t, that doesn’t change what you actually said. You said what you said.

Someone who’s a believer should be living his or life, in all areas, in a way that’s pleasing to God. If you’re a sanitation worker you should collect trash in a way that pleases God. Likewise if you’re a legislator. Likewise if you’re Ilhan Omar.

That doesn’t imply I must support every person who’s endeavoring to please the God of the bible, or Allah, or any other God, since that person may be severely mistaken about what actually pleases God. This is almost surely the case with Drollinger.

From my reading of the bible, the set of policies that are pleasing to God are largely the ones we categorize as “progressive” (with the one big exception being abortion). The over-arching principle is to support policies that maximize human flourishing, care for the poor, sick and old, care for creation, recognize citizens of other countries as equally valuable in God’s sight, and curtail freedom only when necessary to protect us from directly harming one another.

Per those principles, here are some things I think are *not* pleasing to God:

* mistreating would-be immigrants and asylum seekers
* excessively limiting immigration due to fears of cultural change
* making gay sex a crime
* making porn a crime
* imposing the Christian understanding of marriage on a secular nation
* weak laws that allow corporations to pollute the environment
* allowing (some) hard-working citizens to struggle to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of living
* allowing incarcerated individuals to be abused in all manner of ways
* punishing Americans (and particularly those of color) for using, possessing or selling a substance that’s not significantly more dangerous than alcohol
* so-called “blue laws” that, e.g., prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays
* empowering public school teachers to proselytize their students and/or lead them in faith-specific activities during class
* refusing to account for biological differences related to child-bearing that disproportionately impact women in the workplace

Pentateuch God, wisdom books God, Paul’s God, Jesus’ God are (IMO) all the same God, so…

A pro-slavery position would not be pleasing to God, no. Granted, people have been (and are) mistaken about this, as they are for a great number of positions.

You seem to be arguing against the concept of supporting policies that please God by pointing out people who are wrong about what pleases God. That’s like arguing Muslims shouldn’t seek to live their lives in a way that’s pleasing to Allah *in general* by pointing out that *some* Muslims think it pleases Allah for them to harm infidels. It doesn’t follow.

God of the Bible. If you’re a believer who is also an elected official and you become convinced that a particular policy is pleasing (or displeasing) to God, then you should act accordingly.