Well, I’d hope to see an attempt at an evangelism blitz. Taking marbles and going home sounds like an implication of a pretty weak God.
Even Ted Cruz knows this, and made the gospel part of his theme. Evangelism and politicking in the same context is risky because it can make the gospel misunderstood to be an expedient to something else (e.g. a “moral society”), rather than the keynote of God’s redemption of reality. Risky, but not utterly fundamentally wrong. To call it wrong would be to say it is impossible to do politics to the glory of God.
None of this calls for attempts at “theocracy” i.e. inherently incorporating a government as an arm of a “church.” A “church” is an earthly thing anyhow and it has its own chaff problems as it is. Doing this is to invite pollution into the church. However the people of a representative democracy can be legitimately enlightened with the gospel, and it does not matter a lot what the exact terms of the democracy are if this is successfully done. They are secondary to God’s blessings.
I understand and largely agree with what you’ve said, but...doesn’t it seem to you that the Cruz campaign is somewhat crippled because he so galvanizes the leftists? It seems that way to me. Hilary would be tough enough to beat; she’s got the female vote, the Hispanic vote and the “Urban” vote with the Urban voting machines. Throwing Cruz into the mix just drives more anti-christian voters to the polls, I’d think.