Advice on how to vote

By Steve Gregg

I wrote the following to a correspondent who was concerned about how to vote in the upcoming election:

Hi Bekki,

The Christian's allegiance is to the Kingdom of God, not to an earthly nation””and certainly not to a political party. Some Christians interpret this fact as meaning they should ignore worldly politic and simply work on spreading the Kingdom through evangelism, discipleship, prayer and godly living. This is an admirable attitude, and I have promoted it at many times in my life.

On the other hand, "politics" simply means "governing." Though we are Christians, it is incumbent on us, for example, to engage in such mundane tasks as governing our households (1 Tim.3:5). This is because, though mundane, the work of rearing godly children is advantageous to the Kingdom of God. The same applies to the honest conduct of a business, or the management of personal finances. All of these are worldly activities, but they all can be done for the glory of God””and should be (Col.3:22-24). Some might suggest that, since God raises up and brings down rulers, we needn’t concern ourselves with voting. We could as justly argue that, since God provides our daily bread, we needn’t concern ourselves with being employed.

The unique American experiment, into which most of us were born, involves a peculiar arrangement by which the citizens would seem to bear the responsibility of governing themselves, and others, through their selected representatives. The choice of representatives will result in the creation of better or worse laws and policies affecting our neighbors as well as ourselves. Our obligation to love our neighbor might be seen as a duty to exercise our stewardship of governing to select representatives who will do no harm to our neighbor, to our families or to ourselves.

People desire and need both freedom and security. However, the more of the one that the State provides, the more of the other it must take away. More State-provided security means less personal freedom. More personal freedom involves less State-sponsored security. For example, the more the State provides protections against my flight being blown up, the less freedom they will allow me to carry what I wish to have with me on the plane. The State can either provide its citizens more freedom, at the expense of the State's ability to provide security, or the State can provide greater security, at the expense of the citizens' freedoms. It is the choice between these two poles that determines whether one is called a conservative or a liberal.

The difference between conservative and liberal politics can be boiled down to this:

1) In the trade-off between personal freedom and State-provided security, the conservative chooses greater freedom, and is willing to find security elsewhere than in the promises of the State. The conservative believes that basic human rights must not be violated by government; that every individual should have the freedom to follow his own conscience, so long as doing so violates the rights of no other person. Freedom involves risks. There is no condition with fewer risks than being in a straightjacket in a nice, secure, padded cell. But those who hold conservative values would rather have more freedom of movement and to take whatever risk that may incur. Conservatives believe that the needs of the weak and helpless should be provided by the generosity of the private sector, since generosity infringes on no one's rights.

2) The liberal believes that the goal of the State must be to provide total security for its citizens, even at the expense of the rights of some. This means that the State alone should have guns, should care for the jobless, should provide healthcare, etc. For the State to provide these things requires the confiscation of the honest earning of others, and the curtailment of certain freedoms (e.g., the right to self-protection with a weapon). Many are pleased to trade away their freedoms in exchange for governmental promises of security. In many cases, they fear having too much freedom (and with it, too much responsibility) anyway. They don't see why more productive and self-reliant folks should object to having their freedoms curtailed in order to give to those who do not take care of themselves all the things they need and want.

In the present presidential election, there is no candidate in the two major parties that I like. Hillary is evil and, if elected, will destroy the last vestige of our unique freedoms that have been eroded for the past few decades. These freedoms will probably never come back.

Trump seems to have the emotional maturity of a third-grader in elementary school (no offense intended to home-schooled third-graders). While the charges that he is racist and homophobic seem baseless, it is not clear that he has any core values, nor the self-control necessary to command a nation (however, we once had eight years of another man like that in Bill Clinton, and we survived). An advantage of Trump over Bill Clinton is that Trump has some excellent and godly men around him to advise him (if only he would learn to listen to their advice!). He is also, seemingly, going through a conservative "phase" in his life. If he can appoint a few judges to high courts while in this phase, he may do the country some lasting good.

Both Trump and Hillary are advanced in age, and might be suffering ill health. In addition, both have a large part of the country very angry with them. Either Hillary or Trump, if elected, might not be able to serve their full term of office, for some unforeseen reasons. Trump would have Pence as his VP. Pence seems like a good, competent leader, and a true man of God. If anything should happen to Trump, after being elected, Pence would be a real Christian president. Also, if nothing happens to Trump during his time in office, Pence, having been VP under Trump, would be the likely Republican nominee for president in a future election.

One of these two are going to become president. A vote for a better choice in a third party, or simply a refusal to vote at all, would simply amount to a vote for whichever of these two will get the largest general support from the other voters. I, personally, would not wish for that to be Hillary.

You must make your own choice. I will not endorse a candidate.

Blessings!

Steve Gregg

Hi,
Im not from the USA and have obviously no vote.I have listened to a couple of the debates.For me as a Christian I could only vote for a person who doesnt support Abortion which Trump does not.All other issues including world war 3 are not as important as that one.On that issue alone nothing more does he deserve a vote in my opinion.Maturity matters to the unborn,9 months Maturity!Has their been a better opportuniy than this in a generation to overturn Roe v Wade?
Yours Staff

Bear- I am not sure if you read the article. He gave a pretty good reason why a person should vote; if having a conservative Supreme Court will keep even one child from being aborted, is that not reason enough?

To me it is a matter of stewardship. We have been given the opportunity/responsibility to influence the government. I think we all understand that the KOG is our only true government; however we live in a country that actually allows it citizens to influence civic government. It would seem to be a tragic squandering of stewardship to waste this opportunity to influence.

There is a lot of complaining about government intrusion into our lives (i.e. home schooling, medical decisions, freedom of religion, etc) so it would seem that if we don't vote we have absolutely zero reason to complain.

I agree, TMK. I wrote a couple of replies to this thread and the "What do we do about Hillary Clinton" thread; however, I ultimately decided against posting them.

Over the course of this election, I keep thinking about the story that Jesus told about the widow who persistently petitioned a "judge which feared not God" (a "judge" being a ruler) in Luke 18:1-8.

The thing that stuck out to me is that the ruler was "unjust" -- obviously not a believer. Yet, through petition and persistence, the widow was able to bother the judge to the point that he granted justice.

In this election, we are stuck with the prospect of two candidates that don't exactly reflect the light of Christ. As many say, it is like choosing between "the lesser of two evils." Some people view this as "choosing evil" in a black-and-white manner -- as though voting for the "less evil" prospect is akin to bowing to Satan anyway. Some have quipped that it is like choosing between a lizard and a rattlesnake.

The biggest issue to me is what you've pointed out -- the ability of the next president to select a judge for the Supreme Court.

Eight years ago, I warned people who refused to vote that there would be repercussions from the election. We've seen those repercussions in the form of abortion written into messy health care legislation, the advancement of LGBT activists' rights above the rights to exercise your faith, lawsuits for not complying to the whims of activists in issues of morality and even the forced acceptance of transgenders into the bathrooms used by children in schools.

There is currently one vacancy on the Supreme Court. The next president may fill that vacancy and several more. While I certainly do not believe that you can "legislate revival," I do believe that you can legislate immorality -- as evidenced by the last eight years -- and that immorality can be unjust to believers.

I believed in 2008 as I do now that your "vote" is merely the voicing of your opinion in a government of the people. We do not have kings born into power here. Rulers and "judges" in America are chosen by the plurality of the votes of people.

I've been thinking about what the Apostle Paul would have done if he lived in America in 2016. Would he vote? He certainly invoked his own Roman citizenship to use the Roman legal system to avoid a flogging and subsequently "appeal unto Caesar." He also used Roman-built roads and even a Roman boat to make his way to Rome.

I know that John the Baptist was quick to speak out to the king about an issue of morality and immorality -- and he lost his head for it. It just reminds me that there are consequences of speaking out, not speaking out, etc. One especially loud form of speech in a democratic republic is the vote.

As a former Clinton campaign advisor once said during a lecture, the goal isn't always to get people to vote FOR a candidate but to deceptively convince some (specifically referring to Christians and Conservatives) to simply NOT VOTE at all.

Hi
Over on our side of the pond we usually get referendums when dominant interest groups (including government) want to bring in "gay rights" etc.The questions are sometimes loaded and everything arm of the state is poured in to bring them accross the line.
My Point:If we ever got the chance American Christians are being offered which is basically:A referendum to get rid off?/or slow down Abortion we'd bite their hand off to get it,
Yours Staff

Bear- you are a steward of your right to vote whether you like it or not. If God tells you not to vote, then as His steward you should not vote. If not voting helps to get a militant abortionist elected, among other evil platforms, then I am not sure how not voting is good stewardship.

Hi bear,

You wrote:

Early Christians were not involved in the political system of the day. One did not see a bumper sticker on the back of an ox cart that said "Vote Ccesar". Or another bumper sticker that would say "Down With Rome".

That is something of the point. There were no "politics" during the early Roman Empire in any modern context of the word at the time of Caesar -- and many centuries following -- because rulers were not selected by the people.

The American republic was unique among the governments of this earth by the manner in which the government was created. It was formed by consent of the people. The laws are adopted by consent. The laws -- including the Constitution -- can be changed by consent. The government rulers -- with varying, temporary terms -- are chosen by consent. Even local officials (e.g., school board members, mayors, constables, etc.) are selected by the consent of the people.

In other words, by birth, you're a steward by your earthly "citizenship" of what happens in the land of your earthly habitation. You have the ability to choose who does or does not govern the land, make the laws, decide the laws, etc.

Yes, our NEW birth gives us a heavenly "citizenship." Yet, even God -- the creator of all things -- has raised up fallible men to rule (by His choice).

In a similar sense, God is our healer -- the "Great Physician." That doesn't mean that I can't use an aspirin when I have a headache or that the Prophet Isaiah wouldn't use a medicinal plaister for Hezekiah because God would heal him anyway (Isaiah 38). Sometimes, God uses earthly means -- five smooth stones, a poultice, a fish with a coin in its mouth, etc. -- to accomplish things.

Yes, our great stewardship is the Cross of Christ -- and to preach his Gospel. At the same time, you still have "earthly" responsibilities to take care of your family -- temporary that they might be -- while you concurrently remain faithful to your heavenly stewardship. To borrow a common American colloquial term: A person can "walk and chew gum at the same time." A person can be an apostle of Jesus Christ while building tents. A person can be a fisher of men while feeding his family as a fisher of fish. A person can build the kingdom of God while building houses for people of earth.

I suppose that this a different way to consider the matter. I have to make decisions everyday -- many of them seemingly very "earthly" in the sense of work, family (as Paul called such concerns in I Corinthians 7:32-35) and interactions all day long -- while I still maintain my faith in Christ. A vote in this country of our temporary citizenship is just that -- a decision. It isn't a decision of allegiance, worship or some ridiculously vain hope of achieving a move of God through legislative or political means. For the most part, it is simply deciding who would be a better executive decision maker in Washington for four years.

I do respect your opinion. I hope that this didn't come across as haughty or even "preachy." I just hope that you can understand the perspective of those who might feel no condemnation if they decide (or even feel led) to vote.