Pyrrhic Victories Leave a Bitter Aftertaste
It’s only a week until the election. I still have things to say, but my brain seems to be running on half-power, and when half my brain is tied behind my back, my family gets first dibs on what’s left. Thankfully, two wonderful young men whom I admire very much, Wesley Strackbein and Bob Renaud, have put their sharp brains together* and done the detailed research to counter the claim that a McCain presidency would be a boon to the pro-life movement. I know we all agree that Barack Obama would be no friend to unborn babies, but I have heard many of my friends justify their reluctant vote for McCain because they consider him to be solidly pro-life (you can hear Gary DeMar say as much here). The deal clincher for most of these people is the hope of overturning Roe v. Wade. Perhaps they don’t remember that it was Republicans who appointed most of the judges who gave us that horrific decision in 1973. Here’s more from Wesley and Bob’s paper:
Sen. McCain supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and he has actively campaigned to strike the prohibition of abortion in these cases from the Republican Party Platform. In addition, Sen. McCain has voted to confirm radical pro-abortion judges such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer and has recently affirmed that he would vote for pro-abortion judges under a McCain presidency, so long as they met basic “qualifications.†He also has been outspoken in his support for embryonic stem cell research and has voted in favor of funding for Planned Parenthood.
It is very naive to believe a candidate’s positions solely as given on his campaign website and in debates during election season (though I was shocked to hear McCain defend his support for embryonic stem cell research in his last debate, an angry response to Obama’s attack ads portraying him as being against that practice). If a candidate has held previous public office, he leaves a record which must be examined and judged against his words. Thankfully, there are those who have done the research to show that McCain’s walk and his talk do not match. Is that the kind of leader we can endorse? How can we trust a double-minded man to keep any of his promises?
We are not responsible to put the “right” person in office—that is God’s job, and He will use our faithfulness to His commands as a means to bless us individually and as a nation. As we have voted based on fear the last few elections, the pro-life movement has become weaker and more willing to compromise, letting unborn babies be used as pawns while they are manipulated into electing (mostly) Republican candidates, whom Christians feel obligated to support as long as they mouth some pro-life platitudes. We heard that the last election was the “most important ever,” because Bush would be a friend to our cause and Kerry would appoint pro-abortion justices. Been there, done that.
I wonder if we would be stuck with such a Hobson’s choice now if Kerry had won in 2004. It’s hard to imagine it would have been worse than the massive growth of intrusive government during the last four years, but even if it was, Christians would have been on their guard and even mobilized to get off their apathy and pursue godliness, looking for truly godly leaders, rather than relying on an easy top-down solution from Washington, D.C. Instead, we have evangelicals continuing to support their man in office in spite of his inaction on their issues and his horrible performance. We have the disastrous Bush legacy (and his abysmal 27 percent approval rating) to thank for the current Democrat coup in the nation’s upcoming elections. How long do we perpetuate this farce?
Strategy and pragmatism only go so far. As Steve says, only one vote counts at the ballot box, and that’s God’s. He moves the heart of kings, and the election’s outcome will be as He wills. Our duty is to obey him by not yoking ourselves with ungodly men or following after the humanist/socialist/fascist gods of the people around us.
(F)or God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. ~2 Timothy 1:7
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. ~Matthew 6:33
*One boy equals one brain. Two boys equal half a brain. Three boys equal no brain at all. It’s a good thing Wesley and Bob are grown men now 
.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Carmon,
I am not voting for McCain in hopes of overturning RVW. I am voting for McCain because I think that within a few weeks of an Obama win will have lost all the ground we ever gained and be far beyond the evils of RVW. I think that nurses in hospitals will be in peril for their jobs. I think that crisis pregnancy centers will be in danger of prosecution. I think that more babies than can be believed will be murdered and I truly cannot bear that thought. I have no delusions about McCain.
Nor do I think Gary DeMar does, nor most other Christians voting for McCain. I think you are missing the point.
I have a bit of trouble with the rhetoric that makes a vote for a third party a vote for God. That is not what my reading of scripture tells me and I have plenty of Bible verses,too. I also have trouble suspending my mind enough to believe that any of the 3rd party guys are able to govern, not that that matters anymore. Ron Paul isn’t even running and yet people are voting for him. I just don’t get it.
I also have problems with people sitting out the vote while appearing to cheer on the demise of our country. I don’t think that is pleasing to God at all. He may very well destroy us but I don’t see any good coming from rejoicing in evil. Or saying, “I told you so.” I am not accusing you of this.
I hope that you know that while we disagree on this I do respect you.
On the other hand, and I hope to blog about this, this week we can haggle over this like hobbits and elves. Next week the hobbits, elves and dwarves will have to pull together against the goblins no matter who wins.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:25 am
I recently tried to say these same things to a family member who sent me a pro-McCain e-mail. I did not say them nearly as well as you did.
And I love that footnote about boys. So funny!
October 29th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Yes, Cindy, yes. Let’s us hobbits and elves and dwarves, don’t forget the dwarves, hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately, to loosely quote another imperfect American patriot. I have no illusions about McCain either. He is not my ideal candidate on many issues, including the recent Wall Street bailout. But we are almost never given a choice between a candidate who agrees with me on every issue and a candidate who disagrees with me on every issue. “All we have to do is decide what to do with the time we are given.”
We are given a choice between John McCain for president and Barack Obama for president. Realistically, barring a miracle from the hand of God, one of these two men will be our next president. I choose John McCain, knowing that I will have to oppose some of his policies and decisions. But I don’t like being told that I am voting “out of fear.” I am voting out of prudence and a sound mind.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Doug and Brett both linked to a video of McCain and Bush going at each other over the ‘prolife plank’ of the Republican party. It is very telling of McCain’s true position on abortion. He makes it clear that it is a family choice. Um, sorry that is NOT the biblical prolife position. Being personally against abortion and finding it emotionally disturbing, yet believing that it is acceptable for babies to be executed for their father’s crimes is not prolife. (Why isn’t it okay for them to be executed for their mother’s??? – Typical ‘prolife but’ inconsistency!)
As far as the Republican party is concerned…Legislation passed by a Republican Governor in 1967 in Colorado made us the first state to legalize abortion in the cases rape, incest, and health of mother. So, regardless of what the plank says, McCain and Bush’s views are not inconsistent or new by any means.
And brains… Carol Barnier says that for each child you have you lose 1/3 of your brain cells. What does that mean for those of us who have more than that??? ; )
October 29th, 2008 at 7:06 am
I am voting for McCain-Palin, not because I expect them to be perfect and not because I agree with them on everything that is important to me, but for the following reasons:
1. John McCain attends a church that preaches the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and he confesses that he believes that Gospel.
2. Sarah Palin is a member of a church that preaches the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and she(more credibly, to my ears) confesses that she believes that Gospel.
3. The Bible does not forbid me to vote for McCain-Palin. I do not believe that it forbids me to vote for a woman on the ticket. I do not believe that it forbids me to vote when I disagree with some points of doctrine and practice. I do not believe that God’s Word requires me to reject every candidate who does not share my radical, libertarian, theonomic views of government and justice, which are themselves human interpretations and therefore subject to error.
4. I believe that the Islamic War of Aggression is real and really dangerous and that it long predates our many foreign policy sins. I want a commander in chief who best (even if imperfectly) comprehends that Islamic aggression is not best met by isolationism. (Christianity has not historically held to such a position, not by a long shot.)
5. I believe that Barack Obama, a democratic congress, and a liberal revolution in the courts would take away the safety and security of *more* unborn and newly born babies, and I expect that they will work quickly to remove the liberty of parents to homeschool their children, doing whatever they can to diminish our present power to guide and direct their young lives. I also believe that they will take further measures to disarm the people, and I believe that they would effectively do away with what is left of the Constitution.(These points are just a few on a very long list.)
6. I believe that the whole counsel of the Bible has left me with the liberty, in Christ, to cast the vote that I think will be *most* conducive to safety, security, and Biblical justice for my nation and her people at this time. I believe that a third party vote has no reasonable potential for a positive effect at this time.
7. I do not agree that the only way to cast a holy vote is by voting third party in this election. I want to live by every word that comes from the mouth of God, but I just do not see any requirement for this in Scripture, and I do not like to replace my conscience with the consciences of others. In the end, I have to do what I believe is most compatible with my love for God and my love for my neighbor, including my children.
I believe that the best real option for 2008 is John McCain and Sarah Palin. (For reasons intimated above, I would *not* be fully comfortable with either Barr or Paul in office at this point in our history.)
Our culture is BROKEN. Take this issue to the family level. When the family is BROKEN, when the father will not use his authority to preach the Word to his family, provide for them or protect them, extreme and unusual measures just might be needed.
Obedience is always wise and right and, ultimately, safe, but idealism may not fill the bellies. It may not be all that is needed. When the family is BROKEN at its head–and when it has no protections from the Church or any just protections in the state, someone has to sustain that family’s religious life, provision, and protection. Sadly, very sadly, some women may need to engage in back-breaking labor, out in the fields, maybe leaving younger children in the care of older ones or with a godly neighbor, in order to glean enough to keep them from starving.
Is it really a different case when the authority breakdown is on a national level? This is a broken, fallen world, and one idealistic prescription doesn’t fit all cases. Voting as if a holy government will sooner be achievable based on a good showing this time around seems to me a wasted opportunity to *save some* from death, destruction, and oppression, right now.
A holy government will be easily secured on the strength of widespread regeneration and repentance, whenever they come. I’m less sure that a holy government will ever really be secured by a small but significant minority building their numbers to the point where otherwise ungodly officials will feel pressured to do the right thing to get their vote. (A bad tree cannot produce good fruit.)
Without a clear Biblical commandment to the contrary, each of us is free to choose what we believe will be most conducive to peace, safety, and security for ourselves and our neighbors, including our children. At this time in God’s Providence, I firmly believe that my best choice is the imperfect McCain-Palin ticket, and I do hope and pray that they will prevail.
Ultimately, I pray that my neighbors in this nation will be touched and affected to see how beautiful and how precious is my Lord Jesus Christ. If, in God’s justice and mercy, Obama’s presidency and a whole-hearted plunge into socialism will further that end, then so be it, God will bring it to pass.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Wow, Valerie, did you just sit down and type that out this morning, or did you have it in a Word file somewhere. I am serious ’cause I miss checking your blog
*pyrrhic* – my new word.
Cant wait to use it
October 29th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I have great concern for our nation under a socialist like Obama coupled with a Democratic controlled Congress. But I will not vote for McCain because it would cause me to side with someone who looks at abortion of an innocent child conceived by rape or incest as okay. That’s the most important issue to me but most definitely not the only one. McCain has shown in his voting record that he has no regard for teh very Constitution he has sworn to uphold. When our elected officials will not honor the laws of our nations designed to restrain them then we are essentially “making it up” as we go and anything goes.
Some in our church have said that by voting for our choice, Chuck Baldwin, we are rolling out the red carpet for Obama. My response is, where in the Bible did compromising with the lesser of two evils ever please God? Aren’t we called to seek righteousness and not to fear? My hope is not in McCain or Palin or our elective process.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Count me in with the minority who agrees with Carmon. I hate the thought of an Obama presidency and tremble at the thought of the policies that may be put into practice. But I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain/Palin.RC Sproul Jr has a good video clip on the subject. http://www.highlandsstudycenter.org/
October 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Carmon, It might be impertinent to ask this, and if it is, just ignore me. I know that not everyone considers it proper to share these things.:) But…who exactly are you voting for? My husband and I, early on, were seriously considering voting third party for the first time ever. We were both unaware of any serious third party until recently. We liked the ideals of the Constitution and agreed to support them. We knew there was no Constitution Party in California, but we were told that the American Independent party here had close ties to the CP? But Alan Keyes is running for the AI party, and now we are confused what exactly a third party thinks they have to gain.
I refuse to vote for Alan Keyes because I have yet to see him seriously run for the presidency. Typically, he writes a book and then runs for president. I like him, I really do, but I don’t see in him a man that intends to win. I think he intends to sell books.
As far as the Constitution Party goes, they seem to be impotent if they don’t have a presence in all 50 states.
So my husband and I are back full circle and we’re voting McCain/Palin. We have no illusions, either. McCain is WAY liberal for our tastes. However, we will not write in a candidate. We think we are obligated to choose from among the men who are actually on the ballot. McCain it is this time.
I understand the arguments for voting third party. At least I think I do. Or at least, I get the philosophy behind it. What I don’t get is how third parties ever intend to accomplish anything practically when they can’t even pull off the equivalent of a Ross Perot.
I agree with Cindy–after the election, all of us need to work to recapture true conservatism, regardless of who we vote for. But I am still hoping to be enlightened here.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Wesley Strackbein and Bob Renaud, in their paper criticizing LifeNews.com and me, offer an incomplete presentation of McCain’s views on abortions and our reasoning for endorsing him.
McCain has been dogged heavily by the pro-life movement over the years for his championing campaign finance reform and for his votes in favor of embryonic stem cell research funding. That has left an indelible impression that he is somehow not pro-life on abortion. That’s wrong.
McCain has also consistently championed the reversal of Roe v. Wade in recent years. The senator has come around fully on this issue after taking a tenuous position a decade ago. But he proved his pro-life credentials when he voted against a resolution honoring Roe that the Senate hoped to attach to the partial-birth abortion ban. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4489.html)
Yes, McCain supports abortions in the very rare cases of rape and incest — something I and LifeNews.com strenuously oppose.
At the same time, we have an election featuring a candidate who supports 100% of abortions (Obama) and one who opposes 99% (McCain). With those as the only two realistic options for president, McCain is certainly the clear choice for the pro-life movement.
Undoubtedly it would be nice to protect every single baby from every single abortion and to do so immediately. But Strackbein and Renaud literally throw the baby out with the bathwater by adopting the notion that only candidates with perfect pro-life positions are worthy of support against candidates who will keep 100% of abortions legal for decades.
Certainly it would be better to have a candidate who opposes 100% of abortions (and we do in McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin) but we don’t have those options. Ending the abortions that happen on 99% of babies matter to those babies and forsaking stopping those abortions for the pursuit of the perfect is morally bankrupt.
Certainly we can agree we should save the 99% if we can and get the job done with the rest later rather than putting off saving any unborn children by waiting for the perfect candidate.
The condemnation of voting for McCain despite his flaws misses the Biblical notion that politics is not the answer. We’re to give to Ceaser what is his, but Christ didn’t offer a political solution for the ills of the world, including abortion. He offered a spiritual one. In the realm of politics, we’re confronted sometimes by sinful choices where neither one lines up absolutely fully with the Biblical principles we endorse. But to condemn the saving of 99% of babies from abortion by not supporting McCain and allowing Obama to win is even more out of step with Biblical principles in my mind and the minds of most pro-life advocates.
The authors claim McCain has actively worked to strike the language from the platform that calls for a human life amendment to include rape and incest exceptions. They ignore that McCain gave his approval for the GOP platform to keep the same pro-life language it has had for decades. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4222.html)
With regard to the votes for Supreme Court judges the pro-life movement disapproves of, McCain has repeatedly stated that he votes for all judges because he believes presidents should have their judges confirmed. Personally, I would not vote for judges, but the consistency of the argument is there.
The pro-life movement made the same point — that judges are due a proper vote — when our pro-life nominees were up for votes. When abortion advocates declined to give them votes or voted them down, we complained. I may not agree with McCain’s votes, but his thinking that presidents should get their nominees confirmed does NOT meant that he wants pro-abortion nominees.
What does McCain want? He’s laid that out very consistently over and over again that he wants judges in the mold of the pro-life ones who have already said Roe must be overturned. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4489.html) That, of course, is contrasted with the pro-abortion litmus test Obama has.
The authors also mention McCain’s ESCR position and LifeNews.com has repeatedly condemned it. But, I urge readers to consider the comments in our endorsement of McCain (http://www.LifeNews.com/johnmccainprolife.html) that talk about his view likely changing, his opposition to other anti-life aspects of the bioethics debate, and how abortion is so important that we must vote for McCain anyway.
The authors also question National Right to Life for its older articles about McCain. I do not speak for the organization and it can represent its own views, but I would point out that NRLC said in its own endorsement of McCain that any disagreement about campaign finance reform is MUCH less important than the agreement that 1.2 million abortions a year is a travesty. Surely the authors would agree on that point.
I’m saddened to see that Wesley Strackbein and Bob Renaud call “shameful” those who see things differently. While the authors spend an entire article bringing up objections to McCain’s record, the millions of pro-life people and than many pro-life groups that support him have equally lengthy writings about how he has championed the pro-life cause.
Curiously, the authors leave out any explanation of his voting record, do not include several of the points made above, and say nothing of McCain’s family’s adoption, his lengthy speeches touting the pro-life message, his writings or anything else that is critical in evaluating a candidate’s position.
Fortunately, the authors do not engage in the ad hominem attacks by claiming we are not pro-life. They could have castigated the millions of pro-life people who recognize that McCain is an imperfect candidate but worthy of support because he, unlike Obama, will help us get to our goal of protecting unborn children (or at least not stand in the way as Obama would).
Ultimately, their pro-life viewpoint is obvious as well as their desire to protect unborn children. As is ours.
While we disagree on McCain’s worthiness and political strategy, we vehemently agree on the end goal, and that is babies deserve complete and total legal protection from the time of conception forward.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Steve, Wesley and/or Bob will have to address your criticisms of their paper. My view of the NRLC’s stands in the past few years is that they are increasingly claiming hollow victories as progress, and we are letting the Republican party and its big-tent vision move the pro-life movement into obscurity, useful dupes who get wimpy candidates into office, with no significant progress being made to truly save babies. 99 percent is a generous view of McCain’s position on this issue, but even that is pro-abortion as far as I’m concerned, and anyone who advocates killing unborn children, even 1 percent, will not receive a vote from our household.
As one of my friends is fond of reminding us, ideas have consequences, and we have become so enamored of “winning” that we are forgetting *why* women want to kill their unborn babies, and that it is more than a political solution that will end the desire to reject our children in such a horrific way. The feminist lie that we can have it all is one of the prevailing philosophies that undergirds that desire to do away with inconvenient pregnancies, a lie that is perpetuated in so many words by McCain’s VP pick (in spite of her admirable willingness to give birth to her youngest baby, who unfortunately is not being raised by his mother while she is so busy pursuing her career). That is not to say that I think we ought to forsake seeking political solutions, but we need to also be pleading for God’s mercy for our compromising-with-Canaan ways. I do NOT want Obama as president, but if he is elected, I do think we will see a huge conservative backlash in response to his attempts to impose his liberal agenda on the populace.
You failed to mention why McCain gets a pass for his votes on Title X funding. The reasoning behind excusing his confirmation of pro-death judges is specious, as the whole point of the confirmation process is for the checks and balances our founders wisely wrote into our Constitution to be effective, not as a chance to rubber stamp nominees. When McCain calls himself a “maverick,” it means that he is willing to compromise with liberals and go against the conservative wing of his party (something most conservatives noted until his Palin pick), and he is well-known for being against “gridlock” which is code for saying he does not agree with the founders’ vision of those checks and balances. It’s just more of that big-tent strategy, which does not mean progress on the pro-life front.
For years we have voted based on what the GOP candidate “might” do, ignoring what they have already done, especially after they have used us to get into office: not much good and plenty that is destructive to our future attempts to honor God in the public sphere. It’s time to stop the incremental steps backwards. McCain is not as pro-abortion as Obama, but he is not pro-life based on his actions in the Senate. God will bless us when we stop compromising with our votes, our endorsements, and our political strategies, and practice righteousness from the bottom up, beginning with the church confessing its sin in embracing statist idolatry and not being prophetic in every area of life, including politics.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Hi, Dana! My girls urge me to get to my blog. Maybe. I have good intentions.
The invisibility of unborn babies is one of the greatest challenges to our pro-life position, perhaps even for us who hold it most fervently. We say that the small size of the baby makes no difference to our duty to protect, but it’s still harder for us to see visible broken babies than to imagine invisible broken babies.
If a ship is going down with 100 toddlers on board, and we can give lifesaving equipment to only one potential lifesaver, who shall we choose?
First, we have our godly and admirable pastor. We love him and we trust him to teach us and our children, and we know that he would never stand for the death of even one child, if he could help it, but he can’t swim and has no experience with sinking ships. His heart’s in the right place, but we suspect that he will not be able to save even one dying child.
Second, we have a strong, skilled, experienced Coast Guard member who has won multiple awards for bravery. He has the skills, the ability, and a known history of saving children. But, he says he probably can’t save *all* the children. Besides that, he’s wearing a McCain-Palin T-shirt, or an Obama T-shirt, or maybe even a NARAL T-shirt.
Third, we have the guy who sank the ship as an act of intentional attempted murder.
With visible children facing imminent death, who should we choose? I know that the variables don’t match perfectly, but if these were visible babies, I think we’d be reluctant to turn down our second option.
I know that some would say we should pick #1 because Jesus has made a man to walk on water before, and He could undoubtedly do it again, but as these children are dying for lack of help and some can be saved immediately, Luke 4:12 comes to mind.
McCain-Palin are not the perfect pair, but I think it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to build a solid Scriptural case against the morality of begging them to save as many of these precious babies as they can and will.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
8 years of a 99.1% ‘prolife’ President did not save the more than 8 million babies who have been slaughtered in that time. (In fact I believe one could reasonably argue that the recent drop we have seen in abortion was largely due to the legalization of the morning-after pill and that there has in fact been an *increase* in the number of children killed.) Why should we expect anything to be done about the next 4 million by a ‘99% prolife’ President??? Maybe next time around we will settle for an 85% ‘prolife’ President and then 80% and so-on and so-on.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Valerie, if I were laying on a hospital bed with a ruptured uterus and a baby about to die and the only doctor available was an abortionist, who at that moment was happy to help save myself and my child, you can bet that I would take his help!!! But I am not about to call him prolife.
There are biblical qualifications for choosing leaders. Being against more abortions than the next guy is not one of them.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Actually abortions are at historic lows under Bush. This theory he hasn’t done anything to stop abrotions is garbage.
In January, AGI reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990 — with half of that time period coming under pro-life presidents.
The number of abortions are now at their lowest point since 1.179 million in 1976, AGI said.
Additionally, the report shows the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women age 15-44) down to 19.4 per thousand — the lowest since 1974. That was the first full year following the Roe v. Wade decision.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3624.html
October 29th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
McCain- Palin is our best choice.I am in Colorado-where every vote counts. All of you out there in California can afford to toss your votes to a 3rd party candidate- who I am sure is a sinner like the rest, but go ahead.Please- if you are in a swing state like myself- think long and hard about giving the Democrats a super majority in the next few years. Thanks Valerie for writing so elequently.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Nickey, what are these Biblical qualifications and where do you find them? I agree that this is the real question. The path of obedience is always, ultimately safest and best.
I am convinced that loving God with all of our minds includes obeying him even, especially when the natural inclination of our minds would lead us to a different choice.
So, where are these Biblical qualifications and where do you find them?
October 29th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Steve, I don’t disagree that Bush’s weak pro-life stance is far better than Obama’s strong pro-abortion stance, though he has not used his “bully pulpit” to significantly promote the prolife cause, and there is no good reason for that other than political pragmatism and the same-old attempt to straddle the GOP fence, especially since he had a great opportunity to oversee some major changes, including ending Title X funding, while he had a Republican congress for six years. As for making the drop in abortions correlate to his prolife views, there is no evidence from your article that you link that it has anything to do with Bush’s presidency, but plenty to do with the faithfulness of the prolife community.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Valerie, Nickey can answer as well as I can, and probably better, but I think Dory’s list here is helpful. Some will complain that some of the qualifications given will apply only to those in church leadership, but that is a rather disingenuous argument, IMO, as qualities of leadership in any sphere of government (church, state, family) would not change as each is a kind of covenant headship ordained by God. Of course, in His sovereign judgment God may give us a leader that we deserve as a chastisement for unfaithfulness, but if we are talking about whom to *choose*, then this list is a good reminder of the type of leader we should choose to represent us in any capacity. And we are not talking about utopian visions of perfect men here, but practical qualities of real sinful people who are under God’s authority. I think McCain fails the test at many points, in particular his lack of prolife credentials as noted in the article I link, but also his well-known problem with anger, his foul mouth, his unfaithfulness to his first wife.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
As Carmon mentioned; I tell my family that we don’t really have secret-ballots here in America… God sees every vote cast.
Remember that God doesn’t need our “help”, but He does require our obedience (and yes, I am -very- flawed).
Make sure that when you pull that curtain closed and make those X’s that you aren’t worried about “helping” God… but that you’re worried about pleasing God.
May God have mercy on our nation.
– steve
October 30th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Compared to the above comments I feel like a “bear of very little brain”, but here it goes. . .I have read your blog for years, Carmon. I am so thankful for how it has caused me to think about truth in all areas of life. I must say that on this issue I agreed with you until I read this post. In the back of my mind I kept hearing, “God uses means.” You have characterized people who vote for McCain as looking for a savior. I, personally, am not. I don’t even believe the end of the world will come if Obama is elected. You also say that we cannot look to a man or government. But you are doing precisely what you claim not to do. You refuse to trust God with the means He has given us and working in that atmosphere (no matter how stinky).
Romans 13 is quite clear that God sets up the means and we submit to it, trusting Him. What are the means we have in this country? Talking to our neighbors, praying, voting, supporting good men locally and where we can further up in civil government. We need preachers who preach about life, moral behavior and responsability from the pulpit. Are we faithful in our spheres of influence?
Abortion is NOT a simple matter of government it is also a matter of our hearts. Yes, our hearts. If we won’t vote are we working on the ground for life? It would seem hypocritical if that is not the case. If we vote for life do we think we have done some awesome act? I am reminded how weak I am on this issue. Yes, I vote pro-life, but what do I do in my daily life? Do I even remember to pray? This simple means that God has given to us, yet, I so seldom use it.
Please consider that you could be wrong in your assumption that voting for McCain = distrust of God. You have set yourself and your position up very high. I don’t suppose that anything we say will convince you when an argument is phrased like that. Frankly, the idea you are proposing is unsettling, but sounds so righteous.
October 30th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Just to clear a few things up regarding voting for third parties/not voting…
1)Why do we believe voting for McCain is wrong? – Answer: Because McCain does not meet the biblical qualifications for civil magistrate as detailed in the scriptures. See below.
2)Why do we believe *most* Christians are voting for McCain out of fear? – Answer: Because during this election, and the last Presidential election wherein we had the exact same debates, we have heard over and over again from those voting for him and refusing to consider a third party or no vote that it is because they do not want Obama in office, that they would be “throwing away their vote”. Hence, it appears to us that they are not voting for McCain because they honestly believe he is the best candidate running nor that they believe he is biblically qualified but because they are afraid if they vote for someone else then Obama will win.
3)What is the means by which we have in this country to elect our leaders? – Answer: We cast a vote for the leader whom we believe to be the most qualified to run our country. We are NOT required by any law to vote in any election nor our we required to case a vote for every single office and/or issue on the ballot if we do not believe that we can honestly and biblical support those people/things. We DO NOT live in a country where our only choices are between two parties and wherein we are required by law to choose on over the other. The ballot in Colorado has 16 parties running for Presidential office. Under the means of our voting system I am free to vote for any one of these parties or leave my ballot blank if I do not believe any party is qualified for said office.
4)Do we believe Government is going to save us? – Answer: Certainly not! This is why we can feel free to cast our ballot for someone who “can’t” win and not fear an Obama presidency. We know that no matter whom we vote for, it is God who will set up our Kings, therefore we need not fear but only do our duty toward Him. (I also believe that God will give us, as He gave Israel, the King that we demand. I don’t expect any miracles this election as long as the hearts of Christians and those who claim to be continue to clamor for Obama or settle for McCain.)
5)Do we believe that voting for a third party is “a vote for God”? – Answer: We are not interested in parties. We are interested in qualified candidates regardless of what party they run under. Personally speaking, I am not wholly convinced that any man running this time around was fully biblically qualified to run for President. I would have actually set this one out, but I believe that the command to submit to my husband is very clear, while whether or not x or y candidate is qualified because they haven’t held any higher office is debatable. Therefore I chose to cast my vote for the man whom my husband believed to be biblically qualified (and no it was not McCain). I absolutely believe that regardless of what Carmen and I have said, that you *must* do the same, he is your authority in the matter.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
“there is no evidence from your article that you link that it has anything to do with Bush’s presidency, but plenty to do with the faithfulness of the prolife community”
Exactly! Steve, I asked you when I first read this article if you were taking into account the possible number of private abortions taking place in the home due to the legalization and wide-spread use of the Morning-After Pill/Plan B and you stated that AGI’s study did not include that. (You will also note that according to your article AGI believes it was due to an increase in use and availability of contraceptives, which you know cause abortions at least some of the time.) So really, you have no idea why the number of abortions dropped. It could be due to this pill, could be due to God’s Spirit moving in the ProLife movement and softening the hearts of mothers. You have presented no evidence that it is due to Bush restricting legal access to abortion services. The fact that this drop correlates with his Presidency tells us nothing about the cause.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Valerie,
Men far more qualified than myself have written on the subject. I would specifically recommend William Einwechter’s article Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates – http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/biblical_standards_for_choosin.aspx and also Doug Phillips’ Biblical Principles of the Ballot Box which can be purchased and downloaded at http://behemoth.com/search/ballot/
But to answer your question directly, we both agree that while God has not given specific applications regarding voting, He has given us a bible that is able to thoroughly furnish us unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:17) and I suspect that we still hold to the same theonomic views and therefore will take into account His whole counsel, including those principles found in the Old Testament.
*In the Proverbs we find warnings against strong drink for those who hold higher offices – therefore it seems reasonable to me to exclude drunkards from qualified candidates.
*In Exodus 18, we see Jethro instructing Moses in the issue of choosing leaders to help him with civil matters. Vs. 21 states “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:”
*In Deuteronomy 1 we see Moses, who is about to repeat the Law unto the Israelites before they go in to posses the promised land, tell the people to “Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.” (vs. 13) Wisdom is defined, not by our own ideas, but by scripture. The whole book of Proverbs details to us what it means to be a wise man. Men who seek after innocent blood, who devalue money, who are characterized by anger, etc… are not wise.
*And while I do not believe that the office of civil magistrate exactly corresponds with the office of ecclesiastical magistrates, I do think Titus 2 still holds some principles that may be applied, the issues being that he is a man of good report, that he has proven himself able in lesser things, that he is not a drunkard or a thief, etc…
Carmon mentioned the issue of anger. I was not aware that McCain had been characterized by others as being an angry man until she said this, but yesterday I watched an exchange between him and Bush (you can find the link at visionforum.com) and it came through very clearly. Yes, this is an older video but if people are still characterizing him as such then I think it probably stands. That said, I am not in anyway stating that either McCain or Palin are not Christians. I don’t know them as people, am not part of their congregations, and have not heard their confessions nor seen their walks. It would be foolish hubris on my part to claim that I know the state of their spiritual well being. But, we know that just because a man is a Christian does not make him qualified to be a ecclesiastical leader. We also know that women, no matter how many other qualifications they hold can never be qualified to be ecclesiastical leaders. In the same way, I believe that just because a man is a Christian and speaks some words that tickle the ears, does not make him qualified to be a civil ruler.
At any rate, I think I have said all I can on the subject and as I am busy preparing to give birth in the next few weeks, I will probably not be engaging in any more discussion on the topic. If you have not already, I highly recommend the two resources noted above as well as Voddie Bauchams blog at http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Archive.html and also Generations Radio at http://www.generationswithvision.com. Mr. Swanson has done several shows over the last year on the pertinent issues in voting. You can find the archives here – http://www.sermonaudio.com/generations
Lastly, although I don’t agree with Tarheel Mama’s conclusions regarding casting ballots, I think she gets to the heart of the matter and that is that we have many other things we can and should be doing regarding the state of our wretched country. Voting is only one thing and next week it will be over. What are we going to do after that? I hope we will all be about the business of raising up our sons in such a way that we have hundreds of thousands of qualified men to lead our country and our churches in the next 20 years and that our daughters would be faithful helpmeets to these men. I hope we can all agree on that goal. ; 0
October 30th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Wow … you really struck a nerve on this one Carmon.
McCain’s pro abortion credentials were clearly seen in his votes to confirm mega abortionists Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Beyer. No man who is pro life in any significant sense votes for judicial murderers.
Second, a premise that seems to be floating around in a number of these comments is either that individual votes don’t belong to Jesus or that Jesus would support voting for someone who would vote for someone who support justices who support murder.
Third, abortion is crucial but in this campaign it is not the only issue worthy of consideration. McCain’s stance on granting amnesty (McCain-Kennedy) to illegal immigrants (a policy that will destroy whatever is left of the homogeneity of this country as well as whatever is left of Protestant Biblical Christian influence) should be enough to oppose McCain.
Fourth, McCain’s anti first amendment stance in McCain-Feingold should cause all thoughtful Christians to recoil by lending McCain their strength through their vote.
Fifth, McCain’s membership in the gang of 14 that stopped President Bush getting the conservative justices that Bush wanted is evidence against McCain’s sincerity on matters conservative.
Sixth, McCain’s horrid stance on the second amendment is perhaps only exceeded by B. Hussein Obama. Repeatedly, McCain’s advantage in this election is that he is the fascist leftist relative to the communist leftist Obama.
Seventh, McCain is a warmonger. If he will not get your children in the womb he will get them when they are old enough to tote a gun and die in a war.
Eighth, McCain voted for the 700 billion dollar bailout indicating that he is every bit the socialist that he moans about Obama being. The difference between these two men is one of degree and not of kind.
Ninth, temperamentally McCain is a stick of dynamite just waiting to explode. His public anger outbursts are legendary. McCain is so unstable that having him in the oval office is playing Russian Roulette.
Tenth, McCain has shown contempt for the class of people here, who, despite McCain’s past contempt, insist on voting for this man. Listen people, McCain does not like the Christian crowd though he is more than happy to use them (witness Palin). When you vote for McCain you are voting for a man who thinks your an intolerant lot.
Now, after saying all that, and realizing that either McCain or Obama will win I still prefer McCain. A true indication at how bad B. Hussein Obama really is. But my preference for McCain over the Black Nationalist Obama will not get me anywhere near yoking my strength to McCain with my vote. I will not willfully choose Hitler in order to stave off Stalin. My stance is a “pox upon both their houses.”
I will vote Baldwin and be satisfied with knowing that I have not entered into league with a despicable man. Further, I will remain convinced that Christians who vote for McCain are not yet aware what a disservice they are rendering to Jesus.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:44 am
“Lastly, whereas you are become a body politic, using amongst yourselves civil government, and are not furnished with any persons of special eminence above the rest, to be chosen by you into office of government, let your wisdom and godliness appear, not only in choosing such persons as do entirely love and will promote the common good, but also in yielding unto them all due honor and obedience in their lawful administrations; not beholding in them the ordinariness of their persons, but God’s ordinance for your good, not being like the foolish multitude who more honor the gay coat, than either the virtuous mind of the man, or glorious ordinance of the Lord. But you know better things, and that the image of the Lord’s power and authority which the magistrate beareth, is honourable, in how mean persons soever. And this duty you both may the more willingly and ought the more conscionably to perform . . .”
William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation
Speaking to qualifications: I think Carmon’s list above is exactly the qualifications necessary for one who claims Christ and is given to leadership-in any capacity.
I was particularly convicted by Nickey’s post on the percentage of pro-life. If there is no question of whether it is a life -how do we allow our government (and ourselves) the authority to determine when that life is one that is granted the “privledge” of life? How can we say a life conceived by rape or incest is less than a life?
I also don’t understand this disconnect in thought between our “government” and the “hearts of the people”. Help me understand this phrase. Doesn’t our government already reflect the hearts of the people of this nation? Do not most Christians agree with McCain on his particular variety of “pro-life” when he makes exceptions? I think they do.
Thank you Carmon for this post.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Dear Tarheel Mama,
First, I am truly sorry if my words in this post or my comments have offended you, and I do appreciate your online friendship and comments over the years. If you are Winnie-the-Pooh (”bear of very little brain”), then I must be Eeyore
. Actually, I do agree with most of what you said, even including the implication that I speak from pride and need to come down a notch or two. Let me see if I can explain a little further:
If my words seem to paint with a broad brush, it is because in this crazy election there are many nuances and motives and statements floating around, coming from many perspectives. I’ve heard Gary DeMar denigrate those who support third parties and refuse to participate in Republican politics any longer as being pie-in-the-sky utopians who refuse to do the hard work at grassroots level to make changes, something that I disagree with strongly as I see many people working hard within and without the party structure to bring conservative reform at all levels, but being locked out of the means to do so at every turn (which is why the internet is a blessing as well as a bane, because we can put up our own political “signs” in our online yards, so to speak). Others, such as Mr. Ertelt, insist that McCain, while not perfect is a good choice, even “prolife,” yet certain facts about him are not mentioned or skewed to make him appear more acceptable to those who don’t look any more deeply (and he has yet to defend McCain’s votes to continue Title X funding which gives millions of dollars each year to Planned Parenthood, up to $2.2 billion during Bush’s tenure). There are those who honestly see their vote as a pragmatic tool and not as an endorsement, and I have tried to address that view as well, reminding that in the last few elections such thinking has not gotten us further toward conservatism in the GOP but has only led to an ineffective witness as evangelicals always end up voting (as a bloc) for the lesser of two evils when election day arrives. Rick Saenz left a great comment on Cindy’s blog which addresses the various ways Christians view their vote, and that is helpful to understand “motives,” though I would say I agree with *all* of those views, which may be why my words grate on those who have only one or two of those viewpoints when they vote.
I absolutely concur that God uses means, and He ordains what means are permissible for us to use. The latter is where I disagree with many of my friends. But the gist of this post is that I do not believe McCain is truly prolife if all aspects of his record are examined, and I do hope to persuade some that if he is not prolife, then it would not be right to vote for him, even though we do not want the alternative.
Amen to being faithful in our spheres of influence. I hope that our family is doing that, and that we all will remember that that is what truly counts, no matter who God chooses to place in the Oval Office.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I’m not wasting my vote by voting 3rd party, but it’s obvious I’m wasting my time defending that vote. Everyone who agrees has already heard the argument a thousand times before, anyways, and those who disagree are, as evidenced by the comments above, severely delusional.
Keep beating your heads against the wall and telling yourselves it won’t crack your skull. Elect another Republican like Ronald Reagan, who gave us pro-abortion Supreme Court justices. Elect another Republican like Bush Sr., who gave us pro-abortion Supreme Court justices. Elect another Republican like W. Bush, who tells us America isn’t “ready” to repeal Roe v. Wade. Elect John McCain, who over 30 years has proven himself more liberal than all the rest, but had a magical change of opinion when he decided to run for president.
For that matter, continue living in your fantasy world where the ONLY issue you consider when voting for someone is abortion. Ignore the dying economy created by both the pro-Fed, pro-bailout Obama and Mccain. Don’t pay any attention as poverty and job loss balloon, creating conditions which increase the likelihood of women choosing abortion. Don’t worry about the national debt, whether McCain will wage war on Iran, or the coming entitlements financial crisis. Keep your fingers crossed – there’s a tiny chance McCain might appoint a justice who will possibly be pro-life and maybe will hear an abortion case which perhaps that justice will rule on with a broad approach rather than a narrow focus.
Who cares if McCain’s policies destroy the country, as long as we have that little spark of hope in our deluded hearts?
October 30th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Friends, I am bowing out of this discussion now, but want to leave you with a link to an article written by Chuck Baldwin. In it he mentions a man we had the privilege of hosting for lunch a couple of winters ago, because he lives in our county and graciously agreed to spend the afternoon with us. H.L. Richardson was one of the most brilliant, conservative political strategists in the state of California. A state senator, he is a Christian man whose particular issue during his long tenure was primarily defending the second amendment to the Constitution. He started Gun Owners of America, and he was known for being able to dig up the details of his opponents’ true positions and shine the light of truth on them, in order to cut through the obfuscation and rhetoric. He helped his party win many elections that way. He was asked to join the Reagan administration in the 80s, but he declined, believing that he could be much more effective at the state level.
You really should read the whole article, but especially note what he said about John McCain:
October 30th, 2008 at 9:32 am
“As far as the Constitution Party goes, they seem to be impotent if they don’t have a presence in all 50 states.”
You won’t vote for or donate to these 3rd parties, and THEN you wonder why they don’t have a highly visible, nationwide presence?
October 30th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Carmon, we know that we must interpret Scripture as it written and not use it to approve our own preferences. You know how much I love and respect you and your family, but I really suspect that you may doing the latter in this particular case.
I fear saying this, because I have done imperfect work, but I have examined I Timothy 3, and it’s my impression that these really are the qualifications for bishops and deacons for rule in church government. I really do not see anything here that would form a requirement for how we must vote in times and places.
We know that the Holy Spirit has been given to the Church, as a whole, through all ages, to guide us “into all truth” and we have before us generations of men, apt to teach, who have left us their good counsel. Knowing this, I have looked to that counsel, and I can find not a single commentary that finds in I Timothy 3 either a mandate for holy voting or an application to state government. (Matthew Henry is careful to distinguish church and state in this very context.)
If this doctrine is really taught in this place, if it is so clear that it can only be approached by “disingenuous” argumentation, then it troubles me that it has remained, to a significant degree, undiscovered by Christian history.
At the end, I must rely on studying Scripture and being convinced by it alone. *We all must*. That I am often resistant is certain, but I cannot find that particular voting requirements in national elections are anything like a good and necessary, logical consequence of this text.
Certainly, I would agree that it describes holy character, generally. However, I confess that I come to the requirements for bishops and deacons assuming that they might be, might very well be, somewhat more than an expression of the minimum biblical standard for authority in public life anywhere, at any level.
Looking at these requirements, I do not believe that we have proof here that it is a sin to vote for a godly, theonomic, libertarian single, childless man as state representative–but I do think it is possible to prove, from this passage, that it would be a sin to accept a single, childless man as bishop.
Let me ask you this. Why did the Puritans take such an active role in the politics of their time? Why did they sometimes (yes) choose to support one relatively ungodly option over another relatively ungodly option when God had elevated two to national prominence? Why did they not reject 100% of their real, providential options and continually press for the election of men who were, in God’s providence, nationally unknown?
No rulers, not even tyrants, bear rule without the consent, albeit grudging consent, of the governed–and even apart from the ballot box, they did face points of choice in their national governments.
Sin is defined not as the transgression of another man’s conscience but rather as the “transgression of the Law,” the commandments of our God. If it were inherently evil to vote for “the lesser of to evils” in order to choose greater freedom for God’s People and greater safety and security for our nation, God would have certainly told us so.
I’m planning to vote for the option that offers the greater promise that I will have the greatest freedom to press for the crown rights of my Lord Jesus Christ, which at the least includes that my access to the hearts and minds of my children will not be fettered by my government.
I intend to choose the option that offers the greater (albeit imperfect) expectation of a Supreme Court that will secure and restore my liberty to speak up for my King, that will secure and restore the right to life for more children, and so on….
Pardon me for saying this, but carping about some past Republican selections for the Supreme Court (e.g., Souter) does not change the well-known fact that Republicans have been better, overall, than Democrats in this regard (e.g., Roberts).
Concerning the safety of millions of children, McCain *is* a better option than Obama, and I *pray* that a McCain-Palin administration will be able to make positive steps in this regard. I know that some pro-life people despise Gonzales vs. Carhart and will not appreciate very small steps in the right direction, but I am not one of them. I have a strong expectation that RVW will be overturned, and I suspect that third party voting will have no positive effect on the timing. (Third party voting may very well have a negative effect on the timing.)
Plainly, God has not chosen to give power or authority or real, national prominence to Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul, or Bob Barr. Certainly God can make any one of them president in this election without first elevating any of them to national prominence. *He can also do it without first inspiring in the majority of Chrisitan hearts a great and overwhelming desire to vote for them*.
Reformed Christians do not view the lawful use of ordinary means as an unlawful aggression against the omnipotence of Providence. We know that God is in control and that He will bring to pass whatever history brings the greatest glory to His name and the greatest glory to His name. We rest in that; we are confident her.
And we are free to vote for safety for Christians, for the unfettered access to the hearts of our children, and for life for as many babies as can be saved with today’s Providential options.
The path to victory is through obedience, yes, but the corollary is a proper definition of disobedience. Sin is the transgression of the law.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Valerie, I have some things to do and I can’t respond to all you’ve written (we were posting at the same time on this), but I obviously disagree with whether the leadership qualifications are a guideline for us in choosing representatives (headship) in other spheres (and the interpretation of some of those requirements). My purpose is not to say a person is sinning by voting for McCain, because I see many, many reasons given for voting for him, but *if* those reasons are based on fear of Obama, and *if* McCain is not truly pro-life, I do think Christians must consider whether it is obedience to God to cast their votes for him. I am cannot judge that, obviously, but I do hope it will be a consideration for all who read this, especially based on the facts I have mentioned and which are listed in Wesley and Bob’s article. Many of my friends who support McCain do so by claiming he is pro-life. Most of them *would* say that it would be a sin to vote for Obama because of his pro-abortion positions, because to support a man who would allow (or promote) the murder of unborn children would be a transgression of the law of God.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Oh, Carmon,
BIG HUGS TO YOU! YOU ARE A BRAVE WOMAN! I HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO APPRECIATE YOU! I think we were cut from the same cloth–passionate teachers! This is a worthwhile discussion, so please do not loose heart! Let’s search the Scriptures and pray for wisdom–and then talk with our husbands.
Your words did not offend me at all. I only wanted to point out that not everyone is responding in fear but is using the means that God has given us. Yes, we get the leadership that reflects who we are whether it is in the church or civil sphere. We have a lot of work to do!
Gros Bious! (How’s your French?)
October 31st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Is it possible to be too fussy when it comes to choosing a strategy for the defense of life? What should we do when a burglar breaking in at night threatens our family?
An “all-or-nothing” strategy might be appropriate for the monolith of “Abortion,” but perhaps it will be no help at all for the baby boy of John Smith and Susan Brown, whose tiny fingers will just be forming the same week that our next president takes his Oath of Office.
Since God has no weakness or any imperfection, we certainly cannot “help Him,” but He is certainly pleased to *help us*, to accomplish His will in us, to conform us to the image of His Son, to actually and really *use* us to accomplish His purposes. (God alone feeds us, but if we have no inclination to move the plow, it may be a sign that He would have us be hungry for awhile.)
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
i would like to know, without being confrontational at all, do you have any other issues besides abortion that you vote on? you could refer to either the writer of this blog or the collective community that reads it. thanks in advance,
Preeti
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 am
Please don’t consider my posting this link as trolling ~ I simply don’t comment much on blogs these days but have been following a few(the link that follows that may add to what has been already said). It is how, even if in part, many genuine Christians are thinking ~ Christians that say even so, come quickly Lord Jesus. So many things to think on. A former Ron Paul senior aide and Bob Barr backer has asked Libertarians to vote McCain/Palin according to canadafreepress.com . Obama has thoughts of a civilian national security force. hmmm And he was a member of the New Party(socialists) yet laughs at those considering his ways as being about socialism. Andy Martin’s research has my attention concerning place of birth for Obama being clearly known. So many polarizing uncertainties; oh for candidates to be forthright.
It is always the time to pray and love one another even if those professing to be in Christ are not at the same place concerning who should have a Christian’s vote. God knows the motives of the heart and the heart desires He gives each of us as His workmanship? The adversary would love to see a lack of unity when the Gospel should be our priority in a time such as this.
http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/go-third-party-or-dont-vote.html
God bless each one here as we seek to bless the Lord ~ He is worthy of our worship.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Valerie,
I offer the following 2 verses for your consideration Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13. These are in my mind the 2 overarching verses which disqualify both major party tickets.
Also I think Bob and Wes’s follow up article just further proves the lack of Pro-life credentials that Mccain brings to the table ( http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/sen_john_mccains_record_on_lif.aspx )
John McCain does not qualify of Christian votes because he does not meet the minimum threshold God gave us for choosing leaders. He says murder is ok – sometimes -
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
very good blog, some how i found you researching on stuff for our sons birth defect esophageal atresia, i wish you the best.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Keep beating your heads against the wall and telling yourselves it won’t crack your skull. Elect another Republican like Ronald Reagan, who gave us pro-abortion Supreme Court justices. Elect another Republican like Bush Sr., who gave us pro-abortion Supreme Court justices. Elect another Republican like W. Bush, who tells us America isn’t “ready†to repeal Roe v. Wade. Elect John McCain, who over 30 years has proven himself more liberal than all the rest, but had a magical change of opinion when he decided to run for president.
—Vote for someone other than Mc Cain and you will elect someone who will make all these transgressions look like plucking a daisy from a botanical garden. Can’t think of a less stringent way to put it, but the blood of the innocents will rest on those who “throw away” a vote in the name of making a point.
November 4th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Perry, I respect your view and the reasons for it, but when I read those verses in their full contexts, I myself cannot believe that they form a commandment for all people in all times and places. I believe that they are a historical record of how God’s people wisely behaved at a particular time, in a particular place, when they could reasonably expect that the providential effect would be an increase of liberty and harmony within a covenanted people.
In my mind, these verses are cross-referenced to Acts 4:31-37, another historical record of God’s covenanted people wisely behaving in a particular time and place, with the expectation that their actions would be protective and healthful for them.
In neither case do I see–and I can only act based on what I can see for myself–a divine commandment binding human behavior for all time in all places and cultures. In fact, I am very doubtful that either of these strategies should be ever implemented when there is a potential that either of them would be harmful to life and liberty.
I don’t know but that someone might be uncomfortable with my references to providential effects. Certainly, God is *always* in control, and He can surely do whatever He pleases. (He could build our nation into an obedient people in a day.)
And I do believe the canon is closed; I make no claim to know the future. But as humans, we have a moral duty to look at the means that God has supplied and the potential effects of our choices on life and liberty in our country.
While we can never know effects definitely until we see them, examining our actions in the light of their potential effects is a Christian duty. We may not tempt God (Matthew 4), and it is our knowledge of likely effects that helps us draw a difference between shooting bullets and throwing peas at an innocent person.
I mentioned the thief breaking in early because the argument there, in some circles, is “Don’t shoot, don’t steal (his weapon), but trust Jesus.” “Thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal” and “My defence is of God, which saveth the upright in heart” are the proof texts for this conclusion–but it is wrong.
If Barack Obama comes into office, we may see a drastic and severe assault on life and liberty, an assault that could severely impact our freedom to obey many commandments, including the commandments related to the upbringing of our covenant children.
Not saying we don’t deserve Obama, because this nation deserves worse than Obama can imagine, but if we Christians have any option for saving *some* lives, for retaining *some* liberties, then I don’t want to refuse any potential weapon unless God has certainly forbidden it as an option.
Thank God for forgiveness, because I am certainly sinful and I reason selfishly many times, but this is my understanding.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Valerie,
A quick point on the verses. The verse in Acts is a “they did thus and such” description. The verse in Exodus, I believe, could be taken the same way if not for the fact that Moses later repeats it to Israel thereby commanding them how to choose leaders.
It transitions from descriptive narrative to divine injunction through Moses on how the Republic of Israel (God’s covenant people) should choose their leaders.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Perry, I pray that I am not just being stubbornly blind to the truth, but to my eyes the opening chapters of Deuteronomy do seem to be a review of Israel’s history. I think that Deut. 1:13 is recording how Moses, serving in godly authority, chose godly judges to serve his people. The people nominated men who were well-known and known to be godly, and Moses appointed them to their positions.
At this point, I still do not think that this historical record forms a binding commandment for Christian voting.
Perry, what do you think of Jeremiah 21-27, and especially the first and last chapters? Is it definitely always evil to willingly choose a less deadly tyrant when the motivation is to preserve some lives, some property, and some liberties?
When my children and I worked our way through Jeremiah, I showed my children that they could discover which prophetical voice spoke the truth to that time. I taught them how to compare predictions and commandments to the written Law of God, and we believed that we could see that the false prophets had rejected the Law as the standard. We believed that Jeremiah always upheld God’s Law and never taught the people to disobey it.
Regarding believing Jews, Jeremiah did call on them to make the deliberate choice to leave the city and accept Nebuchadnezzar as their authority. He commanded them to purposefully put Nebuchadnezzar’s yoke on their necks and *choose* him as their king. Why? To preserve life.
If the godly are clearly forbidden ever to choose an ungodly authority, how could any of the Jews be confident that Jeremiah was still speaking for God at this point?
Maybe it’s just my dislike of death and my fear for my neighbors and my children that’s speaking here, but the stakes are so high and our decisions do have effects. I don’t know anything, but I confess that I am afraid that the Christian right might be rejecting options which, while they are certainly not normative, may be lawful when the preservation of life calls for them.
When God has clearly not raised any man with an unimpeachable record to national prominence, then we can expect that He is not intending to make such a one president.
If it was once wisest, best, and safest to choose Nebuchadnezzar, then maybe voting for McCain really was a lawful option yesterday.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Hi Y’all:
Carmon, great blog & post. I’d like to add that one of the most relevant passages, yet not commonly quoted, in this regards of requiring Covenant faithfulness on the part of any leader of a Biblically faithful – Christian people, is Deuteronomy 17:15-20.
Please read this passage carefully and see if either McCain or Obama could possibly qualify for it. Not a chance, in my view. Both of their voting records in the Senate eloquently testifying against them.
At issue here is ‘oath-breaking’. Both men have taken vows, as Senators, to ‘uphold & defend the US Constitution against all enemies….’ Both men, as having voted for numerous “messianic state” programs that are not found amongst the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, have thus, violated that oath numerous times.
It is a biblical Principle that ‘thrones are established for Righteousness, it is an abomination for a King to commit wickedness’. Prov 16:12
For candidates for the highest singular office in our land to be already known to have broken their prior oaths to obey the US Consitution, as Senators, yet supported widely by Christians is evidence of our dereliction of duty, as both responsible citizens & dutiful Christians, to hold them accountable to us, so that we may be accountable to God.
Note that in the Deuteronomy passage cited, the King was to be ‘one of his brethren, not a stranger’ v 15, and v 18-19, to personally copy, in his own hand a copy of the Law (analgous to our US Constiution) and to read & obey it with devotion.
So, applying that Principle, Christians are to choose only men who are ‘one of their brethren’ and those who ‘know, intimately and obey faithfully, that Law which binds them together.’
With only a small percentage of Americans and Christians able to give even a simple summation of essential Consitutional Principle, how likely is is that we will be able to raise up men who will respect and obey America’s Fundamental organic Law ?
Not unless some big changes occur !
In our ignorance, we will not long remain free. Thomas Jefferson observes: ‘Those who wish to be ignorant and yet free, are longing for that which never was, nor ever can be.’
Until and unless we, first as Christians, then as faithful Americans, learn the fundamentals of our basic Constitutional Principles (& how they were actually drawn from a rich Biblical worldview our Founders held) we be reduced to dissecting vapid politcal fads & intrigue, and will, doubtless, continue to argue over which pagan political party comes closest to the faith, at least enough to hitch our wagon to.
Inevitably, that ‘wagon’ will proceed in a direction opposite direction from the Truth, to the very denying of our faith and our Lord Jesus Christ. And we will, likely, continue to dream that our vain, but vocal protestations, whilst remaining firmly in the wagon, are the same in essence, as the more Principled act of jumping off the wagon and proceeding (alone if necessary) resolutely back towards the Truth.
I know many, many of you here are faithful, godly and wise mothers & fathers (as my wife & I aspire to be…) so if I may, I’d like to challenge all here to use this current season of controversy over our Biblical requirements as Citizens, to make ‘baby steps’ towards becoming more educated as to our nations unique Biblically derived Constitution. A quick list of helpful resources our family has enjoyed:
1) “Institute on the Constitution” – multi part video course, taught by Christian Law professor, historian & experinced attorney John Eidsmoe. This is the most comprehensive course we’re aware of – bar none. Comes also as a group study course so a small group – a homeschool or adult class can learn together. More information: http://www.IOTConline.com
2) “The Witherspoon School of Law & Public Policy” – sponsored by Vision Forum – a four day intensive Law School that features America’s foremost teachers & lawyers laying out the history & wisdom of America’s Biblical Foundations. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED !! http://www.VisionForum.com for more information.
3) ‘Taking Back the Gates’ – ‘God’s Law, Christ’s Rule, and Christian leadership in Politics, Education & Culture’. This comprehensive course covers the theology & practical experience of applied Christian activism, and effectively lays out a strategy for giving hope to Christans for how to move from a posture of Demoralization to Victory.” 12 Hours, on DVD, and useful for homeschool or group study.
For a limited time, the course is available free of cost, underwritten by the ministry Dominion Mission Group, to the first 30 homeschooling families who request it.
Kindly send an email requesting a copy to Psalm2@safe-mail(dot)net (replace ‘dot’ with a period) with TAKING BACK THE GATES in the subject line. Please remember to provide your return mail address, (it ships via Postal Service) and allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Please also include a few words on your view of of the calling upon your family to serve as ’salt & light’ to a decaying culture…..
All three of these resources have encouraged us to discover & explore Biblical Truths that once upon a time, brought Reformation & Revival to our Nation, in it’s nascent days, and can once again, if rediscovered by God’s people.
Carmon, thanks for taking the time & energy and making a valiant stand for Truth !
David Alan in East Texas
(ps: I think I met you at a ‘Uniting Church & Home Conference in St.Louis in 04 – could that be ?)
November 6th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
hmm, well it appears that since only one vote counted at the ballot box- God’s according to Wesley and Bob, then God himself must have violated all this scripture and voted for Obama…how could that be?
November 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Sorry, that quote should have been attributed to Steve.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
au contraire, Mary.
Isaiah 3:12 (New King James Version)
As for My people, children are their oppressors,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err,
And destroy the way of your paths.â€
Our path is exactly the one God dictates for such a wicked and faithless nation. The young fool is exactly the tyrant God Himself has chosen for us, our time, and our behavior.
God have mercy on us.
(Carmon, edit this as you see fit)
November 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Mary, God always has the prescription for what ails us. He alone dictates history & it’s outcomes. We humans, though we be redeemed by Him (and thus become ‘joint heirs with Christ’), must never try to confuse ends (election outcomes) with means (righteous standards for choosing Godly men).
It is precisely in trying to do this, ie Christians usurping God’s Sovereign office, by taking upon themselves the presumption to vote in an unqualified, ungodly, vain, foolish & wicked man, (John McCain) (his voting record proves this: http://www.KnowBeforeYouVote.com), that the office was delivered to the young upstart Socialist, Barack Obama.
If Christians had diligently followed God’s Precepts, John McCain, (or whatever ungodly fool the GOP attempted to foist off on us) would have been rejected out of hand. The media would likely have been shocked to find that NO Christian or leader would fall for it, the spotlight would likely have gone to whatever Godly man was running, this time it was Dr. (and Pastor) Chuck Baldwin (www.Baldwin08.com) and we could have gained amazing ground !
But, no, Christians had to try to ‘insure outcomes’ by voting for a man who was NOT biblically qualified. Heck, McCain wasn’t even a decent conservative – let alone any type of Christian Statesman. He gained the reputation of ‘maverick’ by opposing every commonsense idea advocated by the GOP, in preference to the leftist Democrat position. (He was in no sense a Principled conservative, as one would expect of the ‘conservative party’ – the party that carries on the traditional conservatism plus openly acknowledges the Sovereignty of God, http://www.ConstitutionParty.com)
As Steve pointed out with the passage from Isaiah 3, our foolish leadership was MIS-leading all the foolish Americans and foolish Christians, and thus, Obama, who may well prove to be a modern Hitler (I’m praying God changes that potentiality…) has gained the office.
God is Sovereign. If we refuse to model Christ-like character & live out Biblical obedience, he is perfectly ready to raise up a Pharoah to punish us until we do.
Christ is SHILOH – He whose RIGHT IT IS to be supreme over all: Psalm 2, Psalm 110, Isaiah 9:6-7
God help us indeed. Fear HIM, and not Obama, my brothers & sisters in Christ.
David In East Texas
November 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
McCain is a fine and very smart man. I think you’re out of line in calling him wicked.