Now that it's past, I think I'll put this out there. That way I can do it without undue pressure or guilt while still making a plain statement and you can conclude what you wish. Nor can I be accused of partisanship. It isn't a call for you to elect my favorite candidate (especially since I've made it abundantly clear that I didn't have one). If you think my position is sound and you have something to remedy, there will be future voting opportunities and you can certainly register to vote now.
Maybe you didn't vote. Fine. But, is it the Christian's duty to vote? That's the question I want to examine.
First, let me be perfectly straightforward. Voting is not biblical. I mean ... duh. Governments of the Bible were not "of the people". What we take for granted as foundational today was unheard of in biblical times. Governments were by right of power or divine appointment and were kings, lords, sovereigns. So you won't find anything in Scripture that says "Thou shalt vote" let alone how Jesus would vote or guidance on the proper candidate to lead a country (or a state or ...). Thus, I would have to argue that failing to vote is not a sin.
I would argue, however, that the Bible has other things to say on the matter and, if you follow my thinking, I believe you'll conclude that it is the duty of believers to vote. First, we know that "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1). There is in many Christians a sense of the sacred and the secular. Some things are sacred -- the Church, worship, godly living, that sort of thing. Some are secular -- the car you drive, work, entertainment, and the like. Human government falls in the "secular" category. And this is false. The division is false. If God cares when a sparrow falls and numbers the hairs on your head, it cannot be suggested that some things just fall outside His areas of concern. And since the question is that of government, and governments "have been instituted by God", don't fall into the lie that government is secular and not your concern.
Beyond that, the Bible has more to say on voting than you might have realized. Take, for instance, Deuteronomy 1:13. "Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads." Now that's interesting, isn't it? Notice the last statement. "I will appoint them as your heads." This is in perfect keeping with the Romans 13 verse. All authority is from God. "I will appoint them as your heads." And yet, the command is to choose them for yourself. Thus we have God commanding His people to choose leaders that He will ultimately appoint as authority. In other words, God uses means in what He does. Our method of government calls on us to do precisely that: Choose wise, understanding, and experienced men for our leadership. God establishes their authority, but we choose.
We know that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov 14:34). Now, for individuals, "righteousness" comes from God and is reflected in how we align ourselves with God's values. For nations, righteousness is not the same animal. It is a product of the leadership. Thus, a "righteous nation" would be the product of leadership that most closely aligns the laws and actions of a nation to God's moral values. It's a different concept. Thus, in order for a nation to be more righteous, it requires leadership with more righteous values. Similarly we know that "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked rule, the people mourn" (Prov 29:2). Simple statement of fact.
So if righteousness exalts a nation and if "when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice" and if we are commanded to love our neighbors (and I would hope that no one would begin to doubt a single one of those premises), then it seems to me that while it may not be a sin for Christians not to vote, it would certainly be a duty to vote. If we love our neighbors and see that righteous leadership produces joy in our neighbors, it would be required of us to try to obtain righteous leadership for our neighbors, would it not? (Please note, by the way, that "the lesser of two evils" argument so often floated against voting at all is really stupid. All elections and all leadership for all time since Adam left the garden of Eden has been, at best, the lesser of two evils since there has never been a truly righteous, sinless human leader. Don't fall for that line. And national leadership is not church leadership, so don't buy into the religious litmus test: "I will only vote for a Christian." The aim is to elect people who share the closest values to God's values.)
Voting records indicate that genuine Christians in America are really poor voters. They have historically been split between Republican and Democrat. On one hand, that's no big deal because neither "Republican" nor "Democrat" is defined as "Christian". On the other hand, the Democratic Party has for decades espoused values antithetical to genuine Christianity. But beyond the splits between the two parties, the sheer numbers (or lack thereof) of genuine Christians voting has been dubious. One estimate I read suggested that less than half of evangelical Christians voted in the 1996 election. Worse, Time Magazine reported that in 2008 Barack Obama "captured 53% of the Catholic vote" and 44% of the votes of "voters who attend religious services". "Voters who worship at least once a month preferred Obama 53% to McCain's 46%." In Michigan Obama won 33% of the white Evangelical vote -- 30% in Indiana. Thus, those who classify themselves as Christian and with a little more strength than in name only voted largely in favor of the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for the office.
If you believe that "righteousness exalts a nation" and if it is true that "when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice" (you know, like the Bible says), then it would seem obvious that it is indeed the Christian's duty to vote. Abstaining is not an act of love for your fellow man. It is an act of selfishness. I don't know how much of the Christian vote elected our current president either directly or in absentia, but surely you can see that voting is a privilege and a duty for anyone who is sincere about biblical values. Don't let another one go by.
16 comments:
Even our founders, at least some of them, recommended selecting quality people to lead the nation. I do seek to find the most "Christian-like" candidate possible given the limited information at my disposal. Some might contend that this is a push for a theocracy. Not so. I thought, allowing for a variety of shortcomings, Romney was a far better reflection of Christianity than was Obama. (I still feel that way) Was he the best such representation? I don't think so, but I only had two choices (third parties currently being a great waste of time and vote).
As to the theocracy angle, the subject of religion, either its establishment or restriction, need not even arise while still a candidate can be a reflection of Christian values.
A few random thoughts, briefly.
1) I don't think this statement is strictly true.
"Governments of the Bible were not 'of the people'. What we take for granted as foundational today was unheard of in biblical times."
Athenian democracy began around 550 BC, and the Roman republic began around 509 BC. The republic became an empire around 27 BC, but vestiges of representative government remained for some time.
It is reasonable to assume that, in the time of Christ, Hellenized Jews and Jewish citizens of Rome (like Saul of Tarsus) were familiar with Greek and Roman history.
2) You write, "it seems to me that while it may not be a sin for Christians not to vote, it would certainly be a duty to vote."
If we do have a moral duty to do something, wouldn't neglecting that duty qualify as a sin of omission?
3) I agree that politics involves compromise, supporting candidates who aren't perfect, and(as the phrase goes) we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
At the same time, I can see situations where voting one's conscience means abstaining AT LEAST from supporting either of the two most prominent candidates, if not abstaining from voting altogether.
It's not necessarily that "there's no difference," but the difference might not be big enough: more to the point, if neither candidate seems adequate to the challenges that the office holder will face, a voter may withhold support from both for entirely principled reasons.
Suppose the government is going bankrupt, such that the next office holder MUST reduce spending in a significant way. If even the better candidate will JUST slow down spending's rate of growth, a principled voter might decide not to be a party to bankruptcy by supporting him merely because he's better than the more egregious spendaholic.
Bubba,
I said that "Governments of the Bible were not 'of the people'." What I meant was that no government documented in Scripture was put there by vote. Addressing voting in Scripture, then, would have been very odd.
I'm not willing to call not voting a sin because I'm not able to find a command in Scripture to do so. In life, some things may be immoral while being legal. I'm willing, in the case of voting, to allow for Christians to operate on their conscience while making the argument that the demands of Scripture suggest we should vote. If the reader concedes that I'm right on that point, then they would also need to vote. You know, "Whatever is not of faith is sin."
I was very nearly on the same line as you describe, almost not voting. But given what I wrote on the subject here, I came to believe that doing so would be immoral. Slowing the spending (going with your example) would be better than increasing it. No one is going to stop it. And since we don't have the option the Pilgrims have of going somewhere else to establish a new, moral nation, we have to work with what we have for as long as we have it.
When can we escape to Mars to make our own Christian nation?
Don't know, David. I suppose you can go any time. (You know those first Pilgrims didn't fare well, right?)
Stan, I was addressing both sentences I quoted regarding representative government in the time of the Bible -- including this second sentence:
"What we take for granted as foundational today was unheard of in biblical times."
That goes too far, as surely first-century Hellenized Jews weren't entirely ignorant of Greek democracy and the Roman republic.
And the vestiges of represetative government may not have entirely disappeared in the early empire. I believe that the Roman Senate was still subject to elections during the time of Acts, even if the Senate's power was then ultimately subordinate to Caesar, so the government to which Paul appealled was at least nominally representative to some degree.
I believe the absence of lengthy teachings on politics in the New Testament isn't because representative government was unheard-of by its writers, but because Christ's mission and the church's mission was't primarily political.
There was apparently a presumption that the Messiah would be a political revolutionary, and Christ and His Apostles may have wanted to make it completely that, in His words, the Kingdom is not of this world.
--
For myself, I've come to the conclusion that the state is uniquely dangerous in its allure as an idol -- and since the "all-encompassing" (lit., totalitarian) impulse can be traced as far back as Plato's Republic, this may not be a new feature of the modern, Prussian-style technocratic state.
I believe quite a few of us recognize the need for radical change and have a innate desire to belong somewhere.
Christ provides the most radical change imaginable through regeneration and the indwelling of His Spirit, and He has created a permanent community and even a family in His church. But I suspect that even some who describe themselves as Christian give in to the temptation to seek radical reform and a sense of belonging through the state.
About this...
"Slowing the spending (going with your example) would be better than increasing it. No one is going to stop it." [emphasis in original]
Suppose a man's kind, old uncle is sick with a disease that's fatal if not treated, and neither of the two doctors brought to his bedside is actually recommending what would cure him.
Dr. Hemlock is proposing things that would make things worse: his medicine is poison.
Dr. Springwater is proposing things that simply wouldn't do any good: his medicine is a placebo.
In strictly comparing the two, Dr. Springwater IS better, but what's really in Uncle Hank's best interest is someone standing up to say, "They're both quacks."
And that's in his best interest even if no one listens to his nephew over the two credentialed professionals.
--
In voting, we shouldn't just compare the two most viable candidates against each other: we should compare them against the needs of the moment. If neither are adequate, it strikes me as participating in a charade to support one as if he's up to the challenges he'll face, just because he's better than an even worse option.
Okay, so in your view the whole argument I made was inadequate to suggest that voting was a moral obligation to Christians. Got it.
Going with your doctors, if Dr Hemlock promoted bleeding Uncle and Dr Springwater suggested medications that would prolong his life by a year, I think it would be closer to a parallel. Neither will save dear old Uncle. One would hasten his death. The other could postpone it and it could be remotely possible that an as yet unknown third doctor might show up in that extended time who has an actual cure. I would vote for Dr Springwater with "Dr Unknown" in view rather than make no decision with the certain knowledge that Dr Hemlock would be bleeding my uncle dry in the next week because I did not make my preference known.
In not voting, I (because I seriously considered it this year) could have proudly stood aloof and said, "I didn't cause that; I stood on principle" while either candidate won and then took us in directions we shouldn't go. What I could not have done was proudly stand aloof and said, "I promoted change in the system by keeping out of it" because it actually doesn't happen that way.
If I was to regard not voting as sinful, I could possibly compare it to sins of omission. I don't like doing nothing when two choices present two possibilities, even if neither is the best possibility. Not voting allows for the worse of the two and even if the less nasty of the two wins, not voting still allowed for the worse.
I have said before that my choice was not the one I had hoped would be before me come November, but it was still clearly superior, even if it meant only a slowing of our move in a negative direction. Slower is better as it allows for opportunities faster cannot.
But my intention was never to merely content myself with slower, but to push for whatever further remedies slower might allow in hopes that those remedies might take us from slower to stop and reverse.
I wasn't even addressing the moral argument for not voting: I continued talking about point #1 and point #3 from my frst comment, but I skipped point #2 entirely.
There were other options, albeit candidates who had no practical chance of being elected. At the same time, there's an argument that the ballots should have an explicit "None of the Above" so that it's clear that one's refusal to vote for either candidate isn't a sign of apathy.
About whether a President Romney could have delayed the fiscal crisis that is coming, it's a judgment call on the part of each voter, but I think Mark Steyn is unfortunately right about how dire things are, Ryan's plan is woefully inadequate to address our spending problem -- it doesn't even attempt to balance the budget for 28 years under optimistic assumptions -- and Romney's history points more toward his using the Ryan plan as a starting point to compromise with the Dems rather than the first tiny step to real reform.
In my opinion, the hope that Romney would have governed as a fiscal conservative was as unfounded as Christopher Buckley's hope that Obama was going to govern as a post-partisan moderate. The historical record argued against drawing such conclusions from the vague promises of the campaign.
--
But set that all aside. I'm still not sure I understand your position about voting being a duty while not voting isn't a sin.
"I'm not willing to call not voting a sin because I'm not able to find a command in Scripture to do so."
Yet you write, "it would certainly be a duty to vote."
A duty to whom? To our neighbors? The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and so surely it's a sin to neglect any duty to them even if the SPECIFIC duty isn't explicitly biblical.
To God Himself? Again, any neglected duty to God must be a sin even if the duty isn't spelled out in Scripture.
I can't imagine our having a duty that isn't to God or to our neighbors.
I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative. We probably agree much more often than we don't, I'm just not sure I understand you in the details.
Bubba, I think that there is a compelling argument that can be built (because I think I did) that voting is a Christian duty. An argument that cannot be made is that the Bible compels us to vote. As such, I am hesitant to call it a sin to fail to vote even when I argue that it is our duty to do so. If I am right, it would be a sin. I could be wrong, in which case it would not be.
Similar to the whole war concept. I am convinced by Scripture that there is such a thing as a "Just War" and would argue that engaging in such a war would be moral. On the other hand, I can see where others might possibly be able to argue from Scripture that this is not the case. So I'm not willing to say that conscientious objectors are sinning. They might be, but I can't say.
Other things are not specifically mentioned in Scripture but are still quite clear. The doctrine of the Trinity would fall in that category. Abortion would fall in that category. It's just that, while I think I constructed a pretty good argument about the Christian duty to vote, I'm not willing to stand solidly enough on it to label those who failed to do so as sinning. If I'm right, they are, but in this case I just might not be.
Stan...
An argument that cannot be made is that the Bible compels us to vote. As such, I am hesitant to call it a sin to fail to vote even when I argue that it is our duty to do so. If I am right, it would be a sin. I could be wrong, in which case it would not be.
Listening in on this conversation, I have a question for your consideration.
Here you have a behavior that you think is pretty (if not entirely) clear to you - voting is a Christian duty. However, you are not convinced enough of your position to claim that those who disagree with you - those who hold another opinion of the behavior - to call their opinions (and therefore, actions) "sinful," isn't that what you're saying?
If so, I wonder where you draw that line and on what basis?
Some behaviors, you're pretty sure you know the "right" behavior (war can be moral, voting is a duty) but you're willing to be gracious enough to your fellow believers who, in good faith, disagree with you - you won't say that they're sinning in their disagreement (indeed, you might even allow that it is POSSIBLY, you, who is sinning - could I imply that, since you're not 100% sure?).
However, on other behaviors (support for marriage equity for gay folk, for instance), you are BEYOND "pretty sure" and would insist that those who disagree with you are sinning and that they have no room for disagreeing with you (and, you have no room to allow that you might be mistaken). Is that fair?
If so, I'm wondering what is the difference?
Is there a certain number of passages that deal with a behavior (or possible ideas possibly related to a behavior) that can be in place to make you certain?
Or ARE you willing to say you're certain on these issues (issues such as marriage equity)? Are you saying (with Glenn) that you CAN NOT BE MISTAKEN?
I just can't see the Biblical or rational differentiation between the voting issue and the marriage issue where there is a biblical mandate to agree with you/the traditional position. Is that something you'd want to address?
It might fall under the liberty of being a Christian mentioned by Paul when discussing the eating of sacrificed meat. It may be a sin to Robert to not vote, but if Edward doesn't see it as sinning, all he need do is not talk about not voting, so as to not make his brother stumble.
That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.
Yes, I figured this would be of interest to you. "Stan has something of which he's not convinced." I figured this would be your basic approach, too. "Being sure of anything biblical is likely a bad position to take. Well, of course, you can be sure in your own mind, but never beyond that."
I've addressed multiple times the question of "marriage equity" (a term you continue to use even though you know I reject it thoroughly) from Scripture. All Scripture on the subject references male and female. No Scripture on the subject references anything but male and female. All biblical explanations, conversations, and commands that include the topic of marriage are to "husbands" and "wives" and differentiates based on those two categories (two categories impossible in a same-sex relationship). All Scripture on the subject of same-sex relations classify them as sin. No Scripture allows for same-sex relations as being anything but sinful.
So, on the subject in question, Scripture has no variation, no alternative, no question, nothing. Both Old and New Testaments, even Jesus Himself, all agree on the male-and-femaleness of marriage. Explicitly and implicitly the Bible is unequivocal on the topic. Given the complete continuity and agreement of Scripture from all sides on the topic, there isn't a single doubt that your view must violate Scripture and the standard, historic, orthodox Christian perspective on the subject is in full agreement with Scripture. No, I have no doubt.
Abortion? Not mentioned. Murder? Quite clear. The value of human life? Unavoidably clear. No question. No doubt.
Indeed, on certain subjects the Church itself has been abundantly clear and without variation and on others it has disagreed. I'm not talking about heretics or fringe elements. But in terms of men and women of good character, serious students of Scripture, willing to alter their lives in order to align it with God's Word even against their cultures or popular views, when they all agree on something, I think it's pretty clear. When they don't, I'm willing to admit the question. Voting was not an issue for much of Christendom, so I'm willing to admit the question. Some quite serious Church Fathers were convinced that military service was wrong, so I'm willing to admit the question. None ever agreed that homosexual behavior was good or that marriage was anything other than the union of a man and a woman.
Can I be wrong? Sure. On the things of which I'm certain, of course, it would require that the entire history of the Church was wrong, that the Holy Spirit failed to make Himself clear, and that the Bible itself is in question. But I could be wrong. I am not, however, willing to surrender the Bible, the Holy Spirit, or the Church at this point like you are, nor am I willing to agree that the prime evil in this instance is to be sure.
Thanks.
Post a Comment