It's an election year. I'm sorry. Politics has to come up sometimes. I don't like it any better than you do. But, look, maybe you can help me think this through.
So, we have two competing perspectives here. No, not the two that first come to your mind -- Biden or Trump. On one hand, we believe that "there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." (Rom 13:1) But we also believe that we ought to vote, where "ought to" is intended to express a moral obligation rather than a mere suggestion.
These appear to be opposite sides. I mean, if God establishes all authority, then why vote? On the other hand, if our voting is important to God (because calling it a moral obligation suggests it is), how does He establish all authority? I mean, do we do it and Paul was mistaken or do we fool ourselves by voting and it's all Him?
As in so many of these types of questions, I think there is a "yes" on both sides of the question. We do need to vote as citizens of the country in which we've been placed by God -- as God's appointed representatives here -- and, yes, God establishes all authority. He does it in our case using the tool of our voting, but He is not limited to our voting.
Here's the thing I'm trying to puzzle through. We like to think that God has good plans for our country. We vote as if God's plans depend on it. While we know "You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2), we seem to think that God won't be able to accomplish His good plans for America if we don't get this thing right. If we don't vote correctly, God's plans fail and it won't be a good thing.
So, how does that work? Like the Arminian that prays earnestly that God will change people's hearts (like a Calvinist), Christians agree that all authority comes from God and then panic because "What if we don't vote the right guy in?!" How does that work? How are we to make sense out of it? I intend to vote my conscience and trust God, but I've been told that's naive, stupid, and possibly even sinful. So I should not trust God and vote their conscience? That's what they told me four years ago. That's what they're telling me now. I don't get this at all.
22 comments:
First, I think the elections were rigged in Paul's day, so his reliance on God was...wait...they didn't have elections for emperor or king back then, did they? No. So, what we have today is a situation where God works through us in a different way than He worked through human agency back then. We do elect our leaders so there is no establishment by God without His will being worked through our actions. How else could it work? Since we have the privilege of voting, what results from our not voting is also a consequence of our actions, even given that God allowed us to do something stupid.
But I believe we're expected to use the tools God gave us intelligently. In this case, that includes voting to prevent a catastrophe, which a Biden win will be. I still don't understand how your conscience is cool with that potential reality. Once again, there are only two possible outcomes of this election. Whomever is getting your vote is not one of them, thus, your "conscience vote" is good with the potential harm that will befall the nation by allowing the worse of two evils to win.
And all of this goes to your conundrum, because whomever God allows to govern will be the result of how we vote. If most people see and accept the reality, we will have once again dodged a bullet and will likely thrive as a nation. If not enough do, Joe Biden will win and all those who "voted their conscience" for someone with absolutely no chance, will be complicit in the suffering that comes with it. How that all might factor into God's Grand Plan is beyond me to know. But I see no Biblical teaching that rationalizes leaving this to fate under the guise of Rom 13:1.
I still don't understand how you know that a Biden victory will be "a catastrophe." We were told that with Obama. We were told that with Clinton. Neither destroyed the nation. Nor do I know for sure what you mean by "catastrophe." But I believe that if God can use Balaam's ass to accomplish His will, He can use a Joe Biden if He so chooses. I also suspect that when God chooses to judge a nation for their prolonged, corporate sin, He often does it by giving them lousy leadership.
Bottom line. I don't know what God is planning for America. I don't think severe judgment is out of the realm of possibility. I don't know that I believe Trump will do less damage to America than Biden (who, seriously, is barely functional). I do believe God holds me accountable for who I choose to lead us (He's done it with His people in the past) and I'm not comfortable choosing Trump or Biden with a clean conscience. And I'm pretty sure that God is capable of accomplishing His plan (Job 42:2) whether or not I agree with your standards of what's best for the country or not. The fact that you can't grasp any of this is troubling to me. (I don't mean "agree with"; I mean "grasp".) I can see that you are passionate about your idea of what's good and right even if I don't agree with it; you can't see why anyone could reasonably disagree with it. I find that troubling.
Stan,
Yes! I firmly believe that our founders (with God's help) established a form of government that can withstand 4 or 8 years of a bad president. I suspect that either of our options will result in some degree of "catastrophe", it's just that it'll be different "catastrophes" depending on who wins.
As per your previous post, I believe that more hinges on the house and senate races than on the POTUS race. If Biden wins, and the GOP holds the congress then his ability to implement his "catastrophe" will be limited to some degree.
I can also see God using a Biden "catastrophe" as a means of bringing judgement to America and our culture.
While Trump has done some things that have been good, and I believe that his presidency will be less bad, that certainly doesn't get me to eagerly supporting him.
All we can do, is follow God to the best of our abilities and fulfill our moral obligation to participate.
This is a topic for another post, but I actually believe that a Biden win could lay the foundation for a renewed GOP/conservative movement that could actually (combined with the trend some see toward a Gen Z towards conservatism), be more "beneficial" over the long term.
How can God effect the Presidency without my vote? I don't know, maybe look at 2016? The People spoke, and they wanted Clinton. But God wanted Trump, so the electoral college overruled the popular vote. If the way any of us voted mattered in that case, we'd have had our first female President, not the laughing stock man-child we have now. I will vote, but I know it doesn't matter because God will put in place whom He chooses, regardless of me.
I'm curious, David. You said, "I know it doesn't matter because God will put in place whom He chooses, regardless of me." It sounds a lot like fatalism. "God controls everything. Nothing I do makes a difference. It doesn't matter, then, if I do anything at all." It doesn't only go to voting. It carries over to "Why pray?" or a ton of other commands we have to which we should be obedient even if God will do what He chooses regardless of me. How do you reconcile that in your head? If "God does what He chooses regardless of me," is it even right to hold us responsible? Is there absolutely no such thing as free will? I know it's always been a dilemma for anyone dedicated to the Sovereignty of God (as I am), but because it's difficult doesn't make it either false or "oh, well, never mind." What do you do with it?
Maybe my question falls into the whimsy category, but I am asking it with sincere intent.
Could it be God's will for you to vote for candidate A *and* for Dan Trabue to vote for candidate B in an election?
I am sure both you and Dan would say that you feel as though you are voting in accordance with God's desire.
Staying with your whimsy category, yes, we'd both believe we were voting God's way, but I'd be right.
Stan,
I agree that there seems to be a degree of fatalism in David’s response. Part of the problem is to suggest that the electoral college isn’t an integral part of our election system. Saying that God’s going to put whoever He wants in power is essentially saying that He could bring back Washington if He wanted. It seem important to remember that God works His will through us. It’s more likely that if God wants Trump, that folks like you and I will be moved to vote for him, than anything else.
Definitely whimsy. I think you’d both be right, but you’d be listening to different Gods.
"I think you’d both be right, but you’d be listening to different Gods."
We just said the same thing.
Shocking.
I'm curious why you ask me the very same question everyone asks of you when you rely on the Sovereignty of God. Is it fatalist to believe that God will put in place whom He wills? Yes, He uses human agency to accomplish His will, but I can rest assured that no matter what I do, His will is done. Is that fatalism? We are certainly responsible for acting according to His revealed will, but we can't be held responsible for the result of said action. If we vote for whom we believe He would want us to, but He wants someone else in that position, we haven't failed in our obedience because the outcome want what we desired. I don't see it as fatalism, but peace and assurance.
I think it’s the way you phrased it that gave off a degree of fatalism.
And I see very little difference between anything any of you are saying and this concept of fatalism. David's words suggest "why vote at all" (even if he didn't quite mean it that way) while you and Craig believe "voting your conscience" (I don't use quotation marks to disparage) won't matter as to whom God places in authority.
You seem to understand I'm voting my conscience, too, and I am. I don't believe that,
1. God is cool with me not doing all I can to prevent the ascendancy of a party that is clearly and unmistakably in rebellion against him in almost every conceivable way, and
2. My conscience is completely clear and at peace with the assurance that my support for Trump has absolutely nothing to do with his character flaws, but with concern for my fellow Americans.
Third party, write-ins or not voting...none of these gets that done. A Biden win, in my opinion, and all it would mean for America, would be a rebuke by God for not opposing such a party.
As to Craig's suggestion that Biden will lay a foundation for a renewed conservative movement, that's what eight years of Obama did for us, and Trump is the manifestation of that renewal. You guys focus too strongly on his quirks when you should be considering how he's been the most conservative president since Reagan, and in some ways, more so.
"And I see very little difference between anything any of you are saying and this concept of fatalism."
Well, no, of course you don't. But, then, you don't believe in the Sovereignty of God. You'd prefer my "small s" version where Human Free Will can and does intervene in God's plans. I can't even operate on the cognitive dissonance that creates.
"Well, no, of course you don't."
Because there really isn't any.
"But, then, you don't believe in the Sovereignty of God."
I most certainly do. Am I supposed to believe in your understanding of what that means? It's there where we part.
"I can't even operate on the cognitive dissonance that creates."
Because there really isn't any.
If you let your kids run wild and do as the please, do you not retain the power to put a stop to it? God's allowing Free Will does not mean He gives up His power to intercede, or that His allowance doesn't bring about anything for which He was unaware. The very thought that God ever "loses" His sovereignty stands as a stark impossibility to me. How is that even possible for the Creator of All Things?
I'm just curious, Marshal. Did I do something to make you mad? Because you're treating me as a hostile. And it's getting old. For instance, I deny fatalism and you say I do not. That's hostile. That's Dan-ish. I point out that Scripture teaches God is Sovereign and you assure me that you agree ... except you deny it. That's Dan-ish. "I disagree" is fine, but between assuring me that a failure to vote for Trump is a sin and unChristian and assuring me I believe stuff I don't, it's getting very old.
Frustrated, perhaps, but not angry. To say so is "Dan-ish". (However, the accusation by anyone that I'm an old angry white man is now becoming a reality thanks to events of the last ten months or so...just sayin').
I'm not treating you as hostile so much as incorrigible or stubborn. And that's getting old to me.
You deny fatalism, but I don't see the difference between what you're saying and what David was saying when you accused him of it. Are you being hostile to him? Maybe he's more fatalistic in his opinion than you are in yours, but there are similarities in my mind between the two of you that seems to make the term applicable to you if it is to him.
I do NOT deny that God is Sovereign (or that Scripture teaches it). I totally insist it's true. I don't necessarily believe it means that having free will means He no longer is. I certainly don't believe it's possible He ever could no longer be sovereign. I'd love to revisit this topic exclusively some time.
I haven't accused anyone of sinning simply by not voting for Trump. Simply not voting for anyone doesn't take into account reasons. Reasons determine sinfulness. Being wrong isn't a sin. Not voting for Trump is wrong because of the consequences.
I haven't "assured" you of believing what you don't, and saying so is "Dan-ish". From my perspective, you're presuming intent on my part while I'm simply questioning what your motivations are...and not feeling I'm getting a good explanation. That might be because of my own shortcomings in understanding you, your shortcomings in explaining your reasoning, or some combination of the two. I do NOT have hostile intent. I do NOT have bad feelings as if you're the enemy (as I might with those like Dan). I see a brother who is making a huge mistake for all the right reasons. Right reasons don't mitigate the mistake or its consequences.
But because there are more at risk than just my brother, I'm not yet willing to "agree to disagree" (a concept that gets a rise out of me every time). Again, too much at stake and I also don't agree that "leaving it in God's hands" means I stop trying to encourage my brother toward what I know is the better and more Christian move.
In the meantime, unless you broach the subjects again yourself here, I'm intending to make my case at my own blog where you can engage or not as it suits you.
There is a marked difference between "I don't see the difference" and "There is none." (By the way, try looking up "fatalism" and "determinism" or, better yet, "soft determinism." They aren't the same.) The difference between "There is no difference" and "I don't see the difference" is "You believe something wrong" as opposed to "You'll have to explain it to me better."
Telling me I believe there is no such thing as free will is another one of those things I regularly deny and still have to fight. Like so many arguments Dan throws at me. Let's be clear. Fatalism denies the existence of free will. I do not. Determinism and especially soft determinism affirm the existence of free will and I do, too. I deny the absolute sovereignty of Human Free Will (which is why I use capital letters); I don't deny the existence of human free will (lowercase).
And "more Christian move" tells me "You're not acting as a good Christian."
A more "friendly discussion" is "I believe X and you believe Y. Here's why I believe X and you can tell me why you believe Y." A more "friendly discussion" would proceed with "I still don't understand your reasons" or "Here are the reasons I can't agree with you." This hasn't been that.
"There is a marked difference between "I don't see the difference" and "There is none.""
Doesn't change a thing. I see no difference because there isn't one in your position and that of David's. (In truth, a difference too slight to be of significance, or such that the difference is of no consequence.)
I've looked up those words. Depending on the source, they're either synonymous or similar in how they reject the notion of or effect of free will.
In any case, I'm not concerned with those words, nor of how similar you and David think on the subject of voting or not voting for Trump, but only that neither of you will.
"Telling me I believe there is no such thing as free will is another one of those things I regularly deny..."
I'm so very glad I haven't added to that burden, since I've never told you that.
"I deny the absolute sovereignty of Human Free Will (which is why I use capital letters); I don't deny the existence of human free will (lowercase)."
What you deny is that the former can only exist by God no longer being sovereign, and it is that with which I disagree. I believe the difference between the capitalized and non-capitalized version is a construct that is not truly reflective of reality. God is NEVER not sovereign regardless of what He allows or bestows upon us.
"And "more Christian move" tells me "You're not acting as a good Christian.""
You shouldn't be so sensitive. You also should insist I mean what I insist I don't. I believe good Christians make mistakes and do stupid things often. I can admit my own mistakes and stupid moves (while not pretending I'm all that great a Christian, either...but I digress). A "more" Christian move is to act in a manner that prevents unjust harm to others, yet despite our best intentions, we may cause harm now and then. The well intended still make mistakes and still do stupid things. It doesn't mean they're not "good" Christians just because they're not perfect. So you can drop that line of objection now, since it doesn't apply here.
I've been practicing your definition of friendly discussion, but you're not enjoying the fact that your reasons for your position aren't passing muster. Nor do YOU seem concerned about having me expound on my position with an aim to provide more clarity. I'm not looking to be argumentative, but insist that my motives are a total consideration for you and the rest of our nation. I suppose being that this is your house that what satisfies your conscience is good enough whether or not you can form a good argument, while what my conscience compels is of less value and importance. Nonetheless, my conscience compels me to make every effort, to fight until the end (election day in this case), to make what I see as the better move obvious to you for all our sakes, including His.
Compatibilism, aka "Soft Determinism," is "an attempt to reconcile the theological proposition that every event is causally determined, ordained, and/or decreed by God (i.e., determinism, not to be confused with fatalism)—with the free will of man." It argues that God is Sovereign while Man has free will. It was argued by Augustine, Aquinas, and Hobbes and even Greek philosophers (that is, it's not new). The key component is the definition of "free will" which most people argue is "libertarian free will" -- "For 'free will' to exist, it must be unhindered and without limit." Compatibilism argues that "free will" is the ability to choose within the limitations of the nature of the creature. That is, Man is free to do as he wishes, but is limited by what he wishes.
The Westminster Confession says, "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c
a Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17. • b James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5. • c Prov 16:33; Mat 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28."
That is, God is Sovereign yet without "offering violence" to free will. (It views "free will" as a "second cause" where God is always the "first cause.")
In all views, someone gets limited in some way because humans, by nature, are opposed to God. So either God gets limited by human free will or God is not limited and human free will isn't as absolutely free as we thought it was.
Biblical examples: Genesis 37; 50:20; Isa 10:6-7; Acts 4:27-28
Art,
If you’re voting your clear conscience, then why continue to pressure others away from voting their conscience?
Seriously, this conversation has been a decent example of how to disagree, but repeating yourself isn’t helping at this point.
Post a Comment