by Chris Alexion, Copyright May 19, 2006, all rights reserved. 491 views
Except for Anabaptists who've sworn off (or, I don't know, affirmed off) all involvement in civil government, Christians have long debated how to biblically cast their votes. What is the Christian's duty with regard to political elections?
Two hard-line responses have emerged from this controversy. The first sizes up the candidates and says that we should basically pick the lesser of two evils, lest the Other Guy get into office through our negligence, and a Worse Thing come upon us. The other view says that to vote for said lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil, and that we should choose only biblically-qualified candidates, even if they have as much chance of winning as, in one writer's words, Jerry Falwell has of being elected pope by the next college of cardinals.
But neither view has yet won me over, and here's why. Either way, we're voting for some kind of evil. If the third-party advocates can accuse Bush supporters of voting for a bad idea, the Bush supporters can reply that the third-party candidates, by taking conservative votes away to the third party, are making it more likely for someone like Kerry to be elected. Wouldn't that make them partly responsible for what happened?
1 • Amanda • May 19, 2006 • 12:50 PM
I think voting for the lesser of two evils is the only way to go. The folks who didn't vote in 2004 might as well have cast their vote for Kerry. I don't particularly like Bush, but I'm so glad he's in office right now rather than Kerry.
2 • LHR • May 19, 2006 • 9:56 PM
Maybe. I think we should only vote for men who we feel are biblically-qualified to hold office. True, they often don't have much chance to win. (If everyone is voting for the lesser of two evils because they don't want the other guy to win, how can the best guy even get voted in?) But I feel that we should seek to do our duty as we see it and leave the results up to the Lord. I know I feel at least partly responsible for the actions of those who I vote into office. After all, I helped to put them there. This issue requires a lot of thought to be sure…these are just a few thoughts. ./chrisalexion_2008-10_wordpress_export_files/icon_smile.gif alt=:- class=wp-smiley Correct me if I'm wrong.
3 • Rutabaga • May 25, 2006 • 5:33 AM
I think this is a slam dunk: only vote for the qualified Christian candidate. Paraphrasing Stonwall Jackson, "the duty is ours, the consequences are God's." LHS alluded to this concept in his post. The question is, What is our duty? Does anyone argue *from Scripture* that our duty would ever include supporting "the lesser of two evils?" Isn't the lesser of two evils still evil? So a doofus like Kerry gets elected instead of a (insert your own object here) like Bush because we Christians held out for the godly candidate. It's up to God to handle the consequences. Say neither candidate for president is pro-life, as was the case in '04. Does the commandment prohibiting murder take a back seat to pragmatics? We aren't smart enough to know what God would do were we to hold out for a godly candidate, even if he had "no chance."
Why should we Christians be satisfied with table scraps? Which narrative in the Bible depicts pragmatics as ruling the day? In fact, I think the Scriptures say just the opposite: God's precepts should dictate our actions, regardless of "the odds."
