The 56th American presidential election is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008; and nearly everyone has an opinion about Barack Obama and John McCain, the apparent nominees for the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Quite a diverse field of third party contenders are lining up as well, hoping to snag a few votes and produce a couple of sound bites, but I doubt anyone considers them serious challengers to the two major parties.
A friend on mine suggests that choosing a presidential candidate in November may involve selecting “The Lesser of Two Evils,” but I’m not so sure I agree. Reading the responses to his article, I found myself drawn into the discussion and I posted a response that I thought might be worth posting here with a few modifications.
I don’t understand why many conservative evangelicals feel as if they must vote for a candidate (whether for President or a local sheriff) “who reflects godly values.†Do we take the same position when it comes to choosing a cardiac surgeon, a lawyer, a plumber, or a barber? No! Most people just want someone with experience and training to do the job!
There’s nothing in the United States Constitution that requires a president to give allegiance to God at all; and our obligations as Christians are to submit, to give respect, and to honor the elected officials who rule over us (1 Peter 2:13-17). Paul even says they are God’s servants, ordained by Him and granted the power to govern for our good (Romans 13:1-7).
Maybe it’s too difficult for Christians to assess a candidate’s ability to govern; therefore, the election becomes a “spiritual beauty pageant†where the person with the most “godly values†wins the vote of evangelical Christians. I don’t need someone sitting in the Oval Office who thinks exactly like I do on a laundry list of moral issues: I want someone who can lead the nation in what has to be the most complex and difficult environment on the planet.
Writing in your own candidate is a wasted vote, in my opinion, and simply a form of protest against our present party system that has chosen ballot contenders for our nation’s entire history. You might as well not vote. Or you could do your homework, choose the best candidate, and trust Paul’s words in Romans 13:1, “The authorities that exist have been established by God.†Then pray for that leader while serving his/her term, whether Republican, Democrat, or independent.
“Do we take the same position when it comes to choosing a cardiac surgeon, a lawyer, a plumber, or a barber? No! Most people just want someone with experience and training to do the job!
Actually, Bill … I used to know a lot of evangelicals who do just that. There’s a whole phone book in my area devoted to getting the contact information of “Godly” entrepreneurs into our hands so that our ivory walls can remain intact. It’s really sad … they’d rather go to a Godly doctor than a good doctor, even if it means terrible health care. That’s foolishness in my book.
OTOH … I think you’ve made an excellent point about voting here and how we go about selecting and then supporting our powers that be. Bravo …
Sonja: One of the comments left on Micah’s blog article concerned that very thing!! A brother named Dennis Jackson responded to my comment, saying:
And here’s my response!
LOL … Bill … The Shepherd’s Guide is exactly the book I was referring to. If I want to find a resource for hacks and half-bakes that’s what I go to. When I was new to the church I actually believed that I could find decent people in that thing. But no … it’s just the place where people think they can get paid twice as much for half the job, because they’re “Christian.”
Now, to be fair … there are times when I’ve hired a person to do a job and later discovered that they were/are a believer. That was simply icing on the cake so to speak. But I will never, ever hire someone for work based upon their faith … what crap. I know there’s something in the Bible that speaks against doing that … but I can’t think of it.
OTOH … I would consider the brethren in my actual church as a first place to go for a resource when looking for plumbers, contract work, etc. Especially if I were looking for referrals. I’d consider that, because I consider the church as an extended family of sorts … so just as you go to your family, you also go to your church for that sort of thing. But only for referrals … not to make the final decision. Does that make sense?
Bill,
A very interesting post, and perspective.
Prov. 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.
I would sure rather rejoice than mourn.
Much of my response is taken from a post on my blog several months ago after seeing a few left and right evangelicals go at it on a cable news show.
What role does faith play in leading? In voting? In our daily life? For everyone these answers will be different. I think it is clear that our values are defined largely by our religious background. What I think is not so clear (as evidenced by the wide body of work on the topic and no concensus) is how that manifests itself into politics.
I would like to change the dialogue a bit and venture a new approach. People who feel life begins at conception mostly believe that they should be opposed to legalized abortion. People who feel a yearning to see an end to poverty tend to believe in socialized welfare programs. The list goes on and on as most people want to see the law dictate the values they cherish. And that is ok. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and approaches and their strategies. No one is entitled to speak for God as to which political position is the right one. (The one exception to this would be in Catholocism, but one chooses to submit to Papal Authority by being a Catholic and in turn accepts that the Pope speaks on behalf of God so the political portions of the new seven deadly sins would apply to you.)
What is not ok is the infighting and the claims that those who disagree with your politics somehow have less faith. Politics is largely about strategy not values. Some believe that outlawing things they feel are immoral is a good strategy to stop them. Others feel that it is not. CS Lewis once said that it would be a bad thing to try to legislate divorce out of existence. It was not the role of the Church to change peoples morals it was to change their hearts. Given the esteem he is given within most churches this should be seen as at least an acceptable and defensible position.
Grace, one of the hallmarks of the Christian faith seems to be lost in the world of faith and politics. Maybe this should be examined. Disagreements will happen. How we handle these disagreements should be a reflection of our values.
to see post in its entirety see…
http://www.scottoverpeck.com/2008/03/politics-of-god.html
Aaron: That’s a great verse, but how do we interpret the phrases “the righteous” and “the wicked”? In comparison to modern-day tyrants like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or Fidel Castro in Cuba, or Saddam Hussein in Iraq, every U.S. president might easily fit into the category of “the righteous,” don’t you think?
Or does “righteous” means “God-fearing” or “born again” or “right-wing evangelical”? It seems to me that the writer of the Proverbs might be pointing to two extremes in order to make his point that rulers do have a tremendous effect on the happiness of their citizenry. As I think about the differences between Saul & David, it occurs to me that neither man ascended to office by popular vote. That’s true of the OT judges and even pagan kings like Cyrus who certainly would have made the Jews of his kingdom “rejoice” in his political decisions to let them return to their homeland, compared to the wicked Babylonian rulers who held them against their will.
In spite of Bill Clinton’s immorality, he would still be considered “righteous” compared to President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, under whose rule the people surely must mourn (except those on his payroll). What do you think?
Bill,
I see your point. However, I must say that when I vote for president, I am going to be voting for the one, who comes the closet to what I believe the Bible teaches that government is supposed to be and do.
His religious affiliation is not so much a concern of mine as what he believes about the role of government in our lives.
I happen to believe that government should have a very limited role in our lives, only fulfilling the responsibilities that Scripture outlines government is to do and no more.
If Obama comes closest to that, then I am going to vote for him. If McCain comes closest to that then I am going to vote for him. In my opinion, McCain comes closer to that than Obama, though he is for a bigger government than I am.
One thing we know for sure. When it is all over, the one that God has chosen to be in office will be there. He is the one who is ultimately in control.
I can think of no reason to put hope in any person. They will always let you down, Jesus never will. McCain/Obama/Clinton…..in the history of mankind, no one person who has been president of the US can possibly be worth more than a passing glance. What did any President do to offer permanent help and hope for US citizens? Or even temporary help. We all have the ability to turn away from the wishes of God at any time, no matter how strong our faith. The president does not run the country. It runs just the same without a president. Nothing has changed in mankind since we were created. A president is just a high profile job. Each person has more control over their future than any politician.
I can’t understand why more people can’t see it. McCain is the Frog Boiler!
What do I mean? There is an old allegory about how to boil a frog. It is said that if you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water it will immediately jump out.
But if you drop a frog in water that is slightly warm and turn up the heat gradually then the frog just sits there and lets itself be boiled alive, without attempting to jump out of the pot, without even knowing that it is indeed being boiled alive.
This allegory has been applied again, and again regarding the American people’s reaction to liberalism/socialism. And it is pretty clear who is who if you apply this allegory to this year’s election.
So let’s vote for the candidate who will make the frog jump out of the pot so we can have a true conservative in 2012. Otherwise we will all get gradually boiled alive.
After all it took Carter to get us Reagan.
There is a difference between choosing a dentist and choosing a civil or church leader: the former is not in a position to codify moral judgements. Both Moses and Paul taught the qualifications required before being placed in positions of moral leadership – but most Christians don’t even consider them.
Because of their lust for power, the two-faced re-publican party will take notice if they lose because Christians rebuked a wicked choice and rather supported a godly man facing crucifixion at the polls.
Whatever happened to absolute morality wherein something is always either wrong or right regardless of the situation or possible outcome?