1. We cannot compromise just because there is no such thing as a perfect candidate.
Obviously, we are dealing with human government. Government is flawed, but it is also God-ordained! Rom. 13:1 - "The powers that be are ordained of God." We can't have any delusions about a perfect candidate because a perfect candidate does not exist. However, as mentioned before, there are "non-negotiables." Some issues cannot be bent. To bend is to give evil a foothold in issues that only God has the right to control (i.e. abortion). I do not believe that a "pro-death" candidate can be approved by a believer.
2. We are responsible for the candidates we elect.
Christians live for more than politics. We aught not let politics keep us awake at night or effect our walks with God! We can walk with God and serve Him in America or in Communist China. To a certain extent the political environment is irrelevant to righteous living. One thing that Christians should be concerned about is responsibility. That's why Christians should care about voting, because it is a responsibility we have been given.
Not only are we called to take care of our responsibilities, but we are responsible for the actions of people we put in office. Christians cannot distance themselves from politician's actions. God will hold those responsible who vote for a pro-death candidate.
3. God is sovereign over life.
God is not only sovereign over who the leaders will be (Rom. 13), but He is also sovereign over life. Job chapter 1 makes this pretty clear. Human beings have NO RIGHT to control life. If one candidate is going to kill 100 babies and the other is going to kill 1,000 (those are exaggerated small numbers) then neither of them can be approved by a conscientious believer. The temptation is to think "I should vote for the lesser of two evils because that saves 900 babies." That is not a consistent thought process. Let me illustrate...
Suppose there is a young couple who find out that they are going to have twins. Everything is going along fine, and they are excited about starting a family. One day there are some complications with the pregnancy and the husband rushes his wife to the hospital. After an agonizing wait the Dr. come out and addresses the husband. "I'm sorry" the Dr. says "There is no way that I can save your wife and the two babies."
The husband is crushed, but the Dr. continues, "However, I can save your wife and one of the babies if we terminate one of the fetuses."
All of the sudden the husband is faced with a choice. Does he choose to kill one person to save two others? At least only one person dies instead of three!
NOOOOO!!! Human beings do not have the right to make that call. We cannot decide who lives and who dies. God controls the death of sparrows (Matt. 10:29) and He certainly controls the death of people. In this case, the morally right thing to do is step out in faith and trust God for the life of all three people. Yes, the situation is impossible! Yes, it's a hard decision to make! Perhaps God will be gracious and save the mother and both the babies. Maybe all three of them will die. Whatever happens is in God's hands. From a human perspective this seems like a horrible gamble. The Husbands DUTY is to make a decision that leaves God in control of life.Back to politics. Blow that example up 1,000 or 1,000,000 times and consider it in terms of national policy. One candidate stands for policies that will kill millions of babies. The other stands for policies that will kill fewer babies. The fact is...there ARE candidates who are completely pro-life! Sure, humanly speaking, it is impossible for them to win. But since when were Christians commanded to stand for something or someone that appears more likely to win? Since when were we called to compromise Biblical principles on the alter of political expediency? It is our DUTY to leave God in control of life. That means there is no option to kill one baby to save two lives. Obama is completely pro-choice. Romney is "Pro-life with exceptions." The view that we're saving many babies by voting for the lesser of two evils is a view that fails to trust those infant lives to the sovereignty of God.
Please, consider what is right this election, and along with everything else you do tomorrow, glorify God with your vote!
By the way, I know that there is a lot of confusion about where Romney stands on abortion, so don't take my word for it. Here is an official campaign ad that makes it pretty clear.
Agree or disagree? Is anyone voting outside of the media dictated box this year?
Read part 1 - "The Lesser of Two Evils"
Your statement "Human beings do not have the right to make that call" is an absolute statement. When you use Matt. 10:29 to back up your argument, it sounds like you are saying that a human can (absolutely) never make a judgement call that results in death. Barring hypothetical scenarios where acting for one is equivalent to acting against the other, there is the matter of the death penalty, self-(and family) defense, and arguably war (Don't jump to conclusions about me, keep reading). Not having a right to decide one way or the other regarding another's life is not an absolute unless you apply it to all these situations as well. The better statement that you made is "The Husbands DUTY is to make a decision that leaves God in control of life." Here, you've narrowed the field of responsibility to a husband, not a human. I agree with this; there ought to be some verses to back it up with. However, note that this has implications that reach much further than abortion.
ReplyDelete