Election Thinkings (Part 2) - God Decides

Well, the election is tomorrow and I have yet to publish the second part of my "Election Thinkings." So...here it is! I don't intend to build a huge logical case, but I do have a few points that will be mentioned without much consideration for order. Last time I presented an issue. ONLY ONE! There are many issues, but I think that the issue of abortion can be used as a litmus test for the validity, and godliness of our voting standards.



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"

Election Thinkings (Part 1) "The Lesser of Two Evils"

A couple of days ago the vice-presidential candidates for the two major parties debated.  The debate was full of dodged questions, political rhetoric, empty promises, and bad politics.  Many people enjoyed watching it as a duel between good and evil.  Democrats and Republicans each rooted for their candidate and booed the opposition.  Their man could do no wrong and his opponent could only produce gaffes and laughable moments.  Oh yeah, and the moderator was biased.  Only politics can make us complain more than Cornhusker fans when Nebraska was still in the Big 12.  We all feel so good about ourselves while we whine.

Good versus evil?  Was it?  Granted, right now most conservatives see this coming election as a matter of “Better vs. Bad” or “the slow train heading toward a cliff vs. the fast train heading toward a cliff.”  I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the phrase “lesser of two evils,” but it’s almost daily!  Is the lesser of two evils good enough?  

If a person really believes anything then he has to understand something called a “non-negotiable.”  I think a lot of people are willing to bend a little on certain things.  Some things are important and some aren't.  Maybe they are right to bend and maybe they are wrong, but a simple fact stands, true conviction, the non-negotiable, CANNOT be bent!  Part of Webster’s definition of conviction is “the state of being convinced or convicted by conscience.”  So, it is possible for a human being to perform an act that is contrary to their conviction, but is so doing they are sinning against their own consciences.  If Christians have their consciences aligned with God’s standard, then acting against conviction is sin against God!

Conviction applies to voting in two ways.  What do the candidates actually hold as conviction, and what does a voter hold as conviction?  If a voter truly holds a conviction, is it possible to vote for someone who does not hold that conviction?  Have you compromised your own conviction (or proved you never truly believed it) if there is a conflict?  I believe that Christians can choose ONE ITEM that they actually believe with “I’d rather go to the fiery furnace” passion and use that as a yardstick by which to measure a candidate.  True conviction does not bend!

So, what issue should we choose?  Which one will lend some clarity to the situation?  Last week's debate dropped that issue in our laps.  The moderator asked a question. “This debate is, indeed, historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.”  Everyone sitting near me at this point let out a collective “oooohhh!”  This was a good question!  This is a question that begs an answer that is held with conviction!  What does the candidate actually believe?

Biden’s answer shouldn’t surprise anyone.  He can somehow reconcile his “pro-life” personal faith with a “pro-choice” political platform by letting other people make up their own minds.  In other words “I wouldn’t kill my own kids, but everyone else should be able to kill theirs if they want to.”  

Paul Ryan’s answer made me groan.  Honestly, I think Biden is more consistent.  Ryan began with a compelling argument for life beginning at conception and then proceeded to say, “All I’m saying is, if you believe that life begins at conception, that, therefore, doesn’t change the definition of life. That’s a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.” AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!  I wanted to scream!  Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE!  It is really that simple!  You cannot make ANY exception and actually believe something.  It is a classic case of political expediency.  Romney had abortion issues in the past, but attempts to appear pro-life now, while Ryan holds a high personal view, but is willing to bend it a little so he can be vice president.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is not conviction!  Both parties are weak, ungodly options.

So, here’s where we get back around to “the lesser of two evils.”  That phrase is pretty accurate.  Only maybe we should take out the “lesser of” portion of the phrase.  If we only pull one issue out of the pot – abortion - both options are EVIL.  It’s doubtful that either party would actually do something about abortion if they were able.  Everyone is to busy with wars and dollars and storms and parties to get around to abortion.  But Romney/Ryan’s empty campaign promises are informing us that part of their plan is to keep killing babies.  We have no right to be surprised if they get into office and they kill babies.  That’s what they said they would do!

To be continued…

What do you think about our options this election cycle?
Do those "minor exceptions" push the Romney/Ryan ticket past the non-negotiable line?

Read part 2 - "God Decides"

Have a Dose of Calvin

“it is perverse to measure divine by the standard of human justice”

“But if it is so, (you will say,) little faith can be put in the Gospel promises, which, in testifying concerning the will of God, declare that he wills what is contrary to his inviolable decree. Not at all; for however universal the promises of salvation may be, there is no discrepancy between them and the predestination of the reprobate, provided we attend to their effect. We know that the promises are effectual only when we receive them in faith, but, on the contrary, when faith is made void, the promise is of no effect. If this is the nature of the promises, let us now see whether there be any inconsistency between the two things, viz., that God, by an eternal decree, fixed the number of those whom he is pleased to embrace in love, and on whom he is pleased to display his wrath, and that he offers salvation indiscriminately to all. I hold that they are perfectly consistent, for all that is meant by the promise is, just that his mercy is offered to all who desire and implore it, and this none do, save those whom he has enlightened. Moreover, he enlightens those whom he has predestinated to salvation. Thus the truth of the promises remains firm and unshaken, so that it cannot be said there is any disagreement between the eternal election of God and the testimony of his grace which he offers to believers. But why does he mention all men? Namely that the consciences of the righteous may rest the more secure when they understand that there is no difference between sinners, provided they have faith, and that the ungodly may not be able to allege that they have not an asylum to which they may retake themselves from the bondage of sin, while they ungratefully reject the offer which is made to them. Therefore, since by the Gospel the mercy of God is offered to both, it is faith, in other words, the illumination of God, which distinguishes between the righteous and the wicked, the former feeling the efficacy of the Gospel, the latter obtaining no benefit from it. Illumination itself has eternal election for its rule.
– John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion – Book 3 Chapter 24 Section 17)