The Democracy Dilemma (Part 2)

In my last post, I considered the following scenario – if two candidates were running for President of the United States, and both of them supported abortion, what would you do?

The dilemma here is that we can: 1) vote for the least offensive candidate (assuming he/she has a more “agreeable” stance on the topic, like only supporting instances where the life of the mother is threatened) and still be a party to the murder of innocent children, or 2) don’t vote for either candidate, and leave the election to others. My point in the previous post is that there is no call in the Bible for Christians to be politically active in all instances – Jesus seems to be rather ambivalent about politics altogether (Matthew 22:15-22). The failure to cast a vote for either candidate still leaves the issue in the capable hands of God alone. Do we trust that He has a bigger plan?

This very scenario confronts us in our gubernatorial race in Colorado this November. Democrat John Hickenlooper will face the Republican candidate, Dan Maes, in the election. I’ve seen Dan Maes speak at the Christian Family Conference in Denver this summer – he seemed like a standup guy, supportive of so many of the sides of issues that I favor, like homeschooling and smaller government.

Most importantly, Dan Maes is pro-life. While politics covers many issues, I am most insistent on two topics alone – 1) a firm stand against all forms of abortion and a commitment to overturn Roe v. Wade, and 2) a clear statement that the candidate will not support any legislation that legitimizes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Any candidate who doesn’t support these two points should not bother to seek my vote. They will never get my support, under any circumstances.

But the state gubernatorial race, like the Presidential race, does not contain just one name in each spot on the ballot – there are two. One is for governor and one is for lieutenant governor. And Dan Maes has chosen his lieutenant governor to be Tambor Williams – a clear, pro-choice candidate. Williams does not support the Colorado Personhood Amendment, she has urged former state governors to send funds to Planned Parenthood, and she has voted to oppose a ban on partial-birth abortions (for more on Williams, visit this Colorado Right-to-Life page).

Is Dan Maes committed to a pro-life stance? Consider his words, spoken recently to a pro-abortion outlet:

“People are overestimating the personhood amendment. It simply defines life as beginning at conception. That’s it. Who knows what the intent of it is? They are simply making a statement. That is all I see it as. Do they have another agenda? I don’t know... Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and people tend to forget that. I would not try to undo that.”

And then, shortly after making this statement, he claimed that he misspoke and “took it back”. I have to ask – how can you misspeak by so great a margin? Could it be that Dan Maes, like so many other politicians, is simply saying whatever he must in order to get elected? In a recent newspaper article, other “conservatives” make it clear that the end justifies the means, when they say that Republicans may have to make compromises if they want to win back the governor’s office.

As a Christian, I am not in a position to make compromises where God’s Word is concerned. And God’s word is clear on the topic of the sanctity of life – “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb…your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” (Psalm 139:13,16). If Dan Maes does not have the moral character, nor the tenacity to name a pro-life running mate, then he does not get my vote. It appears that Colorado Right-to-Life is withdrawing their earlier support of Maes. In their words, “the only justifiable abortion policy is zero tolerance for child killing.” I agree.

And this brings me back to my earlier point – I believe there are times when we are called upon to vote, and there are times when we are not. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. In November, when I reach the gubernatorial part of the ballot, I will leave it blank – and I will, instead, take a moment to pray – and trust that God is bigger than anything I can do with my elective right. Does God need my vote to make things happen? No. Prayer, and God's leading, will trump mere politics. Isn’t that the very definition of faith?

A time of prayer, instead of political involvement? Think about it – what would Jesus have done?

The Democracy Dilemma (Part 1)

The world of politics grows steadily more frustrating to me. Increasingly, it seems to be a circus, not a legitimate authority. With headlines ranging from Rod Blagojevich’s hung jury to the finger-pointing about the Ground-Zero mosque, I have to ask - is there a good politician left out there? Is there a politician that actually cares to govern for the right reasons, apart from the constant desire to posture and accuse in order to get re-elected? So, I recently pondered these questions: As a Christian, am I under obligation to support and vote for the least offensive candidate, in order to do my part to “turn the tide”? Do I have to be politically active with my vote in every circumstance?

Put another way, if we are told to choose between the lesser of two evils, should we choose at all?

My strong answer to this is “No”, and I’ll tell you why. The argument is often made that Christians cannot withdraw from their political duty – voting – unless they are willing to abandon our nation to the worst possible leaders. Common sense says that if Candidate “A” is more godly than Candidate “B”, then a vote for the lesser of two evils – for Candidate “A” – at least tempers the outcome in favor of Christian principles. Failing to vote at all removes one vote from the “good” candidate and swings one more vote in favor of the “bad” candidate. More often than not, this results in Christians simply voting straight Republican on the ticket, sometimes for candidates of which we have absolutely no knowledge. I know, because I’ve done this very thing in past elections.

But I believe there is a third alternative – leave it to God.

This choice may seem uninvolved and escapist. But I ask – does God really need my vote to see His will done? Obviously, he does not. Romans 13:1b says, “for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” This verse specifically refers to our political and governmental leaders – this chapter even tells us to pay our taxes. So, if I believe that God is ultimately in charge, then I also believe that He is in control of the elections and leaders in our nation. One could make the argument, “Doesn’t God then use my vote for the lesser of two evils to do His will?” Perhaps, but can’t a similar argument be made that God is in control, even if I choose to abstain from voting for a candidate? The verse tells us that it is God who puts authorities in place – not my vote.

I believe that we need to trust in God – not in democracy. Does that seem un-American? Perhaps it does. But is such a view un-Christian? I don’t think so. Do we have faith in democracy and God...or in God alone? And think on this – isn’t a vote for the lesser of two evils still a vote for evil?

Here is a true dilemma – if two candidates were running for President of the United States, and both of them supported abortion, what would you do? See my answer in the next installment – using a real-life, current example in our upcoming Colorado election.

********************
To Part 2 of The Democracy Dilemma

Our Next Four Years

Today, our nation did something that was once unthinkable. We elected an avowed socialist to the highest government office in our land, a man who admits that killing babies is acceptable, even those who continue to live and breathe outside the womb. He was elected on a thin platform of extending government control to an ever-widening circle of our lives – health care, career, and education. He will be no friend to those of us who treasure schooling our children in our own home. And, he is clearly committed to no god but the false ones that our world has put forth as a lure for men who seek power. There appears to be no true faith in this man, except a faith in his own power and ability.

It seems incredible to me that the majority of people in our land could cast their precious votes for such an individual. When it was clearly demonstrated that he had no significant record of leadership or executive skills, it was ignored. When it was obvious that his speeches were mere platitudes designed to avoid answering any question with specifics, people looked the other way. He broke a promise to campaign with limited public money, as every other candidate has done since the option was created in the 1960’s, and instead chose the path that would allow him to “buy” the election with nearly unlimited funds. And, I must reiterate, unborn babies will continue to die unabated with him in the Oval Office.

Is this a wake-up call for those of us who treasure the words of our founding fathers? It took four years of a weak, near-socialist Jimmy Carter in the late 1970’s to motivate us toward a fresh start and a return to traditional values with Ronald Reagan. Could we be preparing the way for another?

On a positive note, it is during times of oppression and persecution that Christians rise up and proclaim God’s truths most adamantly. We will surely have many opportunities to do so in the next four years. As our individual rights are modified or even taken away, Christians should prepare for battle. We need to harden our resolve against government tyranny (yes, I said tyranny – look up the definition), and insist on God’s direction to be the impetus for our land’s laws once again. More babies will die because of this election, and we need to be on our knees in prayer for the presumptive mothers who still have the choice to keep their children.

We should teach our children what is wrong with this world and what needs to change to make it right, and thus begin to raise up the next generation of leaders and voters. We need to return to the direction of our founding fathers when they said, “God has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” (John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)

These next four years should serve to sharpen each and every Christian for the battle that lies ahead. History demonstrates that it is during times of persecution that great movements are defined. This may be why God allows leaders to be elected who seem to possess no godly intent of their own. We are in the middle of battle - not a physical one, but one of spiritual proportions. Our nation has strayed from its godly roots to one of selfish and material worship. We need to change this – both in ourselves and in the next generation. Whenever people talk about their parents or grandparents who survived the Great Depression in the 1930’s, we hear about how those affected remain frugal even to this day – all as a result of the lean times that they endured during that decade. We are now in troubled times from a spiritual point of view. My generation, and the next generation that we are raising, need to remember these coming days. They will define the next moral turn that our nation will make – either to one of more government-led depravity and permissiveness, or to one where we realize our failings and turn back to the God of the universe for our leading. Regardless of who we elected as president today, the Lord God is still our ultimate authority. I will seek to obey Him first, and use His commands as the compass for my every move. In doing this, I hope to influence my family, and my nation to follow His principles.

Our renewed battle starts today.