Anybody But Obama
This has to be the unified message and vote after all the dust settles and the Republican party has a nominee. Paul fans, Santorum fans, Cain fans, Christie fans, Newt fans, Romney fans, any and every other person in America who is not a totalitarian statist. Many who hate what Obama and crew stand for, if they remain true to their vows up to this point, to not vote for the Republican nominee if he's not their guy, these people's actions will please the Obama camp much, because they will be doing just what Obama's party wants them to, and that is to bring home the win for Obama in November 2012.
Think of the sweet (for them) irony that will go down in history; that being: Libertarians, Independents, Republicans, unaffiliated, sane Democrats, Constitution Party types, and so on, will have put their great enemy into office for the final destruction of freedom in America, "ahh, what fools" they'll say "back in 2012 when they handed us the final victory..." We all must vote strategically this time! I'll address the moral concerns in the case of "voting for the lesser of two evils" in a moment, but first:
Vote Strategically: Fact: the only opponent to Obama with any chance to win is the Republican nominee, whoever it is, no matter what your "hope" is. Accept it. We are not at a place in history where a third party candidate can yet win. Nor are we in a place in history where the Republican nominee can win (against all the left's entrenched and institutionalized voter fraud) with a large split
within the anti-statist camp (that being all people center-right and further right; we so called "conservatives" as opposed to everything to the left). If the big so called "Republican" doesn't win this time: we all lose; and that event (the reelection of Obama) will have the most profound negatives for America since the election of Abraham Lincoln.
We can all fight each other in the primaries, but when it comes to the general election next November, to not vote for the big "R", will be an act of sabotage if not outright treason. To abstain or to vote for anyone but the "Republican" candidate is a vote for totalitarianism to come in and be imposed on us and our children and grandchildren. It may even lead to war here among us, and if that is what you really want, well then, you are just as much a "useful idiot" as the "Occupy Wall Street" bunch and the environmentalist "nut jobs" are for the left.
But you say "there is no "real" difference between the Democrat and Republican parties, so what does it matter? Therefore, my conscience is clear!" Your conscience may be clear, but your guilt will remain. You will have allowed yourself to have been used, as a tool in the enemy's hand for your own and your posterity's enslavement to the state. And if you didn't realize that before, now you have been told that is what is going on, believe it or not.
Real conservatives have significant problems with the Republican party elites (whoever they are) who are pushing for a so called "moderate" nominee; but it's the only game in town (at this point in history), short of war; and I mean the real thing, bloody violence, famine, poverty, pestilence and unspeakable hardship and profound fear, these together will kill far more than the violence will.
Our options are to A: pursue the right kind of change that is in fact within our reach, not some currently impossible ideal or B: literally a war or C: to just acquiescence to real and thus far growing tyranny. If we all vote strategically, we can have a (not Obama, not communist) president and a refreshed congress by winning with overwhelming numbers, option "A" if you will, but it is not probable with the threatened number of thrown away votes and abstainers it seems are out there.
By indignantly throwing our votes away, we will also be throwing away what is likely our last peaceful chance to begin to restore the Constitution's use before we are genuinely at the stage of last resort of either surrendering to tyranny or fighting a legitimate defensive war against the Statist tyranny that is personified by Obama, and the progressives and their host of "useful idiots;"
When you vote off the "party" ticket or not at all this time, you condemn our posterity to Statist slavery or the hellish burdens and privations of war within our own borders so we can self-righteously say that "I didn't vote for the RINO!" Really!? If it is at all possible to roll back the left with the political process we must oust Obama in 2012, despite our disgust with the compromised Republican candidate whoever he will be.
Again, this election is very likely the last peaceful off-ramp we have before we either must fight for America's freedoms again or give up and go socialist. Real conservatives within the "party" apparatus need to decapitate the liberal "Republican" party kingmakers, and install conservative leadership within the party machinery; but can we do both: win the white house and reform the party in
the next few months? I doubt it.
If Obama is reelected (unless the Legislative branch simultaneously gains the strength to; and then does, stop the leftists in all three branches and reign in and eliminate the regulatory agencies, the Tzars and police the courts, removing the little self appointed legislators and reform our government with a veto proof super majority in the Senate) we will lose our free speech within hours of
Obama's reelection and our "legal" rights to arms by Summer 2013, and by that point it will have already become a tyranny. Then what will you "I'll never vote for a RINO again," patriotic people do? Fight or go with the flow? Of course there are 50 Governors of 50 States who can influence the situation in unforeseen ways as well as the economic catastrophe that seems imminent, as well as simultaneous foreign threats that can all alter my little scenario here, but considering those variables and possible alternate futures is not the whole purpose here at hand.
We will either go along with tyranny or there will be war, unless we also have a motivated national legislature with super majorities standing in the gap until next election. If there is any hope of America continuing to be at least as free as she is now, much less any hopes to restore America to being the free country she once was; we need your justifiably disgusted vote this time. I know it's trite, but it is really true this time: "this is the most important election in your lifetime" please recognize this.
Is it too late? Are we really at that point where the death of millions is where we must go to be free once again? I think we have at least one more chance for a relatively peaceful correction and reformation. And that opportunity has an expiration date: Nov 2012. By voting for ABO, (anybody but Obama) on the republican ticket, not a splintered opposition vote, we have a chance to amend without greater crisis than necessary and probably without great loss of life.
The lefts aim is total and comprehensive power, and they have always sought it by hook or crook, statism is their religion and the State is their god. Ironically, that fact is unbeknownst to most of them; that is why, in case you have ever pondered "why do they want what they want? Why do they do what they do? "Why" is a theological question, "how" is a scientific one. Why do they not learn from history?" Especially in their case, contrary to all historical outcomes, logic and science; the left has always insisted that religion,
government and economics be done their way, and it has always failed and degenerated into tyranny and poverty. Yet they try in every generation. Why? Statism is a very persistent false religion.
All this is why a vote for a third party, a "write in" or abstaining from the vote all together is in actuality to vote for and an assist in bringing in this tyranny and/or war all the sooner, rejecting and refusing the chance that we do in fact have more time to win the arguments and elections for reforms to be tried in the right direction (even if the alternative candidate is not your perfect ideal candidate). One may be technically/logically correct that you "don't vote against anyone, but rather for someone," but the result is the same and serves one side or the other, there is no neutral option, the "you can't blame me, I am not responsible for any of this" option does not exist. If you are old enough to vote, you will either A: have helped get Obama get reelected or B: you will have helped oust him or C: did all you could and yet we lost somehow, but you know you tried.
We did not get to this place in history quickly; why does anyone think we can get out of this place quickly? We seem to have well intended, freedom loving people who apparently think that we can get it all fixed in one or two election cycles if only their guy got elected, or that we must "teach the liberal republican establishment a lesson" by letting them lose again. It's too late for such lessons, it is however, is time for reformation! But you can't fix or reform the party or the culture from your place in the coming war, or from the grave, nor while you struggle in the new Mega-Depression, or from your relocation and re-education camp. It's like America has multiple broken bones, compound fractures and wounds; and some people expect a resumption of normal activity without providing for doctors or treatments to set the bones and time for them heal before trying to go on like we should (as founded). That is not
rational, nor is it possible.
Part II: Now on to the morals of voting for the "lesser of two evils." Many a Christian voter feels conflicted at least, and ranging to being absolutely against voting for men who do not meet the standards of Exodus chapter 18, Titus chapter 1 and others. Many a preacher has told their people that to vote for a non Christian candidate is a sin, but is it? I don't think so in many cases.
Since the form of government that has come to be known as "representative republican government" is not found in human history until after and or at least late in the Protestant Reformation period, and the Canon of Scripture being closed since the deaths of the Apostles, approximately 1500 years prior to the Reformation, there are no direct commands in Scripture about Christian voting in
such circumstances as ours, but we do however, find principles to be applied, and those Biblical principles are far more wide ranging and consider much more than just the candidate's own personal qualifications.
What about the Biblical doctrine of God's Providence? He has not presented us a real "Christian" option this time. And what I mean by "option" means a genuine Christian candidate who could actually win in the system and the circumstances that we now have in this election. We are to deal with the reality of our circumstances, (as America's founders did), God has put us here and now and expects us to rightly apply the whole counsel of God to all areas of life; not so we can be so religious, that we may actually impede His Kingdom's mission ("making disciples"), nor needlessly harm ourselves and others, and I don't mean the harm of being persecuted for the name of Christ, but rather unwise, unnecessary, self inflicted wounds as it were, from tempting God by Christian abdication of cultural duties to influence and in fact eventually become the dominate moral force in the culture. Christ Kingdom will eventually
win in history, but it appears that there is still a long way yet to go. People, we must begin from where we are (here and now), not from where we would like to be.
We find many examples in the Bible of God's prophets and other servants of His, serving faithfully in pagan, yet legitimate governments. Joseph, Ester and Mordecai, Daniel, and Nehemiah and in the New Testament as well, we find certain
Roman soldiers and politicians who are Christians for example. Then we have Jesus and Paul expressly establishing the validity and legitimacy of the State, taxation and due custom and honor for officials (even the evil Roman Empire was legitimate as far as it did good according to the Scriptures, and this is the context for Romans chapter 13) as a minister of God for the good of the people
(and in many ways Rome did good).
How could these saints have served and functioned in their various places of service without doing all of the other civic duties their office no doubt had (excepting incidents such as Daniels righteous, but illegal prayers for a time), but what about the rest of Daniel's, or Ester's or Mordecai's, or Joseph's or the Christians of Caesar's' household, what about their lives in the government day to day; part of which no doubt was participating in placing other leaders over the nation's people from time to time? Did these abstain because they would be, as it were, "voting for" a pagan? No, rather they did their mundane every day job well, dealing with pagans and brethren in all situations when and where God put them. There were as well, other men and women in Biblical history who served God under such circumstances. What about us? How are we doing if we dodge the sometimes unpleasant responsibilities that we have to be an influence for good in the world by abdicating when it suits us? There is no neutrality, we either push in the right direction or the wrong one.
In each era we can see God's legitimate order of Family, Church and State authority, these are established by God and all are obliged to govern their areas of responsibility in accordance with the moral law of God, the Ten Commandments and others, recognizing Christ as the ultimate King (whether they do so; partly do so, or don't at all is another question).
Something to note in particular for the Christian: Old Testament Israel was unique in world history in that it was simultaneously the Church (visible and invisible) and a Nation State. The nation was uniquely combined with also being the living God's visible church in the world. This nation and its prophets, priests and kings were men who were the shadow form and were typical of the coming genuine article, the Antitype, the Messiah and true Prophet, Priest and King, and fulfiller of all the promises and Laws of God, Jesus Christ our King and head of the visible and invisible church today. As well, He is King of all nations right now in one sense, but eventually every nation will bow the knee to Christ the King in every sense. Israel, the nation state, was not the "typical" ideal political nation state to be literally copied by all subsequent nations, but rather that Christ and His Church is the "antitype" to typological Old
Testament Israel, not the ethnic, geographic, national Israel. Christians largely [and I think correctly] understood that Israel was the Church under age in the Old Testament and that the New Testament Church is the Church come of age, the type and what was typified was well understood among Christians until the early to mid 1800s in England and America.
As the "type" of the Church, the spiritual requirements for membership and leadership from the Old Testament still hold and are reinforced by the New Testament requirements for holding office in the church [just as circumcision gave way to baptism, being the mark of the covenant people, and the Lord's Supper replaced Passover and the rest of the ceremonial law, with the moral law and it's general equity also remaining, and if it did not remain, we could not tell right from wrong]. But now, the Kingdom is multinational and transcends the concept of the nation state. Though it is good when we have Christian rulers and governance, we are not sinning by dealing wisely within our political and national situations, as God sovereignly and providentially issues them to us. Christians are told in the New Testament to do your best to live in peace within your various situations. The operation of the nation state is not the
center of gravity or point for the Old Testament typology, but rather Christ and His Kingdom (primarily the Church) is; and it is currently within and among all these presently existing various national situations.
How do we excuse ourselves sitting out any election on spiritual grounds? In each case, there is one candidate better than the other (even if neither is a Christian) that we as Christians can and should exert our influence upon (like Daniel and Ester and others) and if one candidate is a Mormon and the other a Marxist pretender; we should consider the whole situation, not just a narrow set of Biblical leadership criteria for Church leadership; how about the rest of the Biblical example and instruction? We must bring it to bear.
All of these seemingly unrelated to our election 2012 topics is by way of seeing and applying the wider Biblical principles that come to bear on Christian voting in a representative republic today without an ideal candidate. So bear with me a bit longer: For example, under the commandment to not "kill" or " murder," much more is implied, such as actively seek to preserve life. Most people don't have a problem with most laws that genuinely and authentically seek to preserve life and outlaw certain forms negligence (and as far as I can tell, neither do the Scriptures) so we don't hear much grumbling about such statutes. There is a little more consternation with the command to not "bear false witness against your neighbor." Does it mean "at all times under all circumstances to tell the truth to anyone who asks for any reason?" Some Christians read it that way, but they shouldn't.
Many a preacher has condemned the midwives of the Hebrews in Egypt for lying to Pharaoh, saving many Hebrew babies in the process; and Rahab for lying to the authorities of Jericho, saving the spies; as well as Abraham and Isaac for lying about their wives being only their sisters, saving themselves from being murdered, and David for feigning madness in the presence of his enemies,
eventuating his deliverance; there are no doubt other examples. But in each of these cases Scripture never in any way depreciates these people for these acts (lies), but they are rather praised in the Scriptures for having great and God pleasing faith in doing these very deeds and others! (James 2:25, Hebrews chapter 11) How can we condemn when God rewards? By way of error I answer.
The moralist hates the grey areas of life, many times our choices are in fact limited between sins of various degree. Take Rahab: she could lie and save the lives of God's men or she could have told the truth to the officials and been party to, and been an accessory in their deaths. What would you choose? For the moralist, it is important that he stand by his own righteousness, and a dilemma such as Rahab's makes some sort of sin inescapable. Real life is sometimes like that. The point is this: for the godly man stands not in his own
righteousness but rather by the righteousness of Christ, his own purity is not the essence of the matter many times, but rather that God's purposes be accomplished.
In Rahab's case God (and Rahab) wanted these spies to live, but the situation was not about Rahab, that she would later be able to self-righteously say that she never told a lie. The situation was not about her, it was bigger. The moralist will complain that she was bound to not lie and that God would have delivered the spies another way. Wrong, her lie was God's very means of the spy's deliverance. It is a myth that the "moral choice" is always simple and clear, it's not always. It is a myth that it is always a choice between absolute right and absolute wrong, it's not always. It is a myth that the central issue at stake is the involved individual's moral purity rather than some other transcendent or larger more important factor, (such as deposing, by peaceful means if possible, our would be [in the second term] tyrant in the White House) and it is also a myth that "poetic justice" is always operative, and that "virtue" is always rescued and rewarded and that "truth" is always triumphant in every situation (look to the record of Christian martyrs over the centuries for a dose of how things really work). Such mythical moralizing is not Biblical morality but humanistic pietism or perfectionism and self-righteousness and Victorian Romanticism, it is not the way things really work every time in God's providence in His created order.
Gal 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. NKJV" With meritorious "good" works in view, no Christian, nor pagan could be good enough in any respect anyway. All of a Christian's righteousness that is meritorious with God is no other than Christ's. Yes, by all means seek to do right (according to the Bible) always, but once you are put in a position like Rahab's, first be wise enough to recognize it, then you should lie to protect life if it comes to that, and particularly Christian life and culture as well as God's published (Scriptural) purposes. Just like the minority of Germans and others who sheltered the Jews during the Holocaust; at times at the cost of their own lives, they too told a bunch of lies to a brood of lying, murdering vipers and in so doing, in my opinion, they did "good works," at least as "good" as it gets on this side of
the grave (excepting faith in Christ).
How about military intelligence work, covert and undercover operations? Is any of it legitimate? Are all of these people inferior Christians if they are Christian at all because their duty to protect the Constitution and Americans citizens may involve sneaking, spying and lying to liars in order to obtain the best possible outcome for our side (the country that still protects Christians
from violent persecution)? Can their vocations (many times requiring lies and deceptions) be justifiable? I think so.
The commandment is very clear: we are not to "bear false witness against our neighbor." Does this mean that an enemy or criminal has the right to any information he may ask of us, especially to do us or others harm? No way. No enemy or criminal has any right to the truth from us to do harm. Scripture does not condemn Abraham and Isaac for lying to avoid murder, on the contrary, they
are blessed and praised by God, even with these sins to their account. In fact, to tell the truth to evil men, even under duress, that helps them accomplish their wicked intent; is in fact a sin on your part and you share in their guilt; see Psalm 50:18.
So in the 2012 election, applying broader Biblical principles from all of Scripture to the question "is it moral to vote for the so called 'lesser of two evils?'" I maintain that we can vote both morally and strategically by voting for the big "R" ABO and very possibly succeed and begin to turn the so called "ship of State" (more like an oil super tanker; you don't turn them on a dime), and not be found in sin in this (at least a sin no greater than Rahab's in saving God's men by a timely and strategic lie). You will have sought to save life, voting for ABO will provide us more time for the less bloody options to maybe, eventually win the day (I think we must try anyway). Of our current choices, ABO is the morally superior choice, even if he's not the ideal. Even evil Rome was legitimate and served God as far as they generally kept law and order and for a time protected the Apostle Paul.
In that context, I want you to notice that it is currently still legal for the Christian or the non Christian conservative to vote in this country; why not do what you can (voting) to vie for more time for a more bloodless correction if it is even possible at this point? If it comes to the worst, at least you did all you could have to preserve the peace (you didn't sell out your principles, you did what you could for your children and grandchildren and your neighbors). You will know that you at least tried everything before bloodshed. Like Rahab's deception operation perpetrated on an enemy, is a vote for the big Republican ABO. Her lie was God's means to God's ends. So it's ok if you really don't like the final candidate and know there are others who are better, but who were not nominated by the "Republican party," a vote for them (the non-"Republican" nominee) this time should be off the table, all things considered.
How many of you are in business with, are paid by, or buy or sell things to or from non-Christians? Who has a job that makes you work on the Lord's Day? Do you every go out for dinner on the Lord's Day and cause others to work? Do you use electricity on Sunday, causing someone to have to work? What Christian bank is your money and retirement in? Not to mention all the tax money you pay (because if you don't you go to jail and your family will be left destitute) that our government does evil with? (but that situation only exists because of the last 150 years of Christian abdication in these cultural spheres because of the loss of Biblical orthodoxy).
To participate in our culture, by voting against the worst candidate, by voting for his real [and I mean the one who could really win] opponent is no more of a sin than the rest of these things in this paragraph that we all commit. How many of us pray "give us our daily bread" and then go back to bed and wait for God's room service to bring us food? No, we go to work and ask God to bless our efforts to make a living. It's the same thing with voting. You want positive change? Start where you are now, reach for whatever tool, (that is in God's providence), is at hand here and now. In this case it will be whoever the big, corrupt, too-liberal Republican Party will make the nominee. You want out of the pit you are in? First, stop digging (and I think voting for anyone but the ABO is to keep right on digging).
To throw your vote away because you think the Bible supports you in it, well, I think you are wrong about that and I hope to have convinced you. If you throw your vote away because of a sense of personal standards or righteousness or to avoid the sin to your account (at the cost of other's lives and property, maybe even your own and the loss of what freedom we do have left) is to be a
self-righteous moralist and to become an accessory to the crimes that will accelerate at exponential rates in bringing in the completion of Obama's conversion of the country into a statist tyranny (should war fail) and your posterity, that is if they don't die in the famine, pestilence or war, they will no doubt curse you for your self-righteousness from their place in that slavery that you sold (or abstained) them into.
By throwing your vote away, you will also be voting with the enemy (just the way he wants you to vote, any vote but the Republican nominee will do nicely). Your non-vote would be an act of sabotage and betrayal of those who are still engaged in the fight for freedom in our country. Join us in the fight, don't sit it out, don't play into the enemy's hands; vote the republican ABO before your choices really do begin to literally resemble that of Rahab's.
(Attribution for the discussion on Biblical morality: R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law p. 542-549, 1973)
This has to be the unified message and vote after all the dust settles and the Republican party has a nominee. Paul fans, Santorum fans, Cain fans, Christie fans, Newt fans, Romney fans, any and every other person in America who is not a totalitarian statist. Many who hate what Obama and crew stand for, if they remain true to their vows up to this point, to not vote for the Republican nominee if he's not their guy, these people's actions will please the Obama camp much, because they will be doing just what Obama's party wants them to, and that is to bring home the win for Obama in November 2012.
Think of the sweet (for them) irony that will go down in history; that being: Libertarians, Independents, Republicans, unaffiliated, sane Democrats, Constitution Party types, and so on, will have put their great enemy into office for the final destruction of freedom in America, "ahh, what fools" they'll say "back in 2012 when they handed us the final victory..." We all must vote strategically this time! I'll address the moral concerns in the case of "voting for the lesser of two evils" in a moment, but first:
Vote Strategically: Fact: the only opponent to Obama with any chance to win is the Republican nominee, whoever it is, no matter what your "hope" is. Accept it. We are not at a place in history where a third party candidate can yet win. Nor are we in a place in history where the Republican nominee can win (against all the left's entrenched and institutionalized voter fraud) with a large split
within the anti-statist camp (that being all people center-right and further right; we so called "conservatives" as opposed to everything to the left). If the big so called "Republican" doesn't win this time: we all lose; and that event (the reelection of Obama) will have the most profound negatives for America since the election of Abraham Lincoln.
We can all fight each other in the primaries, but when it comes to the general election next November, to not vote for the big "R", will be an act of sabotage if not outright treason. To abstain or to vote for anyone but the "Republican" candidate is a vote for totalitarianism to come in and be imposed on us and our children and grandchildren. It may even lead to war here among us, and if that is what you really want, well then, you are just as much a "useful idiot" as the "Occupy Wall Street" bunch and the environmentalist "nut jobs" are for the left.
But you say "there is no "real" difference between the Democrat and Republican parties, so what does it matter? Therefore, my conscience is clear!" Your conscience may be clear, but your guilt will remain. You will have allowed yourself to have been used, as a tool in the enemy's hand for your own and your posterity's enslavement to the state. And if you didn't realize that before, now you have been told that is what is going on, believe it or not.
Real conservatives have significant problems with the Republican party elites (whoever they are) who are pushing for a so called "moderate" nominee; but it's the only game in town (at this point in history), short of war; and I mean the real thing, bloody violence, famine, poverty, pestilence and unspeakable hardship and profound fear, these together will kill far more than the violence will.
Our options are to A: pursue the right kind of change that is in fact within our reach, not some currently impossible ideal or B: literally a war or C: to just acquiescence to real and thus far growing tyranny. If we all vote strategically, we can have a (not Obama, not communist) president and a refreshed congress by winning with overwhelming numbers, option "A" if you will, but it is not probable with the threatened number of thrown away votes and abstainers it seems are out there.
By indignantly throwing our votes away, we will also be throwing away what is likely our last peaceful chance to begin to restore the Constitution's use before we are genuinely at the stage of last resort of either surrendering to tyranny or fighting a legitimate defensive war against the Statist tyranny that is personified by Obama, and the progressives and their host of "useful idiots;"
When you vote off the "party" ticket or not at all this time, you condemn our posterity to Statist slavery or the hellish burdens and privations of war within our own borders so we can self-righteously say that "I didn't vote for the RINO!" Really!? If it is at all possible to roll back the left with the political process we must oust Obama in 2012, despite our disgust with the compromised Republican candidate whoever he will be.
Again, this election is very likely the last peaceful off-ramp we have before we either must fight for America's freedoms again or give up and go socialist. Real conservatives within the "party" apparatus need to decapitate the liberal "Republican" party kingmakers, and install conservative leadership within the party machinery; but can we do both: win the white house and reform the party in
the next few months? I doubt it.
If Obama is reelected (unless the Legislative branch simultaneously gains the strength to; and then does, stop the leftists in all three branches and reign in and eliminate the regulatory agencies, the Tzars and police the courts, removing the little self appointed legislators and reform our government with a veto proof super majority in the Senate) we will lose our free speech within hours of
Obama's reelection and our "legal" rights to arms by Summer 2013, and by that point it will have already become a tyranny. Then what will you "I'll never vote for a RINO again," patriotic people do? Fight or go with the flow? Of course there are 50 Governors of 50 States who can influence the situation in unforeseen ways as well as the economic catastrophe that seems imminent, as well as simultaneous foreign threats that can all alter my little scenario here, but considering those variables and possible alternate futures is not the whole purpose here at hand.
We will either go along with tyranny or there will be war, unless we also have a motivated national legislature with super majorities standing in the gap until next election. If there is any hope of America continuing to be at least as free as she is now, much less any hopes to restore America to being the free country she once was; we need your justifiably disgusted vote this time. I know it's trite, but it is really true this time: "this is the most important election in your lifetime" please recognize this.
Is it too late? Are we really at that point where the death of millions is where we must go to be free once again? I think we have at least one more chance for a relatively peaceful correction and reformation. And that opportunity has an expiration date: Nov 2012. By voting for ABO, (anybody but Obama) on the republican ticket, not a splintered opposition vote, we have a chance to amend without greater crisis than necessary and probably without great loss of life.
The lefts aim is total and comprehensive power, and they have always sought it by hook or crook, statism is their religion and the State is their god. Ironically, that fact is unbeknownst to most of them; that is why, in case you have ever pondered "why do they want what they want? Why do they do what they do? "Why" is a theological question, "how" is a scientific one. Why do they not learn from history?" Especially in their case, contrary to all historical outcomes, logic and science; the left has always insisted that religion,
government and economics be done their way, and it has always failed and degenerated into tyranny and poverty. Yet they try in every generation. Why? Statism is a very persistent false religion.
All this is why a vote for a third party, a "write in" or abstaining from the vote all together is in actuality to vote for and an assist in bringing in this tyranny and/or war all the sooner, rejecting and refusing the chance that we do in fact have more time to win the arguments and elections for reforms to be tried in the right direction (even if the alternative candidate is not your perfect ideal candidate). One may be technically/logically correct that you "don't vote against anyone, but rather for someone," but the result is the same and serves one side or the other, there is no neutral option, the "you can't blame me, I am not responsible for any of this" option does not exist. If you are old enough to vote, you will either A: have helped get Obama get reelected or B: you will have helped oust him or C: did all you could and yet we lost somehow, but you know you tried.
We did not get to this place in history quickly; why does anyone think we can get out of this place quickly? We seem to have well intended, freedom loving people who apparently think that we can get it all fixed in one or two election cycles if only their guy got elected, or that we must "teach the liberal republican establishment a lesson" by letting them lose again. It's too late for such lessons, it is however, is time for reformation! But you can't fix or reform the party or the culture from your place in the coming war, or from the grave, nor while you struggle in the new Mega-Depression, or from your relocation and re-education camp. It's like America has multiple broken bones, compound fractures and wounds; and some people expect a resumption of normal activity without providing for doctors or treatments to set the bones and time for them heal before trying to go on like we should (as founded). That is not
rational, nor is it possible.
Part II: Now on to the morals of voting for the "lesser of two evils." Many a Christian voter feels conflicted at least, and ranging to being absolutely against voting for men who do not meet the standards of Exodus chapter 18, Titus chapter 1 and others. Many a preacher has told their people that to vote for a non Christian candidate is a sin, but is it? I don't think so in many cases.
Since the form of government that has come to be known as "representative republican government" is not found in human history until after and or at least late in the Protestant Reformation period, and the Canon of Scripture being closed since the deaths of the Apostles, approximately 1500 years prior to the Reformation, there are no direct commands in Scripture about Christian voting in
such circumstances as ours, but we do however, find principles to be applied, and those Biblical principles are far more wide ranging and consider much more than just the candidate's own personal qualifications.
What about the Biblical doctrine of God's Providence? He has not presented us a real "Christian" option this time. And what I mean by "option" means a genuine Christian candidate who could actually win in the system and the circumstances that we now have in this election. We are to deal with the reality of our circumstances, (as America's founders did), God has put us here and now and expects us to rightly apply the whole counsel of God to all areas of life; not so we can be so religious, that we may actually impede His Kingdom's mission ("making disciples"), nor needlessly harm ourselves and others, and I don't mean the harm of being persecuted for the name of Christ, but rather unwise, unnecessary, self inflicted wounds as it were, from tempting God by Christian abdication of cultural duties to influence and in fact eventually become the dominate moral force in the culture. Christ Kingdom will eventually
win in history, but it appears that there is still a long way yet to go. People, we must begin from where we are (here and now), not from where we would like to be.
We find many examples in the Bible of God's prophets and other servants of His, serving faithfully in pagan, yet legitimate governments. Joseph, Ester and Mordecai, Daniel, and Nehemiah and in the New Testament as well, we find certain
Roman soldiers and politicians who are Christians for example. Then we have Jesus and Paul expressly establishing the validity and legitimacy of the State, taxation and due custom and honor for officials (even the evil Roman Empire was legitimate as far as it did good according to the Scriptures, and this is the context for Romans chapter 13) as a minister of God for the good of the people
(and in many ways Rome did good).
How could these saints have served and functioned in their various places of service without doing all of the other civic duties their office no doubt had (excepting incidents such as Daniels righteous, but illegal prayers for a time), but what about the rest of Daniel's, or Ester's or Mordecai's, or Joseph's or the Christians of Caesar's' household, what about their lives in the government day to day; part of which no doubt was participating in placing other leaders over the nation's people from time to time? Did these abstain because they would be, as it were, "voting for" a pagan? No, rather they did their mundane every day job well, dealing with pagans and brethren in all situations when and where God put them. There were as well, other men and women in Biblical history who served God under such circumstances. What about us? How are we doing if we dodge the sometimes unpleasant responsibilities that we have to be an influence for good in the world by abdicating when it suits us? There is no neutrality, we either push in the right direction or the wrong one.
In each era we can see God's legitimate order of Family, Church and State authority, these are established by God and all are obliged to govern their areas of responsibility in accordance with the moral law of God, the Ten Commandments and others, recognizing Christ as the ultimate King (whether they do so; partly do so, or don't at all is another question).
Something to note in particular for the Christian: Old Testament Israel was unique in world history in that it was simultaneously the Church (visible and invisible) and a Nation State. The nation was uniquely combined with also being the living God's visible church in the world. This nation and its prophets, priests and kings were men who were the shadow form and were typical of the coming genuine article, the Antitype, the Messiah and true Prophet, Priest and King, and fulfiller of all the promises and Laws of God, Jesus Christ our King and head of the visible and invisible church today. As well, He is King of all nations right now in one sense, but eventually every nation will bow the knee to Christ the King in every sense. Israel, the nation state, was not the "typical" ideal political nation state to be literally copied by all subsequent nations, but rather that Christ and His Church is the "antitype" to typological Old
Testament Israel, not the ethnic, geographic, national Israel. Christians largely [and I think correctly] understood that Israel was the Church under age in the Old Testament and that the New Testament Church is the Church come of age, the type and what was typified was well understood among Christians until the early to mid 1800s in England and America.
As the "type" of the Church, the spiritual requirements for membership and leadership from the Old Testament still hold and are reinforced by the New Testament requirements for holding office in the church [just as circumcision gave way to baptism, being the mark of the covenant people, and the Lord's Supper replaced Passover and the rest of the ceremonial law, with the moral law and it's general equity also remaining, and if it did not remain, we could not tell right from wrong]. But now, the Kingdom is multinational and transcends the concept of the nation state. Though it is good when we have Christian rulers and governance, we are not sinning by dealing wisely within our political and national situations, as God sovereignly and providentially issues them to us. Christians are told in the New Testament to do your best to live in peace within your various situations. The operation of the nation state is not the
center of gravity or point for the Old Testament typology, but rather Christ and His Kingdom (primarily the Church) is; and it is currently within and among all these presently existing various national situations.
How do we excuse ourselves sitting out any election on spiritual grounds? In each case, there is one candidate better than the other (even if neither is a Christian) that we as Christians can and should exert our influence upon (like Daniel and Ester and others) and if one candidate is a Mormon and the other a Marxist pretender; we should consider the whole situation, not just a narrow set of Biblical leadership criteria for Church leadership; how about the rest of the Biblical example and instruction? We must bring it to bear.
All of these seemingly unrelated to our election 2012 topics is by way of seeing and applying the wider Biblical principles that come to bear on Christian voting in a representative republic today without an ideal candidate. So bear with me a bit longer: For example, under the commandment to not "kill" or " murder," much more is implied, such as actively seek to preserve life. Most people don't have a problem with most laws that genuinely and authentically seek to preserve life and outlaw certain forms negligence (and as far as I can tell, neither do the Scriptures) so we don't hear much grumbling about such statutes. There is a little more consternation with the command to not "bear false witness against your neighbor." Does it mean "at all times under all circumstances to tell the truth to anyone who asks for any reason?" Some Christians read it that way, but they shouldn't.
Many a preacher has condemned the midwives of the Hebrews in Egypt for lying to Pharaoh, saving many Hebrew babies in the process; and Rahab for lying to the authorities of Jericho, saving the spies; as well as Abraham and Isaac for lying about their wives being only their sisters, saving themselves from being murdered, and David for feigning madness in the presence of his enemies,
eventuating his deliverance; there are no doubt other examples. But in each of these cases Scripture never in any way depreciates these people for these acts (lies), but they are rather praised in the Scriptures for having great and God pleasing faith in doing these very deeds and others! (James 2:25, Hebrews chapter 11) How can we condemn when God rewards? By way of error I answer.
The moralist hates the grey areas of life, many times our choices are in fact limited between sins of various degree. Take Rahab: she could lie and save the lives of God's men or she could have told the truth to the officials and been party to, and been an accessory in their deaths. What would you choose? For the moralist, it is important that he stand by his own righteousness, and a dilemma such as Rahab's makes some sort of sin inescapable. Real life is sometimes like that. The point is this: for the godly man stands not in his own
righteousness but rather by the righteousness of Christ, his own purity is not the essence of the matter many times, but rather that God's purposes be accomplished.
In Rahab's case God (and Rahab) wanted these spies to live, but the situation was not about Rahab, that she would later be able to self-righteously say that she never told a lie. The situation was not about her, it was bigger. The moralist will complain that she was bound to not lie and that God would have delivered the spies another way. Wrong, her lie was God's very means of the spy's deliverance. It is a myth that the "moral choice" is always simple and clear, it's not always. It is a myth that it is always a choice between absolute right and absolute wrong, it's not always. It is a myth that the central issue at stake is the involved individual's moral purity rather than some other transcendent or larger more important factor, (such as deposing, by peaceful means if possible, our would be [in the second term] tyrant in the White House) and it is also a myth that "poetic justice" is always operative, and that "virtue" is always rescued and rewarded and that "truth" is always triumphant in every situation (look to the record of Christian martyrs over the centuries for a dose of how things really work). Such mythical moralizing is not Biblical morality but humanistic pietism or perfectionism and self-righteousness and Victorian Romanticism, it is not the way things really work every time in God's providence in His created order.
Gal 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. NKJV" With meritorious "good" works in view, no Christian, nor pagan could be good enough in any respect anyway. All of a Christian's righteousness that is meritorious with God is no other than Christ's. Yes, by all means seek to do right (according to the Bible) always, but once you are put in a position like Rahab's, first be wise enough to recognize it, then you should lie to protect life if it comes to that, and particularly Christian life and culture as well as God's published (Scriptural) purposes. Just like the minority of Germans and others who sheltered the Jews during the Holocaust; at times at the cost of their own lives, they too told a bunch of lies to a brood of lying, murdering vipers and in so doing, in my opinion, they did "good works," at least as "good" as it gets on this side of
the grave (excepting faith in Christ).
How about military intelligence work, covert and undercover operations? Is any of it legitimate? Are all of these people inferior Christians if they are Christian at all because their duty to protect the Constitution and Americans citizens may involve sneaking, spying and lying to liars in order to obtain the best possible outcome for our side (the country that still protects Christians
from violent persecution)? Can their vocations (many times requiring lies and deceptions) be justifiable? I think so.
The commandment is very clear: we are not to "bear false witness against our neighbor." Does this mean that an enemy or criminal has the right to any information he may ask of us, especially to do us or others harm? No way. No enemy or criminal has any right to the truth from us to do harm. Scripture does not condemn Abraham and Isaac for lying to avoid murder, on the contrary, they
are blessed and praised by God, even with these sins to their account. In fact, to tell the truth to evil men, even under duress, that helps them accomplish their wicked intent; is in fact a sin on your part and you share in their guilt; see Psalm 50:18.
So in the 2012 election, applying broader Biblical principles from all of Scripture to the question "is it moral to vote for the so called 'lesser of two evils?'" I maintain that we can vote both morally and strategically by voting for the big "R" ABO and very possibly succeed and begin to turn the so called "ship of State" (more like an oil super tanker; you don't turn them on a dime), and not be found in sin in this (at least a sin no greater than Rahab's in saving God's men by a timely and strategic lie). You will have sought to save life, voting for ABO will provide us more time for the less bloody options to maybe, eventually win the day (I think we must try anyway). Of our current choices, ABO is the morally superior choice, even if he's not the ideal. Even evil Rome was legitimate and served God as far as they generally kept law and order and for a time protected the Apostle Paul.
In that context, I want you to notice that it is currently still legal for the Christian or the non Christian conservative to vote in this country; why not do what you can (voting) to vie for more time for a more bloodless correction if it is even possible at this point? If it comes to the worst, at least you did all you could have to preserve the peace (you didn't sell out your principles, you did what you could for your children and grandchildren and your neighbors). You will know that you at least tried everything before bloodshed. Like Rahab's deception operation perpetrated on an enemy, is a vote for the big Republican ABO. Her lie was God's means to God's ends. So it's ok if you really don't like the final candidate and know there are others who are better, but who were not nominated by the "Republican party," a vote for them (the non-"Republican" nominee) this time should be off the table, all things considered.
How many of you are in business with, are paid by, or buy or sell things to or from non-Christians? Who has a job that makes you work on the Lord's Day? Do you every go out for dinner on the Lord's Day and cause others to work? Do you use electricity on Sunday, causing someone to have to work? What Christian bank is your money and retirement in? Not to mention all the tax money you pay (because if you don't you go to jail and your family will be left destitute) that our government does evil with? (but that situation only exists because of the last 150 years of Christian abdication in these cultural spheres because of the loss of Biblical orthodoxy).
To participate in our culture, by voting against the worst candidate, by voting for his real [and I mean the one who could really win] opponent is no more of a sin than the rest of these things in this paragraph that we all commit. How many of us pray "give us our daily bread" and then go back to bed and wait for God's room service to bring us food? No, we go to work and ask God to bless our efforts to make a living. It's the same thing with voting. You want positive change? Start where you are now, reach for whatever tool, (that is in God's providence), is at hand here and now. In this case it will be whoever the big, corrupt, too-liberal Republican Party will make the nominee. You want out of the pit you are in? First, stop digging (and I think voting for anyone but the ABO is to keep right on digging).
To throw your vote away because you think the Bible supports you in it, well, I think you are wrong about that and I hope to have convinced you. If you throw your vote away because of a sense of personal standards or righteousness or to avoid the sin to your account (at the cost of other's lives and property, maybe even your own and the loss of what freedom we do have left) is to be a
self-righteous moralist and to become an accessory to the crimes that will accelerate at exponential rates in bringing in the completion of Obama's conversion of the country into a statist tyranny (should war fail) and your posterity, that is if they don't die in the famine, pestilence or war, they will no doubt curse you for your self-righteousness from their place in that slavery that you sold (or abstained) them into.
By throwing your vote away, you will also be voting with the enemy (just the way he wants you to vote, any vote but the Republican nominee will do nicely). Your non-vote would be an act of sabotage and betrayal of those who are still engaged in the fight for freedom in our country. Join us in the fight, don't sit it out, don't play into the enemy's hands; vote the republican ABO before your choices really do begin to literally resemble that of Rahab's.
(Attribution for the discussion on Biblical morality: R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law p. 542-549, 1973)