Pat Robertson, ordained Minister and Founder of “The 700 Club” TV show, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani to be the next president of the United States. I find this endorsement startling given Mr. Giuliani’s clear and unflinching pro-abortion stance. Mr. Robertson simply believes that the abortion issue is not the highest priority for a President to consider during this time in the life of our Country. (see speech and read the entire article).
So, I have two questions I would like to kick around:
#1. Where should abortion rank to a Christian and why?
#2. Should leaders in evangelical Christianity endorse candidates at all? Why or why not?
BTW. Sample some of the comments under the article. Maybe Rudy is getting more heat than light with Pat boarding his campaign ship.
I think a bit of historical context is helpful in answering #1. Where should slavery have ranked among Christian voters in the 1852, 1856, 1860, and 1864 elections? Where should women’s suffrage have ranked among Christian voters in the 1868-1920 elections? Where should civil rights for Blacks have ranked among Christian voters in the 1952, 1956, 1960, and 1964 elections?
My point is this: abortion is the great civil rights injustice of our generation. We would be remiss in our responsibility as ambassadors of Christ to the world if we didn’t fight for justice for its victims. I firmly believe that history will look back on pro-lifers as it looks back on the abolitionists, suffragists, and civil rights advocates. This is an area where we cannot afford to acquiesce to the status quo until society changes. If we do not fight through arguments, demonstrations, protest, and our votes, then Christians will not be seen as standing up to this great injustice once it is abolished. The cause of Christ will be harmed by our silence. Once abortion is ended, we will be shamed for saying nothing, doing nothing, and voting nothing now.
If you could vote for a pro-slavery candidate because of his good qualities, then by all means vote for a pro-abortion candidate for the same reasons. If you cannot vote in good conscience for someone who supports a morally reprehensible social injustice for any number of good qualities, then you can’t vote for a pro-abortion candidate. If the lines are a bit more blurry for you (and in politics, they usually are), then you do have to decide where civil rights “rank” in your political decision-making. (But I would hope civil rights—especially in the case of legalized genocide—rank high for us Christians.)
To summarize, abortion is the civil rights issue of our generation. If civil rights is of any importance to a Christian’s political views, then abortion better rank high.
I agree with Jeffrey that a politician’s stand on abortion is critical. If someone thinks it should be legal to kill the most defenseless and helpless members of our society simply for convenience sake its not a huge step from there to implement that policy among other populations in society as well. Infanticide, euthanasia, duty to die beliefs, etc. are all children and grandchildren of Roe V. Wade.
However, Republicans have used the abortion issue to pander to Christians for the last 30 years while basically doing nothing about it. Christians have in effect become single issue voters (or double if you count homosexual marriage). As long as the Republican du jour claims to be pro-life he can trample on the Constitution at will in other areas and still count on Christian votes on election day.
A candidate’s stand on abortion is certainly critical, however, so is his stand on an ever more powerful centralized state, spending money we don’t have, increase of police powers beyond Constitutional bounds, etc., etc. (Giuliani BTW, gets all these issues wrong in addition to his pro-abortion position so his endorsement by a professed Christian is indeed puzzling.)
Its time Christians began to demand more from those who covet our votes than just a pro-life statement in their campaign platform.
As to whether ministers should endorse candidates, they did so frequently in earlier years of our republic. It was common in years past for pastors to deliver election day sermons giving their congregations Biblical instruction regarding the issues and candidates. It’s only since the church has allowed itself to be put under the authority of the state through such things as tax exempt status, incorporation and Faith Based Initiatives that such things have come to be considered outside the scope of the church’s duty.
So, for you, is it right for a Christian to endorse a candidate for president that is not pro-life? I am not trying to pigeon hole anyone as much as I am trying to weigh a very tough issue in a wise way realizing that we live in a world that doesn’t play by Kingdom rules.
Dan,
I would say no. If we oppose abortion because we believe it is murder that would be no different than saying it’s OK for a Christian to endorse someone who believes the killing of Jews or Mexicans, or, you name the group, is a matter of personal choice and should be protected by law.
A person who supports the murder of babies is not fit for public office and should not have the support of Christians IMHO. I’m just making the point that there’s more to fitness for office than just the person’s stance on abortion.
Not regarding Pat Robertson but on an individual level, is “endorse” different than “vote for”?
Sure, I don’t agree with the pro-choice position, but either way someone is going to be elected come November 08.
If best is not an option, then is it “right for a Christian” to forfeit to the least desirable option?
I agree whole heartedly with Larry that abortion is murder and would love to have the option to vote for a pro-life candidate. For that matter, I’m sure that most everyone that reads this blog agrees with that.
However, Guiroo brings up a very valid point. It is probable that both the Republican and Democratic Presidential nominees will both be pro-abortion. If that does happen, how should a Christian respond?
Would this group vote for the lessor of two evils? Or, should we write in a pro-life candidates name knowing full well that they have very little chance of actually being elected?
As to the difference between “endorse” and “vote for,” I don’t see any important distinction between the two other than the public nature of the former as opposed to the private nature of the latter. Note that I was careful to use “vote for” in my comment above, precisely to move the thinking process into a decisive action.
But when it comes to the real meat of the discussion—whether to vote only pro-life on principle or to choose the lesser of two evils among the candidates who actually have a shot—I really don’t know. My knee-jerk reaction is to vote on principle no matter what, and I guess if I was just an idealistic college student that’s where I’d leave it. But I’m a bit too cynical for that, so I see the validity in forfeiting a pro-life stand to vote for the best of the candidates who actually have a chance to win.
This is all part of the modern wonder of Christians actually being involved in government rather than just being subject to it. Even though we have a voice in this government, we can’t expect things to always go our way. In America’s election system today, nobody but he big 2 or 3 candidates has a chance. Effectively, one’s vote is only effectual if he votes for one of those. So, in David’s hypothetical situation, I must choose between voting effectively for the best of 3 or making a point by voting for someone who won’t win. I choose to vote for the best of those who I believe have a chance. Call me pessimistic, but I don’t think my American vote is something I should use to make a point. I’ll leave that to other arenas.
I see people like Daniel and Nehemiah and Esther exerting influence in a culture not their own, amongst a people that does not recognize their God. There is something to be said to pray for the peace of the city in which you live (and to participate in voting and in government). So I understand the practicality of voting for the lesser evil, so to speak.
Many Christians in South Africa knew in their hearts that there were terrible injustices committed against the Blacks, yet rationalized that they had to work and vote for the “lesser” of two evils. When I became an active and outspoken non-voter, those same Christians placed me on a hit list. Nice. Although it did make me reconsider my big mouth – was I really willing to die for what I believe in? Should I just hush up and hope things will eventually change, while continuing to vote for the best of a bad bunch? I could not have taken as strong a stand as I did if I went ahead and voted for someone who stood for immoral and apprehensible policies. My sphere of influence was not large, yet it triggered a series of small changes in the town where I lived. And that proved in the end to be far more important than my vote that I “wasted.”
This is the first year that I will have the privilege to vote in the USA. As Larry pointed out, there are many issues on which we need to judge a candidate. Yet there are still some deal breakers for me. Apartheid was a deal breaker in South Africa. Abortion is a deal breaker here. And I’m well aware that studies show about the same rates of abortion in countries where it’s legalized as in countries where it’s still against the law. And I see the sensibility of voting for a candidate who at least gets some of the issues right, rather than wasting my vote on someone who doesn’t stand a chance.
Yet it’s so much bigger than who will be president for the next four years. It’s about taking a stand. In South Africa it was about consolidarity with oppressed brothers and sisters. The country is now enveloped in so much violence, that I hear a lot of resentment about my earlier political stance when I go home. Yet, I would have been compelled to make the same choices, even if I could have foreseen all the rapes and murders that were to follow. I’m responsible for making the right moral choice, not for manipulating the outcomes.
Greg Kokul had an article on Townhall.com on the sixth of this month that deals directly with this issue. (He actually published it in Solid Ground in September 2000, but updated it for the upcoming elections.) I recommend reading it. He makes a case for the conscience vote in the primaries, and the “lesser of two evils” approach in the general election. An excerpt:
Ah, Jeffrey, what shall I say? Of course you’re right. And simply for common grace to extend to the greatest measure possible within the world around us, and for the greater good of our children that we have to leave behind here, I hope everyone uses common sense and vote rationally. It’s short-sighted to “feel good” about casting a vote for the “right candidate” who doesn’t stand a chance of getting elected. Foolish to waste a vote. (When I have my moments of ranting and raving, my finger unfortunately hits that Submit button way too fast 🙂
Yet there are times when making a moral statement is not juxtaposed to making a moral impact, but where the moral statement serves as the catalyst for bringing about radical change. I lived at a place and through a time when that happened. May we not be lulled into thinking that this is as good as it gets.
I often agree with Greg Kokul but I think this is instance he gets it wrong. These ideas of ‘don’t waste your vote’ on a third party or less high profile candidate and ‘choose the lesser of two evils’ are exactly what has given us the situation we have now, two major parties with very little difference between the two. If no one ever supports a third party then by definition they will never win any elections. This is exactly the stance the two major parties want people to take so that their lock on power is not threatened.
For the lesser of two evils argument, much can be said about it however, I think this article by Gary North(whom I also don’t always agree with BTW), The Lesser of Two Evils Rarely Is, makes several valid points.
I agree with Sandra that we must sometimes make a principled stand even when we know it will not buy us anything in the short term, simply because its the right thing to do. God told Jeremiah to preach repentance to the nation of Judah even after telling him up front that it would not do any good and that they would not listen. Sometimes results (or the lack thereof) are not what needs to drive our actions.
There are a couple of things I don’t get…
First, how can we say that the Republican party panders to, but does not take seriously pro-life, evangelical Christians when that party has nominated and elected president one of them in the last two presidential cycles?
Second, how can we say that there is very little difference between the two parties? The pro-life position is a main plank of the Republican platform (even if not every single republican supports it).
I may not think Giuliani is the best nominee we can put forward, but politics is about coalitions and compromise. There is something to dislike about any candidate on the ballet. How could you vote for anyone? Does this mean that the only ‘principled’ thing to do would be to write in Dan Miller?
Giuliani is committed to naming only strict constructionists (regardless of position on abortion) to the Supreme Court. The leading Democrats are committed to appointing pro-choice appointments only. I’m not sure what principle would be upheld by writing in a pro-life candidate (or not voting) and allowing a democrat to seat one or more liberal justices to the Court in the next term.
Up to this point, I’ve been carefully trying to avoid referring to any vote as “wasted,” but now that it’s come up, I must say this: I don’t believe any American vote is wasted. I say that, by its very nature, a vote cannot be wasted. It’s a citizen’s opinionated call for the election of a particular individual to a particular office, and so I don’t think we can call it wasted, no matter for whom the ballot is cast.
That aside, in Greg’s defense, he makes it clear in the article that the “lesser of two evils” will likely become the situation in the general election. He says further, “The primary election is the place to vote for … a pro-lifer who can win the general election. But if a [lesser-of-two-evils candidate] is nominated, a principled pro-life vote isn’t compromised by voting for him over the [greater of the two evils].” Note also that both Greg and I have avoided referring to any particular party. Although certain parties more or less consistently hold certain positions, the real test is whether your vote will go to an electable candidate who will promote or at least not harm the pro-life cause or to a candidate who will not get elected, just to make a point. I think the argument still stands that a vote for the latter may well be a vote against the pro-life cause.
I don’t see much relevance in the article by Gary North, because he makes the point that the lesser of two evils is a poor choice when the candidate is a “go along to get along” type, and he seems to be talking about party-line voters, not moral issue voters.
Eric, thanks for the vote of confidence, but at this time I cannot run for president;)
OK. So, in this situation is there no right or wrong answer on how to vote? Is it up to each voter to act on what their conscience deems prudent? Or do we call certain positions wrong and encourage people to repent of their position? If yes, which or what position should people repent of?
Eric,
I’ll do my best to answer your ‘couple of things’ 🙂
It’s pandering when they use the abortion issue to get votes and then do nothing to stop abortion. The vast majority of currently serving federal judges at all levels have been appointed by Republican presidents (something in excess of 90% if I’m not mistaken) yet abortion still continues to be upheld in the courts time after time. The federal courts are in fact some of the most liberal in the nation on a whole host of issues, not just abortion. It was, in fact, a Republican appointed Chief Justice whose court gave us Roe, a decision he (Warren Burger) supported. I would ask what exactly defines George W. Bush as pro-life other than his rhetoric? Just as one example, when given the choice between supporting a strongly pro-life candidate in the Pennsylvania Senate primary in 2004 (Pat Toomey) over the pro-abort Arlen Specter, Bush threw his weight behind Specter putting politics ahead of his supposed pro-life beliefs.
As far as the differences between the two parties, I was speaking about more than just the abortion issue. On paper they are certainly different on that issue, as they are on the issues of taxing and spending, the welfare state, budget deficits, a big federal government, etc., etc. however, in all those cases the actual practice is they are not that different. The current Republican administration has increased the size, scope and cost of the federal government in ways that would make a liberal democrat salivate.
As far as Giuliani appointing ‘strict constructionists’ regardless of their position on abortion, that assumes there are some ‘strict constructionists’ that are pro-abortion. I’m not sure what that would look like. The Burger court made up the right to abortion out of thin air. Nothing in the constitution guarantees such a right so I’m not sure how a ‘strict constructionist’ would arrive at such a position.
While its true that we have to ‘settle’ in some ways with any candidate we choose, I think something like legally sanctioned murder is in a different league from many other things upon which we might differ.
He has appointed two justices to the S.C. that appear to be as solidly pro-life as he could get through confirmation. That is a pro-life legacy that will last for years.
He has made an impassioned and rational case against Embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) and has done more to stem the tide of that form of human destruction than any person alive (IMO). He has done this at great cost of political capital, because even many ‘pro-lifers’ don’t understand the moral implications of ESCR. Bush does.
On Rudy and strict constructionist judges, I must have confused my point there. My point is that any justices he appoints are likely to be inclined to overturn Row v. Wade based on the constitution and the law. As I understand it, he will not have a litmus test on abortion.
On the Bush administration’s support of Spector, it bothered me as well, but this is one of those cases where compromise is necessary in politics. The administration made a deal with Spector. In trade for Bush’s support, Spector (as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee) would support Bush’s conservative nominees. This strategy worked and probably did more to seat pro-life jurists than supporting a less influential, but clearly pro-life senator.
I am with you in my disappointment with the spending under a Republican president and congress. If I were to make a ‘principled’ vote, I would probably still be a libertarian, because I see the federal government as legitimate to perform two roles: provide for a national defence and protect life and liberty. Everything else (education, welfare, etc.) is an immoral redistribution of wealth. But, as a follower of Christ under a command to love my neighbor, I believe that I would be irresponsible to indulge my principle at a cost of knowingly allowing my neighbors to be subjected to very opposite of what I’m voting for.
I can appreciate the idea that we can hold a party hostage by refusing to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and I certainly think that is what the primaries are for. I don’t think we have the power to do it in the general election.
[Obvious disclaimer: I’m not using this forum to endorse any candidate or political party or tell anyone how to vote.]
“He has appointed two justices to the S.C. that appear to be as solidly pro-life as he could get through confirmation. That is a pro-life legacy that will last for years.”
Quite frankly the jury is still out on those two in my opinion. This is the standard Republican promise on abortion, oh just wait until I appoint some judges! It’s pie in the sky. O’Connor was sold to us as a strict constructionist as were Burger, and Sutter and many more federal judges at all levels appointed by Republicans down through the years. Fooled me once…and all that.
The answer for dealing with abortion is not the federal courts anyway. There is a much more direct and constitutional method of dealing with it that a person truly passionate about life could pursue, which is to have congress remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This could have been done any number of times before the Republicans frittered away their majority in congress if they had truly wanted to stop abortion in this country.
I agree that Bush has made the right call on the stem cell issue and will give him credit there. Whether it’s due to his understanding of the ‘moral implications’ of the issue is another matter. If it is, I pray his understanding of the ‘moral implications’ of decisions will cascade through to some of his other ones, especially those related to foreign policy and domestic security.
On the Specter thing, I suppose you could make the case that Toomey was sacrificed for the greater good if indeed the nominees Specter helped with don’t turn out like most of the other Republican appointed federal judges, however, I’d say the odds are against it.
You’ll get no argument from me on the colossal failure of previous court appointments. I share your frustration and a bit of distrust is probably warranted. Bush 41 was never the strongest pro-lifer, but I think his poor appointments were more a matter of ineptitude than principle.
I don’t understand the mechanics of the move you refer to in in the third paragraph, but as I read what you are saying, we had a six year period where we could have eliminated abortion, but all of apparently pro-life politicians in congress and the president are secretly not pro-life and therefore didn’t do it.
In addition, I never heard any apparently pro-life groups publicly calling for this move; so, perhaps they are secretly pro-abortion, too?
This would amount to the largest conspiracy in history! Could it really have been that simple?
Eric,
I don’t know what the motivation was. I’m not willing necessarily to put it down to conspiracy all I know is that it was not supported. If I’m not mistaken, such a proposal was, in fact, put forth and had zero traction from the Republican majority at the time. It would have required some serious statesmanship and a willingness to stand up and be counted in a high profile way on the issue. The heat from the opposition would have been enormous. I simply don’t think we have statesmen like that any more on either side of the aisle. Getting re-elected is more important in most of their minds than even the lives of the unborn in my opinion.
I think another culprit is probably the heavy investment in the ‘get the right judges’ strategy by the pro-life community. Sometimes tunnel vision can develop when we put all our eggs in one basket. We tend not to see that other, possibly more effective baskets are out there. Especially when we’re continually told by those we trust to stay the course, success is just around the corner.
But, if it IS a conspiracy I doubt it would rank bigger than what REALLY happened at Roswell, NM with all those aliens, so I don’t think we could call it the biggest in history. 🙂
Going back to Dan’s last question — “is there no right or wrong answer on how to vote?” (etc., see #14 above)
It seems to me that this has to be one of those “gray area” things because the issues are not crystal clear.
If a person feels that the only vote that they can make with a clear conscience is a “wasted” vote for a hopeless third-party candidate, then that is what the person should do. To sin against one’s conscience is to sin against God.
Does that mean that the “strong” can vote for a pro-choice (but strict constructionist) candidate? I see no reason to say “no,” but you’ve got to make sure that you’re not conveniently thinking of yourself as “strong” because it gets you what you want.
On a related point, there’s an interesting piece by Marvin Olasky called “Add, Don’t Subtract,” in which he takes some positions that are well worth thinking about.
But one statement he made seems apropos here; he was discussing the fallout around the Ten Commandments monument that Judge Moore famously promoted not long ago. He said that some people
Let’s not turn a particular pro-life stance into a Gospel requirement. As big as the abortion battle is, the Gospel is bigger, and we do Christ’s Kingdom a disservice by insisting that there’s only one legitimate position Christians can take here.
Hugh, going back to one of Jeffrey’s examples in the first post then, were Christians who supported politicians in the 1960’s who stood against integration and civil rights, such as, for example, George Wallace simply strong believers exercising their Christian freedom or were they in sin?
Larry, I don’t think you can say conclusively either way.
Note that before you get into issues of “strong” and “weak” you’ve got to first conclude that the matter under discussion is not intrinsically sinful. Is supporting a particular politician intrinsically (or necessarily) sinful? I think you’ve got to seriously qualify that statement before you can say “yes.”
So if it’s not intrinsically sinful, it means you’ve got a disputable matter. In such cases, making conclusive pronouncements about what Christians are ethically bound to do is probably misplaced, because the only thing that makes one position or the other sinful is the person’s conscience.
So in thinking about this whole 2008 election thing, here’s my train of thought: let’s assume that God, in his sovereignty, arranges a pro-choice vs. pro-choice vs. hopeless third-party election.
1) Is it necessarily sinful to vote for the “lesser of two evils?”
2) If not, is it still sinful for me?
3) If not, my options are open… so what is the wise thing to do?
Hard stuff, my friends… I pray that God will be glorified in how we think through these issues as well as by our conclusions.
I will vote for the candidate that I believe will be the most help in forwarding the causes and stands that I hold dear. Even a centimeter forward and never backward. Abortion is up there at the top, but not the end all in voting IMO. I love the comparison from Jeffery of this being the modern civil rights issue.
Lincoln was always against slavery since his early childhood but had to wait for the right moment as president to take decisive action against it for maximum effect. We might have called him a do nothing president for a while there from 1860 to the end of 1862. It was not until 1/1/1863 that he signed the emancipation proclamation. It took time them and it will take time now for abortion. Not voting and letting the worse candidate into office could delay that happy day for many more years, but all and all God is in control right? We believe that right?
Great stuff from Sandra, but if I am correct South Africa was not/is a free country to begin with, so her taking that stand would have a real influence…and it did.
It is my privilege and duty to vote. Yes I can choose to abstain out of principal, but who will that help other than making me feel better about myself? Is God really given glory by us not voting at all? Somebody is going to get elected in the end. Thankfully we have that choice and right to vote or not to vote on principal if we wish. In comparison we do not have the choice to avoid the draft for a war we might be against due to the fact that many innocent people get killed…right? Just something to think about.
Dan Miller in 08′ Who’s with me?
When you have an issue itself that is black and white (as I believe abortion is) I personally think it’s a stretch to say supporting a candidate who promotes that issue is somehow a gray area. We can talk all we want about Rudy’s promise to appoint ‘strict constructionist’ judges (Something we have to take his word for. Ask one of his wives how good a bet that is) but the truth is the president of the United States has great influence and Rudy being the first GOP president who is pro-abortion would cause a lot of attention to be paid to his position. It may even embolden other Republicans to openly support abortion ‘rights’ when they see he’s able to be elected while doing so. It would give abortion a respectability that we don’t need to give it.
Larry, what if there was a candidate that was against Roe v. Wade, but supported ESCR? Since the destruction of human embryos is a black and white issue (as I see it), am I bound to not vote for such a candidate knowing that my non-vote will help to elect another candidate that is not only pro-ESCR but pro-abortion as well?
Just to be clear — my contention is that abortion is a black-and-white issue, but that supporting a pro-choice candidate is not necessarily a black-and-white issue.
If that is correct, then Christians have legitimate options in the voting booth and the responsibility to consider them wisely and carefully.
Have y’all seen who’s running on the Miller ticket?
View here!
Eric,
That would make the decision difficult. One thing that I think comes into play is that Robertson has made his endorsement at a stage when there are several good alternatives available, one of which even believes the Constitution should guide our government policy. 🙂
I think its different to have a high profile Christian choose a pro-abortion candidate from among other candidates who are pro-life. When the only choice we have is between two pro-abortion candidates, as may be the case in the general election, I would be more inclined to color it gray.
I also think there’s a difference between publicly endorsing someone and deciding grudgingly to vote for them for lack of a better alternative. Though as you’ve no doubt gathered, I’m not a big fan of the ‘lesser of two evils’ approach to decision making.
Yeah, I somehow manage to disagree with Pat Robertson every time he shows up on the news. 🙂
I have to admit part of me thought (maybe still thinks) Robertson knew his endorsement would be the “kiss of death” so he gave it to somebody he wanted to defeat…
Or maybe he thinks Rudy is the candidate most likely to assassinate Hugo Chavez. 🙂
How about we do nothing, no Christians vote, Hillary wins by a historic landslide, and the radical left controls the house, senate, and white house. Might we all be saying then how this is somehow God’s judgment on our land? Lets bring on the tribulation early.
Reminds me of the story of the guy on the roof of his house, the water is rising, a boat and helicopter both come offering to help and the guy says that “God is going to save me”. He drowns, gets to heaven and blames God. God tells him, “Hey I sent you a boat and a helicopter!”
The lesser of two evils can be voted for, but that does not mean we endorse or support them. That just means we voted for the candidate that we thought would hurt the least. A sad commentary, but realistic.
Still, even if we get Hillary, we will survive and God is still in control.
So to expand my last thought for all the blanks stares out there….We are the ones on the roof with the water rising. Giuliani would be a boat with a slow leak or a helicopter with a hole in the gas tank, but it would still probably get us to try land, and is better considering the alternative being probable death.
I am all for Dan Miller in 08 with alien running mate. Was that an illegal alien? Kind of looked like Guiroo from the profile after an all night drumming session. 🙂
Fork in…I am done.
OK. I guess we have a clarity on this subject – it is very unclear as to what all followers of Christ should do in regard to their particular vote. I understand it is very difficult and appreciate the effort to clarify.
Let’s move now to guidelines to consider. What are some things that every Christian should consider when entering the ballot booth? Are their absolutes in this arena that we can spur one another toward?
Make sure that any and all chads are absolutely separated from your ballot. 😉
Thanks David for that commercial interruption…;)
It would stand to reason (that was for Eric and Hugh) that one principle we would need to consider when considering a candidate would be how that person would help advance God’s Kingdom in this world. When I speak of Kingdom I mean the ability for people to express the Gospel without being hindered. I would also use this term to encompass an ethic that embraces a clear distinction between right and wrong as well.
For example, I would need to ask myself, does a particular candidate hold a position that would increase or decrease my ability to express the Gospel at work, in my neighborhood, school, etc.? Does this candidate hold a “right” position on matters such as justice, social care (health care), taxation, etc. N
Now I realize we will add certain weights to each of these subjects depending on our background and spiritual maturity. But isn’t the Kingdom one of the right viewfinders in determining a candidate?
Dan,
I do think there are some overarching things Christians should consider when choosing to support a candidate. In my opinion the candidate should understand and support the concept of proper jurisdiction, meaning he should understand that the family, the church and the civil government all have different jurisdictions and that one of these should not try to perform the duties reserved for one of the others. Also, since scripture clearly says we are to obey the authorities, he should be willing to be bound by the Constitution since that is the authority under which our government operates. In the case of candidates for national office, he should not support or pursue programs or policies not specifically given to the federal government by that document. In other words, he should embrace the Biblical concept of separation of powers (whether he recognizes it as such or not) as well as the Constitutional concept. There is a lot more that could be said I suppose but I think that would be an excellent start.