Decision Making in the Voting
Booth
Lesson #1
We are going to deal with the implications of what we know from the
Scripture as it relates to our role and responsibilities as believers and as
citizens of the
We have to address the issues here. What we hear from people in
this question is change is good. I want you to think about that statement
for a moment. When you make a value judgment statement that change is
good, you have used that word “good” that implies that there is some external,
objective standard that can be applied to the situation, and on the basis of
that standard, you can determine whether something is good or bad. By
making those kinds of statements, you are implying that there is some sort of
standard by which you can evaluate political positions and political
candidates.
What is your standard? What is the basis that you use in order to
evaluate those whom you select to be leaders, whether they are at a local level
or at a national level. The question we are going to address is how we as
Bible-believing Christians should take the Bible and apply the teachings of
Scripture to the decisions that we make in the voting booth.
The assumption here is a common assumption at the time of the founding
of this nation. Because God is the creator of all things, God in His Word
has addressed all things. We can go to God’s Word to find guidance as to
how to make decisions on every area of life and how to evaluate every kind of
situation that we run into.
The situation that we are all facing now is a national situation related
to the election of a president and of many national leaders. As we
approach this topic of how we make a decision to vote, there are several
questions that should occur to us. One is why should we as Christians
even care about voting? Shouldn’t be just stay home and pray and let
things take their natural course? If God is sovereign and God controls
history, then let’s just go home and pray about it.
We should also ask questions such as shouldn’t we just vote for the
person who we like the most and who fits our own personal preferences?
What role does character have to play in making a voting decision? What
about the integrity of the person we are putting in office? We all know
of stories and anecdotes about various leaders who have had mild to serious
personal peccadillos that were unknown at the time they were serving in office
and became known later. In more recent history, those same kinds of
things became known about serving officials and became serious issues.
What about the religious beliefs of the candidates? Or the lack
thereof? How do we prioritize issues related to the things that are so
often talked about in elections? For example, how do we prioritize economics?
We talk about many issues related to economics in this current election:
Marxism, socialism, taxation, social security, minimum wage, bailouts for the
banking industry, views on wealth and the wealthy, views on the poor and
poverty reverberate in every decision.
There are social issues that are very important to this election.
Views on marriage and homosexual marriage, feminism, abortion, racism,
immigration.
Then there is the whole area of foreign policy and national
defense. We have the war on terrorism, the threat of Islam, the nuclear
threat of
Then we have the issue of government itself. This involves areas
such as the interpretation of the Constitution, interpretation of law, the
appointment of judges, issues related to internationalism and globalism.
And last but not least, we are faced with issues related to morality and
spirituality.
Before we begin, we ought to at least reflect upon at least one passage
in Scripture that gives us a clue as to the priority. Proverbs
The emphasis that we discover is an emphasis on an ethical standard as a
priority. That ethical standard is related to righteousness. If we
think about the Mosaic Law and how God related that to
Jesus articulates the same principle in Matthew 6:33 where He says, “But
seek first the
Another thing that we should focus on is that in the giving of the
Mosaic Law to
When we come to evaluate a candidate, we have to come to understand what
the priority issues are. How are we going to weigh all of these different
issues?
Let me give you a list of eight things that should not shape your
decision making. It is amazing how many people fall into one of these
categories. First of all, you should not choose somebody simply because
of their political party affiliation. Just because they are in one party
or another does not mean that they are necessarily the best person in that
individual race. The other person may have greater integrity, better
positions, and may be more correct in their views.
Second reason you should not have as a primary reason for selecting
someone as a leader is their physical appearance. That almost seems
obvious, but back in the 1920s when they had their first presidential election
after women were given the right to vote, Warren G. Harding was chosen because
he looked presidential and would appeal to the ladies. (His particular
administration was marked by some of the greatest corruption in all of
history.) That was their view, and many people voted for him by
personal appearance. We can think of other things that have affected that
in modern times, such as that deep
Third is speaking ability. How articulate a person is or
inarticulate should not be the basis for choosing them. It is their ideas
and positions.
Fourth is what he promises he will do for you or your special interest
group. Just because you are a teacher and he is going to give teachers a
pay raise, or you are in the military and he is going to give the military a
pay raise, or you are in a union and he is going to do certain things for the
union, that does not mean he is the kind of person you should vote for.
Fifth is gender. You should not vote for someone just because they
are female or male. That is not an issue. The ideas are the issue.
Sixth is ethnicity. You should not vote for someone simply because
they are of a certain race or ethnic background. You should vote for them
because of their ideas, their positions, their beliefs, and their character.
Seventh is you should not vote for someone because now it is their
side’s turn to have a go at the leadership. You would be amazed at how
many people do that. “Well, Republicans have had their eight years; let’s
give the Democrats a shot and see what they can do.”
Eighth is do not vote for someone simply because you desire a change in
reaction to the current administration. That is a big issue in this
election. A lot of people think that one side offers change because that
is their major slogan. The problem with that is is it a change in kind or
a change in degree? I would argue that all he offers is a change in
degree. We have been operating on a trajectory of socialism-lite for the
last 40 years in this nation, and we have a choice between basically a Marxist
and a lite-socialist. But that is nothing new in this nation. The
change that one offers is just a change in degree. He is going to ratchet
things up a few notches, as opposed to his opponent who is going to keep the
downward slide going at the same rate that it has been headed.
As I address these issues from the pulpit as a pastor, I am sure you are
aware of the fact that there has been a certain amount of press lately
regarding the fact that about a month ago, there was a Sunday designated as a
Pulpit Freedom Sunday. There were a number of churches – some
megachurches, some not so big – where the pastors got in the pulpit and named
names and cited specifics in relationship of who they thought people should
vote for and should not vote for. There has been a certain amount of
disinformation and misinformation about that in the press.
About a week ago (Oct. 6), there was an informed letter to the editor
written by Dave Welch, who is the executive director of the Houston Area Pastor
Council. This is his response. I thought this was a fitting
introduction to our study today.
“The Free-the-Pulpit Sunday,
promoted by the Alliance Defense Fund and participated in by many
churches across American on
September 28, was a stand for some foundational, historic and
constitutional
freedoms. The Chronicle editorial bully-pulpits on Wednesday missed the
point
entirely and applied a
perspective that is misinformed at best. Very simply, the question is not
whether it is a blessing to a
candidate for a church to endorse him or her or even whether it is
effective. Frankly, pastors’
and/or churches’ endorsement may have no effect at all if it does
not influence the
parishioners to cast an informed vote. Before principle is that
theologically,
historically, and legally,
the federal government has no authority to dictate what a pastor preaches
from his pulpit.
Oppressive interference by the state which began only as recently as 1954 [It
was snuck through in the dead
of night as a rider on an appropriations bill by Senator Lyndon
Johnson] has no precedence in
our nation’s history and has nothing whatsoever to do with the
first amendment.
[Incidentally, there was a non-profit organization that was taking potshots at
him,
so he just put this rider in
that prohibited non-profits from taking a political stand. He was not
targeting churches.
Someone woke up a few years later, and said “We can apply this to churches
and shut down the
pastors.”] The church as an institution was uniformly recognized by the
framers
of the Constitution to not
only precede the institution of government but as fundamental to its
survival. Taxing the
church was a basic violation of the very separation of the institutions that
would grant the government,
as stated in McCullough v.
[A great phrase came out of
that decision that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”] No
such power was ever given
until the Johnson gag rule was adopted by Congress, which most did
not even know this provision
was included. The fact is that these are clear, unconstitutional
restrictions of freedom of
religion and freedom of speech levied upon churches that have been
improperly counseled that
advance recognition of their non-profit status through section 501c3
of the IRS code was
necessary. [It is not.] Most importantly, the power of the
federal government
or government at any level
once used to silence one group of citizens can and has been used to
silence others. Clergy
who sell their duty to God and their congregants to preach as truth on
every subject for the sake of
an insignificant, largely-perceived financial benefit deserve to lose
their freedoms and their
pulpits. We honor and celebrate the pastors who joined thousands of
years of their predecessors
in declaring that duty and freedom are more precious than a few dollars
and that governing authority,
which only exists by the authority of our Creator and the consent of
the governed, must be constrained
and shackled, not the church.
How is it that we are to make decisions when we go into the voting
booth? Let’s begin by listening to the counsel of two of the founding
fathers of the
“
Benjamin Rush, another one of the founders, signer of the Declaration of
Independence, and served in three early presidential administrations, stated,
“Every citizen of a republic must watch for the State as if its liberties
depended upon his vigilance alone.”
It is our responsibility to be informed, to study, and to vote in an
intelligent manner. The founders understood tyranny – they had lived
under the tyranny of George III - and they understood the value of freedom and
that freedom was liberty from the constraints of government. They
realized the nature of the government that they formed and established in the
Constitution, and they also understood the tenuous foundation on which it
rested, that is, the vote of the individual citizen. Each generation
would have to fight in numerous ways to preserve their liberties from
tyrannical government, which had been earned by these men.
Unfortunately, today very few have taken the time to truly understand
the context of the formation of our republic or the origin of the ideas that
shaped it. This is unfortunate because it was those ideas that dominated
and controlled this nation for over 150 years and that made it the great nation
that it is. The blessings, the freedom, the prosperity that we enjoy are
not the result of 19th and 20th century ideas; they are
the product of 17th and 18th century ideas. If we
do not understand those ideas and continue those ideas, we will lose the
freedoms, the blessings, and the prosperity that we have.
It is my thesis that if we are going to choose wisely in the election
process, then we must choose leaders that understand our historical roots, that
understand our heritage, that believe and are committed to the ideas which
energize our founders, and they should be dedicated to promote a government and
legislation which are in keeping with those ideas.
In a message at a rally in
We must choose the kind of leaders who listen to the words of the
founding fathers, who understand where their ideas came from, and who
understand the kind of leaders that the founders thought that we should
have. Many of them wrote about this topic. They were incredibly
concerned about how subsequent generations would vote, the kind of leaders they
would choose, and their tendency to squander the liberties that were so dearly
bought on the field of battle.
One of the founders, Elias Boudinot, who was a President of the
Continental Congress, wrote, “If the moral character of a people once
degenerates, their political character must follow… These considerations
should lead to an attentive solicitude to be religiously careful in our choice
of all public officers…and judge of the tree by its fruits.” It is
important, they believed, to know the religious convictions, the beliefs that
shaped the character and would shape the policies of elected officials. Do not
get caught in that modern trap thinking that religion does not have anything to
do with politics. That is just the Devil’s lie. Our founders all
understood that. They did not subscribe to this modern view of the
so-called separation of church and state.
By taking this approach, with this emphasis on history, I am already
demonstrating one of the core principles we should use in evaluating a
leader. This is one of those more abstract principles, one of those
hidden principles that deals with assumptions or presuppositions.
Nevertheless, I think it is the most important criterion we can use in
evaluating a leader. The principle deals with the underlying assumptions
or presuppositions related to interpretation of law, which relates to the
interpretation of the Constitution and the foundation of this nation.
In order to interpret the Constitution, in my view, or to interpret law,
we have to have an understanding and appreciation of two things: history and
precedence. Today we live in a world where those two things are denied by
a certain segment of our elected political officials. They do not place a
value on the thinking of the founders for understanding the system of
government that we have and which has been bequeathed to us.
There is a battle over interpretation of the law. The first view
is that interpretation is determined by the intent and purpose of the original
writer. This means that you have to understand its context, its history
of things that shaped that particular law. The second opposing view is
that interpretation is determined by the needs and desires of the interpreter
for the present time.
In the first case - the case of original intent - interpretation can be
fairly objective and certain and should be consistent down through the
decades. In the second case - the original context and the author’s
intent are irrelevant – this means that history related to the document is no
longer relevant, and the study of history is no longer important. The
only thing that really matters is the current context and how it is going to
affect people today. Understanding this debate between the literal
interpretation view and the non-literal interpretation view is fundamental.
This whole idea of interpretation is foundational to Scripture. We
have to start there as believers. If we are going to develop any grid for
evaluation of critical thinking, we always start with the Scriptures.
When we come to the Scriptures, we understand that they must be interpreted a
certain way. This is known as the literal, historical, grammatical view
of interpretation. We take the Word of God in terms of its plain, normal
meaning, recognizing that there are certain figures of speech that are used in
Scripture, but that we take it in terms of its historical context (so we have
to study the history), the context, the cultures in which the Bible was
written. We have to understand the grammar, the syntax of the
construction of what the writer said, and the meaning of the words, especially
in light of the times in which it was written.
As a result of that, a study of the Word of God is going to develop
certain doctrines. In opposition to this, there developed in the 19th
century, as the fruit of Enlightenment, rationalist thinking, an emphasis that
rejected the literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture and
emphasized a non-literal, allegorical, idealistic rationalist, or Marxist
interpretation. These are four different approaches to interpretation,
and I could list a lot more. Once you slip your anchor from the literal,
historical, grammatical interpretation, then the door is opened to any
interpretation, and anybody can make the Bible mean whatever they want it to
mean.
When we as Bible-believing Christians study the Bible, we emphasize the
literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture. We believe
that the meaning of Scripture is based on the intent of the original
author. On the case of Scripture, its author is God the Holy Spirit plus
the human writer. That is what matters. To understand the Bible, we
investigate history, words, grammar, the circumstances that gave rise to the
writing, the author, and his recipients. Those who are consistent Bible
believers uphold this principle of the literal, historical, grammatical
interpretation based on the intent of the author.
When you hold to this interpretation of Scripture, you come out with a
certain set of doctrines that come out of the Scripture: creation, that man is
a sinner, the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary
atonement, the reality of miracles, and the literal Second Coming. Coming
out of the 19th century and the infusion of rationalist thinking on
the ideas of interpretation, these historical truths of Christianity were
rejected and were replaced by evolution, the idea that man was basically good,
the virgin birth was a myth, Jesus was just human, the atonement was not
substitutionary but was just an example, no literal miracles or Second
Coming. It is up to man to bring in the kingdom, and because he is
basically good, he can, and man can bring in a utopia.
These ideas changed in other areas as well. Not only did this
shift in interpretation affect the interpretation of the Bible, but it also
affected interpretation in other areas: history, poetry, drama, philosophy,
legal literature. If you believe in a literal, historical, grammatical
interpretation, then that is going to be consistent in anything that you read
or interpret. That is clear in how you interpret your instructions to
fill out your tax return or the instructions in how you pay your bills.
You can not just assign whatever meaning you want to those instructions.
We all normally interpret things of that nature on the basis of a literal,
historical, grammatical interpretation.
When it came to law, this had a devastating effect. We saw a
similar battle develop. On the one hand, we have those who believe, just
like conservative Christians, that the documents of the founding fathers should
be understood in terms of their original intent. Words that are used to
describe them are originalist, strict constructionist, textualist.
This is the view of conservatives. These three terms are not necessarily
identical, but they are similar and frequently go together. In line with
Enlightenment rationalism, law began to be interpreted in a different
way. This is known as loose constructionist, revisionist.
This is standard view of liberal views of politics.
When we come to evaluate the candidates, this has specific
implications. (Chart) No Bible-believing Christian can
support a view of interpretation of anything that is inconsistent with the way
he interprets his Bible. If you are a Bible-believing Christian, you
interpret the Bible literally, and, to be consistent, you must support those
who interpret legal literature in this same manner. Only when a person
rejects literal interpretation of the Bible is it possible to come up with all
these strange interpretations, especially Marxist interpretations that
characterize liberation theology and the black liberation theology of James
Cone and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama’s
pastor. In the 20 years that Obama sat under his ministry, he was not
uncomfortable with the man who did not apply a literal interpretation to the
Scriptures. This works itself out consistently in Obama’s views of
history and the interpretation of law. He may say that he honors history
and all these others things, but that is just giving lip service to it.
When you shift away from a literal hermeneutic, then you shift away from these
things. It is related fundamentally to religious presuppositions.
John McCain’s church is the
What we see is that on the one side, we have Barack Obama, who is a
consistent revisionist when it comes to the law and also affirms judicial
activism. On the other hand, we have McCain who is an inconsistent
originalist, but he does reject judicial activism. Judicial activism is
when judges on the bench attempt to legislate through their decisions instead
of interpreting and simply applying the law. In judicial activism, judges
today can create policies and add meanings to the Constitution which have no
precedent and are not established by any elected body of the legislature.
This is what happened last May when the California State Supreme Court
overturned the decision of the voters to protect marriage as between one man
and one woman. They are applying this idea that the Constitution is
a living, changing document.
There also are instances where judges have overturned many other
cases. For example, 82% of Americans support school prayers, but these
living document revisionist judges declare that to be illegal, going against
the wishes of the American people. Activist judges have also overturned
elections in
In order to be a consistent Christian, we have to choose leaders that
hold to a strict interpretation of the Constitution until the voters vote to
change the Constitution through the proper procedures of amending it.
Judges should not be involved in changing it just because it does not fit their
political or social agenda. This is a major issue today and is one of the
most significant points in relation to the presidential election.
Two recent Supreme Court nominees and appointments were men who held to
a literal interpretation of the Constitution: John Roberts and Samuel
Alito. Obama voted against both of these men, whereas McCain voted for
both of them.
Presupposition here is that the Bibles teaches that history is
important. The Bible, when it interprets itself, always interprets itself
on the basis of a literal, historical, grammatical interpretation. This
is how we interpret everything in life. We do not assign it whatever
meaning we wish to.
When we look at this in summary, I started off by saying that we must
understand the kind of government we have. We must get into the history
of the founders to understand our Constitution and the political philosophy
that they built into this. From that point, I moved on to looking at the
foundational issue of our assumptions and presuppositions in relationship to
history and interpretation. Those who minimize history and precedence
also do that consistently in the area of the interpretation of the Bible and of
law. This works itself out in the belief system of the candidates.
A lot of the issues that I hear pundits talk about that they identify as
character issues are not character issues at all and are more properly
termed belief issues. They associate with certain people because
they believe the same things. Senator Obama does not hang around with
former terrorists as a character problem; it is a belief system problem because
he does not see a difference in what he believes and what the former terrorist
Bill Ayers believes. It is improperly labeled. That is a
foundational or presuppositional issue.
How should we make decisions in regard to our leaders? We have to
understand something about the nature of the American form of government and
American history. In studying the history of the U.S. Constitution and
the ideas in it, we can have a better idea of how we should vote in a way that
will protect our freedoms and liberties. The question is what was the
most determinative influence on the founding fathers and on the documents that
they wrote?
When John Adams was asked this question in 1816, his response may
surprise you. His response was “the pastors in the pulpit” was the most
determinative influence on the founding fathers. John Adams said in a
letter to Thomas Jefferson, “The general principles on which the fathers
achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. Now I
will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles
of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of
God.” The founding fathers again and again emphasized the fact that they
got their ideas from the Bible.
In answering the question about the most influential element on the
founders,
John Adams believed that the foundational and most significant influence
on the founding of this nation was the pastors, and he was right. The
pastors did not back off from preaching about the political issues of the
day. In fact, one scholar, who published her findings in the early 1960s,
read every published sermon from
A 10-year project was developed beginning in the 1990s analyzing 15,000
writings from the era of the founding of the
Among the most prominent was John Locke. Although many have been
taught that Locke was a deist or an atheist, he was not. I was surprised
to learn that in his generation, there were many who classified him not as a
philosopher as he is today but as a theologian. He wrote a verse-by-verse
commentary on the Pauline epistles and compiled a topical index of the Bible,
as well as defending Christianity in three different books. His most
influential work on politics was entitled the Two Treatises of Government
(a 400-page book). Richard Henry Lee thought that the Declaration of
Independence was plagiarized from it, by the way.
In his work, John Locke referred to the Bible over 1,500 times. In
fact, when he developed his whole principle related to the importance of
private property, he started in Genesis 1. This was standard in that
era. You did not go to some sort of evolutionary theory; you went to the
Bible.
The importance of the Bible was also seen in the writings of the
founders. This is one of the most profound things I have run
across. In his will, Samuel Adams wrote, “I…recommend my Soul to that
Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the
merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.” He was a signer of
the Declaration of Independence.
Charles Carroll, another signer of the Declaration of Independence and
probably the wealthiest of all the signers and the last of the signers to die,
wrote in his autobiography, “On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation
and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.”
John Dickinson, another signer of the Constitution, wrote in his will,
“Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works,
for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and
for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in his
goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.”
John Hancock, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote in his
will, “I John Hancock, …being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and
memory – thanks be given to God – therefore calling to mind the mortality of my
body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do
make and ordain this my last will and testament… Principally and first of all,
I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I
recommend to the earth…nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall
receive the same again by the mercy and power of God…”
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote in
his will. “Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render
sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and
especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has
been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with
worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful
years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not
only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason
to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!”
Robert Treat Paine, was a delegate from
Benjamin Rush, also a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote
in his autobiography, “My only hope of salvation is in the infinite,
transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon
the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely
exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!”
What we see from these and numerous other statements of that kind from
one founding father after another is that their relationship with God through a
belief in Jesus Christ was foundational to the way they thought. We can
summarize from reading their writings that they had a belief in the literal
interpretation of Scripture. We can also see that they had an
understanding that man was totally depraved and a sinner. In fact, both
Washington and Hamilton said that they formed the whole concept of the
separation of powers on the basis of Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful
above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?”
These men understood that Jesus Christ was the eternal Son of God, who
died on the cross as a substitute for our sins, and those beliefs are implicit
in what they wrote in both the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights. Those who do not understand
these principles, those who do not understand the thinking that informed our
founding fathers when they established this form of government can not preserve
and protect this nation.
When we look at this important issue of interpretation, I am reminded
that in the presidential oath, the president swears that he is going to protect
and defend the Constitution of the
What we are reminded of is that we must take what our views of Scripture
are and use those to shape how we interpret the world around us and make
decisions in the world around us, whether it is in business, in our personal
life, in our political life. Every one of us is born as a citizen of this
nation, and part of that citizenship is we have the responsibility to
participate in politics in a knowledgeable fashion. As believers, that
means that what we bring to the table is our understanding of what the Word of
God says. Without that, we have no basis for really making a decision in
the voting booth.