More Christians are wondering what choice they have in voting.  The following are a few basic principles that every Christian should consider before casting their vote for a Democrat, Republican, or third party candidate.  Sadly, you will be hard pressed to find pastors preaching these ideals. 

According to Moses, certain criteria had to be met before selection to public office: the capable candidate must be a God-fearing man hating covetousness and showing an aptitude toward prudence and wisdom (Exodus 18:21).  These traits are always points to consider when evaluating someone for a position that will influence morality and judgment over others.  Though the connection is often overlooked, these simple qualifications are expanded for greater clarity in First Timothy 3:1-11, where Paul described the qualifications of a church leader.  These qualities are indicative of a mature believer.  More to the point, such earmarks of moral and mental qualities are to be expected of any candidate that believers propose for appointment to an office involving moral leadership.

When Christians are offered principles from Exodus 18:21 and First Timothy 3:1-11 to guide them on choosing political candidates, their first complaint is usually, “There’s no such thing as a perfect candidate.”  Such a plea is often used by religious leaders to cover up the fact that they are selecting candidates from a pool of immoral contestants while turning a blind eye and intentionally ignoring any moral candidate running for the office.[i]  The vast majority of Christians follow such blind leaders because they do not know which issues are more important than others or which issues should never be compromised.  However, by understanding how God’s flow of authority works, what spheres of power were delegated, the nature of those spheres, and whether or not God exercises a level of tolerance to a sphere, will help Christians in discerning which imperfect candidates can rightly be accepted by Christians.

First, biblical authority flows downhill, not up.  When God instituted civil government, He bequeathed it with areas of responsibilities and authority.  Taxation, the act of rendering honor to whom honor is due, is perhaps the sphere of authority that is least adored by those who have to pay, yet it is a legitimate function of government.  Though there may be a recommended limit on the percentage of income taken as taxes, there is a level of tolerance given by God to rulers when they decide how much tax they can collect.  For example, though First Samuel 8:17-18 paints a ten percent income tax as being heavy-handed, Joseph instituted a twenty percent income tax law without being accused of stealing from the poor to give to the rich (Genesis 47:26).  This is because God extends a level of tolerance to civil rulers when it comes to things pertaining to property and protocol/policy. 

Although Christians may proclaim what God’s optimal design is for such spheres, they have no legitimate grounds to incite a revolution when rulers push the envelope beyond what God intended in the spheres of property or policy making.  Though civil authority is limited in power over such things, rulers are higher within the flow of God’s authority and the flexibility of their control is dynamic.  As such, God is prone to conditionally tolerate their decisions when they push the envelope on matters of property and protocol.

In contrast, God is intolerant when it comes to issues violating the spheres governing personhood and God’s design for the family.  As such, Christians are within their rights to severely censure civil leaders who endorse in any way such things as adultery, homosexuality, kidnapping, or the murder of the innocent.  This is why prophets and preachers in the bible picketed civil leaders for violating the domain of personhood.  For example, though King Herod pushed the envelope when it came to issues of property and protocol, he did not face the boisterous fury of John the Baptist protesting outside his house until he violated the personhood of another (i.e. he took his brother Philip’s wife in adultery).    

Sadly, nationally known religious leaders have taught Christians to flip-flop the principles regarding infringements upon property and protocol and made those issues to be superior to the issue of personhood.  Today’s national conservative commentators are intolerant of a political candidate pushing the envelope on property or protocol, yet they display a level of tolerance and give an approving nod when a candidate’s political posture attacks the family unit or personhood’s right to life of the pre-born and handicapped.  For example, during the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaigns, the most conservative of the so-called conservative groups acted as watchdogs when it came to a candidate’s record regarding taxation, the war in Iraq, the economy, constitutional interpretation, or policies on illegal immigration.  These groups showed virtually no tolerance toward a candidate straying from their party’s economic platform.  In contrast, conservative groups extended tolerance to candidates when it came to the murder of pre-born children or homosexuality, especially when these candidates were perceived as viable contenders against the other party’s candidates. 

Libertarian Party candidates are against any level of government using the force of law to restrict abortions (an issue of personhood, not property or protocol).  A softer version of the libertarian position has found its niche in republican and constitutional party politics.  For example, many politicians believe that states have a right to decide if they will allow abortion.  Prior to Roe vs. Wade, nineteen states already permitted abortion, some up to six months.  This is the kind of pro-abortion climate that “state’s rights” politicians endorse).[ii] 

On the contrary, rights arise from our obligations to God.  There is no obligation to God that would give any level of government authority to legalize mala in se behavior.  This is why any government is permitted by God to chastise any other government over legalized abortion.  There is a law higher than man made constitutions and it has never been amended or rescinded:  thou shalt not shed innocent blood.  Can candidates who would allow states to approve of abortion and euthanasia or restrict government from prohibiting abortion and euthanasia meet the qualifications for office listed by Moses or the Apostle Paul?  The answer is, “No.”  Such people do not display prudent wisdom in judgment, especially if they are worshiping a wooden idol of paper above God’s morality. 

If a candidate is found faithful on matters of personhood, he demonstrates knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.  As such, he has a foundation upon which Christians can argue or persuade on matters of property and protocol to bring him more in line with biblical ideals.[i]  However, when a candidate does not recognize basic rights regarding personhood and life, then all other issues become superfluous.  On the contrary, modern political pundits turn such a simple, biblically based principle upside down.    They would have you believe that if a candidate sees eye-to-eye on party platforms regarding property and protocol issues (taxation, economics, war, environment, tariffs, health care, et cetera), then he can be endorsed in hopes that his position on personhood issues could be swayed through opinion polls or party pressure.  In other words, today’s political endorsements call for intolerance on matters of property and protocol, but broadmindedness on matters of personhood’s right to life.

Though Christians may disagree on a candidate’s position relating to property or protocol, his stance regarding personhood, according to biblical principle, outweighs them.  We may be concerned about having a stronger economy, better housing, better medical care, better agricultural growth, but these important issues should really be second place to having better protections promoting personhood and traditional families.  When it comes to seeking the qualities needed in a political candidate, seek first the righteousness associated with personhood and family values and these lesser issues that God has allowed leniency toward, such as economic policy, can be influenced.  This principle is not too far from one espoused by Jesus to a crowd also concerned about daily necessities:  “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things (houses and good economy) shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33). 

It is disappointing, but most Christians do not even give a passing thought regarding the biblical qualifications for office listed by Moses or Paul whenever they vote for political candidates.  One result is that Christians end up voting to put anti-Christians into office and they justify such double-mindedness as being a necessary choice toward an alleged lesser evil.  One anti-Christ may seem better than another, but Christians should not have their hands in elevating either one.  On the contrary, Christians should never campaign for an antichrist to take the reigns of moral leadership (1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 John 1:7).  

Sadly, even when Christians endorse a fellow believer, they usually fail to consider whether the believer fulfills the list of biblical qualifications.  As such, many Christians are put into public office before they are truly ready.  Paul issued a warning regarding premature placement of zealous Christians into office, stating that the believer should not be a novice because the devil will use their lack of maturity to compromise biblical principles (1 Timothy 3:6).  This might explain why so many Christian politicians start out meaning well only to end up endorsing unbiblical legislation, such as treating abortion, something intrinsically evil, as something they should regulate instead of outlaw.  This may also explain why so many Christian politicians wind up endorsing anti-Christian candidates for the sake of party politics.  Novices have yet to learn to go beyond fighting mere flesh and blood to be capable of fighting with the power of uncompromised moral principles that flow from the character of God. 

As true ambassadors of Christ, whenever we are faced with an election in which none of the candidates deserve our endorsement, it is high time to protest and picket the candidates, especially the one gaining the greatest support from the public.[ii]  Far too often unscrupulous political scammers pretend to have virtue and Christians are beguiled by them.  In an effort to put such politicians on notice, Christians evaluated the front running Republican candidate in the 2008 Iowa primary, Mitt Romney, and then ran ads exposing him as willing to lie on the issue of abortion to gain Christian votes.  The televised advertisements stung his campaign.  Televised ads were then run in the South Carolina primary.  Shortly thereafter, Romney, once a leading contender, bowed out of the presidential race, having been exposed as a liar.  Christians can influence politics in this manner.  Otherwise, there will be something worse than an evil politician being elected: it will be the righteous after they tolerate compromises on “thou shalt not shed innocent blood.”

God will not hold us accountable for what the wicked do after we have stood firmly upon absolute moral principles.  How could He blame anyone for standing upon His moral character?  However, if we destroy the foundation of absolute morality through political compromise, what shall the righteous do to escape blame?  We should not think that we can avoid God’s displeasure for doing evil, even if it looks like the best alternative, merely because we meant well.  Again, as Christians, we should do right and risk the consequences, exemplifying God’s righteousness by faith. 

God can be glorified even when there are only a few standing for righteousness.  Disappointingly, Christians fret themselves over not having enough people to stand with them in a battle, but God twice insisted that Gideon had gathered too many warriors to be of any real help (Judges 7:2-8).  It was only after Gideon’s army shrunk from 32,000 to only 300 that God gave His blessing.  Even though the masses generally choose the path towards death and destruction, revival can occasionally turn the tide and revival is the only thing that really can save America.  However, revival will not come to America or anywhere else when God’s people refuse to humble themselves to His righteousness.