A Duty to Principle
Bill Fortenberry
I was recently sent a copy of an article by Stephen
McDowell entitled, “Obama, Romney, Other: Who Should Christians Vote for in the
2012 Election?” I was genuinely looking
forward to reading this article since I had been told that Mr. McDowell had
provided an excellent counterpoint to my own article, “A Biblical Strategy for
Voting.” I took the first opportunity
that presented itself, read the article through and then proceeded to engulf
myself in a six hour comparison of Mr. McDowell’s position with the teachings
of the Scripture. I’ll spare you from
having to read through the full details of that study, but I would like to
share a few observations that I think every Christian should consider.
Mr. McDowell based his examination of the candidates primarily on two verses which he correctly identified as qualifications for certain elected officials in the Bible. Those two verses are Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13. One thing that Mr. McDowell failed to mention from the outset is that these verses were specifically written as requirements for members of the legislature, not for the head of the executive branch of the government. The requirements for the chief executive are found in Deuteronomy 17:15-20. Nevertheless, the requirements for both offices are very similar, and I think that it will suffice for now to focus solely on the verses that Mr. McDowell listed.
These two verses present several qualifications for elected office which Mr. McDowell has grouped into three major categories - faith (the fear of God), morality (truthfulness and a lack of covetousness) and a biblical worldview (wisdom and discernment). I agree with Mr. McDowell's statement that "we should understand the Biblical qualifications for leaders, learn of the character and worldview of the candidates, and vote accordingly." However, immediately after making this statement, he proceeded to explain why he would not be following his own advice in this election. He said, "I will only be comparing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney since there is no chance that any other candidate can win." I was sorely disappointed to note that he did not provide a single passage of Scripture to support this decision. According to Mr. McDowell, the Bible teaches that we should vote in accordance with how the candidates measure up to the Biblical qualifications for leaders (and he was very clear in his listing of those qualifications); but when it came time to compare the candidates with that standard, he added an additional qualification. In order to receive Mr. McDowell's vote, a candidate must first convince Mr. McDowell that he has a chance of winning. This is a purely humanistic qualification for which he did not even attempt to provide scriptural support.
This single observation provides us with sufficient cause to reject all of Mr. McDowell's article, but for sake of argument, let's extend our analysis to his comparison of the "two" candidates to the list of qualifications which God laid out in the Bible.
The first qualification was given as faith or, in other words, the fear of God; and I found it very interesting to note the difference between Mr. McDowell's presentation of the two candidates. His analysis of President Obama consisted of two full columns of text explaining why Christians should not conclude that the President is a man who fears God. His analysis of Mr. Romney, on the other hand, was not an analysis at all but rather an attempt to explain why having a Mormon in the White House would be better for our nation than any of the professing Christians who have inhabited that dwelling place. Intriguingly, Mr. McDowell relied on three different passages of Scripture to explain why he does not believe that President Obama fears God, but he did not present a single verse to support his preference for a Mormon in the White House. In fact, Mr. McDowell's entire segment on Mr. Romney ignores the clear teaching of Scripture found in Proverbs 29:2 which states that "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."
I should point out that Mr. McDowell did conclude this segment of his article by admitting that "Neither candidate acts like a regenerated believer who meets the qualification of fearing God as the Bible presents." I agree with this statement. However, Mr. McDowell acts as if this fact negates the importance of the entire first category of biblical qualifications for leadership. He is apparently of the opinion that if neither candidate meets one of the requirements, then the requirement itself should be abandoned, and I am very much in disagreement with this opinion. What if neither of the two major parties nominated a candidate who was over the age of thirty-five? Would Mr. McDowell then conclude that it is acceptable to throw out that requirement? I am sure that he would not, and I see no reason to abandon God's requirement for leadership under similar conditions. If neither of the two major candidates fears the Lord, then neither of them should be considered eligible for office.
Let's proceed to Mr. McDowell's second category of qualifications which he described as morality or Christian character. To compare the two candidates with this qualification, Mr. McDowell focused on what he referred to as "the two most important moral issues" - abortion and homosexuality. Once again, Mr. McDowell aptly and correctly demonstrated that President Obama does not measure up to God's standard on these two issues, and once again, he devoted his segment on Mr. Romney to explaining why Mr. Romney's failure to measure up to that standard is acceptable. He did this in the area of abortion by describing Mr. Romney's position as pro-life even though he quoted Mr. Romney's admission that he believes mothers should have the right to kill their children for a variety of reasons. Mr. McDowell then proceeded to excuse Mr. Romney's acceptance of homosexuality by saying that at least he is opposed to homosexual marriage. Just as in the previous segment, Mr. McDowell completely neglected to consult the Scriptures in regards to his excuses for Mr. Romney. Nowhere in the Bible do we find that it is okay to kill a child if the pregnancy might have an effect on the mother's health, and God never once excuses those who accept homosexuality just because they oppose homosexual marriage. In this category as well as the first, we find that neither of the major candidates meets God's qualification.
Mr. McDowell's third category was that of a biblical worldview. He included in this category the three statements from Scripture that elected leaders should be men of truth, wisdom and understanding or discernment. In this segment, Mr. McDowell made the most remarkable claim of the entire article. He wrote that "In many ways this third qualification is of most importance." In other words, Mr. McDowell believes that it is more important for our President to have a biblical worldview than it is for him to be a Christian who fears God and keeps His commandments. Of course, he did not provide any Scripture to support this idea. He did eventually reference Proverbs 23:7 in order to prove that a President's worldview will determine how he governs, but that does not in any way tell us that having a proper worldview is more important than the fear of the Lord. On the contrary, we find in Scripture that it is impossible for a candidate to be a man of truth, wisdom and understanding without the fear of the Lord. Proverbs 9:10 tells us that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." In John 17:17, Jesus said to the Father, "Thy word is truth." And in Ephesians 4:21 we read that "the truth is in Jesus." No candidate who rejects the fear of the Lord and the teachings of the Word of God is even capable of having a biblical worldview.
This fact is plainly seen in Mr. McDowell's own analysis of the two candidates. In order to demonstrate that Mr. Romney has a biblical worldview, he focused solely on the policies of the two candidates with regards to the economy of our nation, and concluded that Mr. Romney must have a biblical worldview and should be voted for because he promises to allow "all individuals to keep more of their money." This is a direct reversal of the teachings of Scripture. The Bible teaches that wisdom (which only comes from a fear of the Lord) is far more valuable than any monetary wealth. In Proverbs 16:16 we read, "How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!" And in verse eight of the same chapter we are told, "Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right." Voting for a particular candidate just because he has promised to increase our wealth is decidedly unscriptural, and I was astounded to see Mr. McDowell suggest such a thing.
So where does this analysis leave us? According to the Bible we should vote for men who fear the Lord, who have a sound sense of morality and whose view of the world is established by biblical wisdom and truth. According to Mr. McDowell's analysis, neither President Obama nor Mr. Romney meet God's qualifications for elected leaders. Neither of them has a fear of the Lord. They both have a fatally flawed sense of morality, and thus, neither of them is capable of developing a biblical worldview. Both of these candidates have failed to meet a single one of the three qualifications. What should we do in such a case?
According to Mr. McDowell, we should still vote for Mr. Romney in spite of his failures because "slowing the train down will give us more time to prepare new leaders." And "to those who say they cannot vote for either," Mr. McDowell says, "this is in reality a vote for the least Biblical guy. By your tacit consent, you are helping put the worst guy in office. At 100 miles per hour, I fear we cannot last long enough to restore America to its place as the most free, prosperous, virtuous, and just nation the world has ever seen." In other words, Mr. McDowell never had any intention of voting for the candidate who most aligns with God's qualifications of elected leadership. He has his own, humanistic standard by which he has chosen his candidate. He is planning to vote for the candidate whom he (in his finite little mind) thinks will do the most to slow down our failing economy. This is most definitely not how a Christian should decide who to vote for in the 2012 election.
I will close with the same quote from Noah Webster that Mr. McDowell referenced in his article:
"Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for yourselves rulers, 'just men who rule in the fear of God.' The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws."
The command of God that Mr. Webster referred to is found in II Samuel 23:3 where we read, "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." As Christians and as Americans, it is our duty to find and vote for a candidate who meets God's qualifications for office. I hope that you will join me in refusing to neglect the divine commands and in preserving our republican government through the faithful discharge of this sacred duty.
Other articles in this series:
The Lesser of Two Evils
A Biblical Strategy for Voting
Pragmatism or Principles?
The Real Mitt Romney
Voting Perspectives
Mr. McDowell based his examination of the candidates primarily on two verses which he correctly identified as qualifications for certain elected officials in the Bible. Those two verses are Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13. One thing that Mr. McDowell failed to mention from the outset is that these verses were specifically written as requirements for members of the legislature, not for the head of the executive branch of the government. The requirements for the chief executive are found in Deuteronomy 17:15-20. Nevertheless, the requirements for both offices are very similar, and I think that it will suffice for now to focus solely on the verses that Mr. McDowell listed.
These two verses present several qualifications for elected office which Mr. McDowell has grouped into three major categories - faith (the fear of God), morality (truthfulness and a lack of covetousness) and a biblical worldview (wisdom and discernment). I agree with Mr. McDowell's statement that "we should understand the Biblical qualifications for leaders, learn of the character and worldview of the candidates, and vote accordingly." However, immediately after making this statement, he proceeded to explain why he would not be following his own advice in this election. He said, "I will only be comparing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney since there is no chance that any other candidate can win." I was sorely disappointed to note that he did not provide a single passage of Scripture to support this decision. According to Mr. McDowell, the Bible teaches that we should vote in accordance with how the candidates measure up to the Biblical qualifications for leaders (and he was very clear in his listing of those qualifications); but when it came time to compare the candidates with that standard, he added an additional qualification. In order to receive Mr. McDowell's vote, a candidate must first convince Mr. McDowell that he has a chance of winning. This is a purely humanistic qualification for which he did not even attempt to provide scriptural support.
This single observation provides us with sufficient cause to reject all of Mr. McDowell's article, but for sake of argument, let's extend our analysis to his comparison of the "two" candidates to the list of qualifications which God laid out in the Bible.
The first qualification was given as faith or, in other words, the fear of God; and I found it very interesting to note the difference between Mr. McDowell's presentation of the two candidates. His analysis of President Obama consisted of two full columns of text explaining why Christians should not conclude that the President is a man who fears God. His analysis of Mr. Romney, on the other hand, was not an analysis at all but rather an attempt to explain why having a Mormon in the White House would be better for our nation than any of the professing Christians who have inhabited that dwelling place. Intriguingly, Mr. McDowell relied on three different passages of Scripture to explain why he does not believe that President Obama fears God, but he did not present a single verse to support his preference for a Mormon in the White House. In fact, Mr. McDowell's entire segment on Mr. Romney ignores the clear teaching of Scripture found in Proverbs 29:2 which states that "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."
I should point out that Mr. McDowell did conclude this segment of his article by admitting that "Neither candidate acts like a regenerated believer who meets the qualification of fearing God as the Bible presents." I agree with this statement. However, Mr. McDowell acts as if this fact negates the importance of the entire first category of biblical qualifications for leadership. He is apparently of the opinion that if neither candidate meets one of the requirements, then the requirement itself should be abandoned, and I am very much in disagreement with this opinion. What if neither of the two major parties nominated a candidate who was over the age of thirty-five? Would Mr. McDowell then conclude that it is acceptable to throw out that requirement? I am sure that he would not, and I see no reason to abandon God's requirement for leadership under similar conditions. If neither of the two major candidates fears the Lord, then neither of them should be considered eligible for office.
Let's proceed to Mr. McDowell's second category of qualifications which he described as morality or Christian character. To compare the two candidates with this qualification, Mr. McDowell focused on what he referred to as "the two most important moral issues" - abortion and homosexuality. Once again, Mr. McDowell aptly and correctly demonstrated that President Obama does not measure up to God's standard on these two issues, and once again, he devoted his segment on Mr. Romney to explaining why Mr. Romney's failure to measure up to that standard is acceptable. He did this in the area of abortion by describing Mr. Romney's position as pro-life even though he quoted Mr. Romney's admission that he believes mothers should have the right to kill their children for a variety of reasons. Mr. McDowell then proceeded to excuse Mr. Romney's acceptance of homosexuality by saying that at least he is opposed to homosexual marriage. Just as in the previous segment, Mr. McDowell completely neglected to consult the Scriptures in regards to his excuses for Mr. Romney. Nowhere in the Bible do we find that it is okay to kill a child if the pregnancy might have an effect on the mother's health, and God never once excuses those who accept homosexuality just because they oppose homosexual marriage. In this category as well as the first, we find that neither of the major candidates meets God's qualification.
Mr. McDowell's third category was that of a biblical worldview. He included in this category the three statements from Scripture that elected leaders should be men of truth, wisdom and understanding or discernment. In this segment, Mr. McDowell made the most remarkable claim of the entire article. He wrote that "In many ways this third qualification is of most importance." In other words, Mr. McDowell believes that it is more important for our President to have a biblical worldview than it is for him to be a Christian who fears God and keeps His commandments. Of course, he did not provide any Scripture to support this idea. He did eventually reference Proverbs 23:7 in order to prove that a President's worldview will determine how he governs, but that does not in any way tell us that having a proper worldview is more important than the fear of the Lord. On the contrary, we find in Scripture that it is impossible for a candidate to be a man of truth, wisdom and understanding without the fear of the Lord. Proverbs 9:10 tells us that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." In John 17:17, Jesus said to the Father, "Thy word is truth." And in Ephesians 4:21 we read that "the truth is in Jesus." No candidate who rejects the fear of the Lord and the teachings of the Word of God is even capable of having a biblical worldview.
This fact is plainly seen in Mr. McDowell's own analysis of the two candidates. In order to demonstrate that Mr. Romney has a biblical worldview, he focused solely on the policies of the two candidates with regards to the economy of our nation, and concluded that Mr. Romney must have a biblical worldview and should be voted for because he promises to allow "all individuals to keep more of their money." This is a direct reversal of the teachings of Scripture. The Bible teaches that wisdom (which only comes from a fear of the Lord) is far more valuable than any monetary wealth. In Proverbs 16:16 we read, "How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!" And in verse eight of the same chapter we are told, "Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right." Voting for a particular candidate just because he has promised to increase our wealth is decidedly unscriptural, and I was astounded to see Mr. McDowell suggest such a thing.
So where does this analysis leave us? According to the Bible we should vote for men who fear the Lord, who have a sound sense of morality and whose view of the world is established by biblical wisdom and truth. According to Mr. McDowell's analysis, neither President Obama nor Mr. Romney meet God's qualifications for elected leaders. Neither of them has a fear of the Lord. They both have a fatally flawed sense of morality, and thus, neither of them is capable of developing a biblical worldview. Both of these candidates have failed to meet a single one of the three qualifications. What should we do in such a case?
According to Mr. McDowell, we should still vote for Mr. Romney in spite of his failures because "slowing the train down will give us more time to prepare new leaders." And "to those who say they cannot vote for either," Mr. McDowell says, "this is in reality a vote for the least Biblical guy. By your tacit consent, you are helping put the worst guy in office. At 100 miles per hour, I fear we cannot last long enough to restore America to its place as the most free, prosperous, virtuous, and just nation the world has ever seen." In other words, Mr. McDowell never had any intention of voting for the candidate who most aligns with God's qualifications of elected leadership. He has his own, humanistic standard by which he has chosen his candidate. He is planning to vote for the candidate whom he (in his finite little mind) thinks will do the most to slow down our failing economy. This is most definitely not how a Christian should decide who to vote for in the 2012 election.
I will close with the same quote from Noah Webster that Mr. McDowell referenced in his article:
"Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for yourselves rulers, 'just men who rule in the fear of God.' The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws."
The command of God that Mr. Webster referred to is found in II Samuel 23:3 where we read, "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." As Christians and as Americans, it is our duty to find and vote for a candidate who meets God's qualifications for office. I hope that you will join me in refusing to neglect the divine commands and in preserving our republican government through the faithful discharge of this sacred duty.
Other articles in this series:
The Lesser of Two Evils
A Biblical Strategy for Voting
Pragmatism or Principles?
The Real Mitt Romney
Voting Perspectives