_Voting Perspectives
Bill Fortenberry
___
I
have previously written several articles encouraging Christians to vote for a
third party candidate in this year’s Presidential election, and as with every
article, I have received a flurry of comments from people who agree with me and
from those who do not. With this series,
however, the response from those who disagree has been particularly
vehement. This, of course, caused me a great
deal of pain and motivated me to try to learn why this particular series had
proven to be so divisive, but I just could not figure it out. Then I was asked to review an article by
Randy Alcorn of Eternal Perspectives Ministries, and that’s when it hit me. The reason that the responses to this series
have been so heated is that those who disagree with me have been viewing my
position from a perspective that is radically different from my own. With that realization firmly in mind, I began
preparing the following response to Mr. Alcorn’s article.
My goal in writing this response is not to convince people to change their positions on this issue, but rather to help Christians on either side to understand the perspective of the other. As you read this try not to focus so much on what I have said but rather on why I have said it. Try not to determine whether my statements make sense from your own perspective, but rather if they make sense from mine. Then, I would ask that you follow the links at the end of this article and read again all of my previous articles with that same goal in mind. Perhaps you will find this exercise to be as rewarding as I have.
Mr. Alcorn’s article is available on the Eternal Perspective Ministries website under the title, “Election 2012 Part 5: Is it Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Evils? Shouldn’t We Instead Vote for a Third Party Candidate?” Mr. Alcorn introduced his article with a series of three questions accompanied by a set of possible answers to each of them. When I read these questions, I was struck by the fact that my answers were not among the ones which he provided. Here are Mr. Alcorn’s questions along with my answers.
The first question was, "In this presidential election, what does your vote mean to you?" Mr. Alcorn provided six possible answers to this question. My answer, however, is that my vote means to me the same thing this year that it always does. My vote is another opportunity to obey God - nothing more and nothing less.
The next question was, "Do you view voting like choosing a marriage partner ... choosing a school or job ... or like choosing a seat on the bus?" Once again, my answer was not among the possibilities that Mr. Alcorn provided. I view voting like choosing whether or not to obey God.
The third of Mr. Alcorn's questions was, "What will you do in this election?" My answer to this question is, rather predictably by now, that I will obey God by voting in favor of the candidate for whom I believe that He would have me vote.
Mr. Alcorn's answers to his own questions are obvious from the format of his article. To him, voting means choosing the better of the two most viable candidates. He views voting as similar to choosing a seat on a bus, and he will vote for whichever of the two major candidates he believes will do the most good for the most people.
When our answers are compared, it becomes obvious that Mr. Alcorn and I are approaching this election from two vastly different perspectives, and this difference of perspectives plays itself out in the pragmatic justifications that Mr. Alcorn presented in the remainder of his article.
The first of these justifications was his statement that, "To vote for the lesser of evils is to vote for less evil." This justification makes perfect sense from Mr. Alcorn's perspective on voting. If our vote for the next President is similar to choosing a seat on the bus, then it is obvious that he is correct in saying that a vote for less evil is a vote for more good. After all, choosing a seat on a bus that is less toward the back of the bus is the same as choosing a seat that is more toward the front of the bus. Mr. Alcorn's statement makes so much sense when viewed from his perspective that those who share his perspective often find themselves unable to even consider any other possibility.
From my perspective, however, Mr. Alcorn's statement is completely illogical. I view voting as a decision to obey or disobey the instructions of God. From that perspective, to vote for the lesser of two evils would be just as much an act of disobeying God as a vote for the greater of two evils. This is the same view that is displayed in James 2:10. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." When God gives us a set of instructions to follow, we cannot say that less disobedience is the same as more obedience.
We can illustrate this view with the same comparison that Mr. Alcorn used. Imagine that I have received a set of instructions that tells me to choose a seat within the first five rows of the bus. When I arrive at the bus, I find that the only seat available in the first five rows is next to a man who is extremely overweight and who looks and smells as if he hasn't bathed in over a month. There is a seat in row six, however, that is next to a very well dressed and groomed businessman. If I choose to sit in row six, I may try to justify that decision by thinking, "At least I did not sit in row ten,” but in reality, there is no difference between the two. Disobeying my instructions by sitting in row six is just as evil as disobeying by sitting in row ten. This is exactly what is taught in James 2:10. Violating just one part of God's Law is just as bad as violating all of God's Law.
This difference in our perspectives is highlighted even more in Mr. Alcorn's second justification. He introduces that justification with the statement, "There's something very flawed in the argument that 'choosing the lesser of evils is always evil.'" The flaw to which Mr. Alcorn was referring is that every candidate is an evil choice to some degree because every candidate is a sinner. Once again, this statement makes perfect sense from Mr. Alcorn's perspective on voting. His view of voting as a choice between the better of only two viable candidates is essentially an assessment of each candidate's value. First he assesses each candidate's ability to win, and then he assesses how closely the values of the top two candidates line up with the values of the Bible.
This method allows Mr. Alcorn to choose the most valuable candidate of the current election season in the same way that sports associations choose the most valuable player for a given season of sports. It would make no sense at all for a player from a losing team to win the MVP award even if he is a better player than any one on the winning team. In almost every case, the first requirement for winning the MVP award is to be on a winning team. This makes sense because the most valuable player is not the best player but rather the player who leads his team to victory. From Mr. Alcorn's perspective, the same thing is true of political candidates. He is voting for the most valuable candidate, and the first requirement of that title is the ability to win.
My perspective on voting, however, leads me to a different conclusion. I do not view my vote as a choice for the most valuable candidate but rather as a choice to obey God or not to obey God. Therefore, I decide who to vote for by first identifying the candidates for whom my vote would not cause me to violate God's instructions and then determining which among those candidates is the best choice for our nation.
The difference between this aspect of our perspectives can be illustrated very well from an event in our nation's history. In 1972, the Socialist Workers Party nominated Linda Jenness as their candidate for the Presidency. At the time of the election, Ms. Jenness was only 31 years old and did not meet the minimum age requirement for the President. She was still permitted to run, however, and she was on the ballot in 25 states. The candidacy of Ms. Jenness proves that an individual can be a candidate for the office of the President even if he does not meet all of the Constitutional requirements for that office.
Now, let's apply this fact to our discussion on voting perspectives. The candidacy of Ms. Jenness proves that, even though it is highly improbable, it is still possible that we might see a day when neither of the candidates from the two major parties meets the Constitutional requirements for the office of the President. Mr. Alcorn's choice in such a situation would still be limited to the two candidates from the major parties. In order to vote for the most valuable candidate, he would have to determine which of these two, unqualified candidates is the least unqualified and cast his vote accordingly. My perspective, on the other hand, would preclude me from voting for either of the two majority candidates. I view voting as a choice between obedience and disobedience to the instructions of God. God's Word teaches that we are to obey the law of the land unless it contradicts the Law of God, and therefore, I must exclude any candidate from my consideration who fails to meet the requirements established by the Constitution. It is only after excluding the unqualified candidates that I am able to utilize a values based assessment of the remaining candidates in order to cast my vote.
This same principle applies to the current election in that my perspective on voting requires me to first eliminate from consideration any candidate that fails to meet God's requirements for political leadership and only then to assess those candidates based on their value. One of those requirements can be found in II Samuel 23:3 where God said, "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." Since God requires that rulers fear Him, it is imperative that I eliminate from my consideration any candidate which fails to meet that requirement just as I would refuse to consider voting for a candidate who fails to meet the requirements of the Constitution.
Mr. Alcorn stated his final justification as, "What I want to do is make a difference with my vote." This is consistent with his decision to vote for the candidate that he thinks can accomplish the most good for the most people. When the election is viewed from the perspective of voting for the most valuable candidate, the idea of casting a vote that does not make a difference is completely anathema. From Mr. Alcorn's perspective, those who vote for a third party candidate are refusing to perform their duty as American citizens.
But from my perspective, whether or not my vote makes a difference is wholly inconsequential. I do not view voting as a decision between the better of the two most viable candidates. I see voting as another opportunity to obey God. Whether or not I think that my vote will actually make a difference in the future of our nation does not change the fact that I should obey the instructions of my Lord.
This philosophy can be found throughout the Scriptures, but I think that one of the best examples of it can be seen in John 21:17-22. In this passage, we read of Jesus commanding Peter to feed His sheep and telling him that he would die a martyr's death in his old age. When Peter heard that, he turned and saw John and asked the Lord what John would do in his life. Jesus answered, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." Peter had been instructed to do something for the Lord, but instead of focusing on obeying God's instructions, he began focusing on other people. This earned him a sharp reprimand from Christ. It was not his place to worry about the future of someone else. Peter's only responsibility was to follow the command of God.
The same thing is true of our responsibility in this election. It is not our place to worry about how our vote will affect the future of our nation. The Bible tells us in Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." In Psalm 105:25 we see that it was God who caused the Egyptians to turn against the children of Israel, and in Psalm 106:46, we find that it was God who caused the Israelites to find pity in the eyes of their captors. God is in full control of the future of our nation, and it is His vote that will decide whether we fail or whether we prosper. Our only responsibility is to fear Him and keep His commandments as we are clearly instructed in Ecclesiastes 12:13.
I pray that you have found this article to be enlightening, and whether you agree with me or not in the area of third party voting, I trust that you at least have obtained a better understanding of my perspective. It pains me to see brothers and sisters in Christ viciously attacking each other over this election, and I hope that, in reading this article, Christians on both sides will have found reason to temper their rage with understanding. The Bible says in Proverbs 27:17, “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” In this election cycle, let us both strive to use our disagreement to sharpen our minds with well reasoned discourse and not to dull them with vain epithets of contempt.
Other articles in this series:
The Lesser of Two Evils
A Biblical Strategy for Voting
A Duty to Principle
Pragmatism or Principles?
The Real Mitt Romney
My goal in writing this response is not to convince people to change their positions on this issue, but rather to help Christians on either side to understand the perspective of the other. As you read this try not to focus so much on what I have said but rather on why I have said it. Try not to determine whether my statements make sense from your own perspective, but rather if they make sense from mine. Then, I would ask that you follow the links at the end of this article and read again all of my previous articles with that same goal in mind. Perhaps you will find this exercise to be as rewarding as I have.
Mr. Alcorn’s article is available on the Eternal Perspective Ministries website under the title, “Election 2012 Part 5: Is it Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Evils? Shouldn’t We Instead Vote for a Third Party Candidate?” Mr. Alcorn introduced his article with a series of three questions accompanied by a set of possible answers to each of them. When I read these questions, I was struck by the fact that my answers were not among the ones which he provided. Here are Mr. Alcorn’s questions along with my answers.
The first question was, "In this presidential election, what does your vote mean to you?" Mr. Alcorn provided six possible answers to this question. My answer, however, is that my vote means to me the same thing this year that it always does. My vote is another opportunity to obey God - nothing more and nothing less.
The next question was, "Do you view voting like choosing a marriage partner ... choosing a school or job ... or like choosing a seat on the bus?" Once again, my answer was not among the possibilities that Mr. Alcorn provided. I view voting like choosing whether or not to obey God.
The third of Mr. Alcorn's questions was, "What will you do in this election?" My answer to this question is, rather predictably by now, that I will obey God by voting in favor of the candidate for whom I believe that He would have me vote.
Mr. Alcorn's answers to his own questions are obvious from the format of his article. To him, voting means choosing the better of the two most viable candidates. He views voting as similar to choosing a seat on a bus, and he will vote for whichever of the two major candidates he believes will do the most good for the most people.
When our answers are compared, it becomes obvious that Mr. Alcorn and I are approaching this election from two vastly different perspectives, and this difference of perspectives plays itself out in the pragmatic justifications that Mr. Alcorn presented in the remainder of his article.
The first of these justifications was his statement that, "To vote for the lesser of evils is to vote for less evil." This justification makes perfect sense from Mr. Alcorn's perspective on voting. If our vote for the next President is similar to choosing a seat on the bus, then it is obvious that he is correct in saying that a vote for less evil is a vote for more good. After all, choosing a seat on a bus that is less toward the back of the bus is the same as choosing a seat that is more toward the front of the bus. Mr. Alcorn's statement makes so much sense when viewed from his perspective that those who share his perspective often find themselves unable to even consider any other possibility.
From my perspective, however, Mr. Alcorn's statement is completely illogical. I view voting as a decision to obey or disobey the instructions of God. From that perspective, to vote for the lesser of two evils would be just as much an act of disobeying God as a vote for the greater of two evils. This is the same view that is displayed in James 2:10. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." When God gives us a set of instructions to follow, we cannot say that less disobedience is the same as more obedience.
We can illustrate this view with the same comparison that Mr. Alcorn used. Imagine that I have received a set of instructions that tells me to choose a seat within the first five rows of the bus. When I arrive at the bus, I find that the only seat available in the first five rows is next to a man who is extremely overweight and who looks and smells as if he hasn't bathed in over a month. There is a seat in row six, however, that is next to a very well dressed and groomed businessman. If I choose to sit in row six, I may try to justify that decision by thinking, "At least I did not sit in row ten,” but in reality, there is no difference between the two. Disobeying my instructions by sitting in row six is just as evil as disobeying by sitting in row ten. This is exactly what is taught in James 2:10. Violating just one part of God's Law is just as bad as violating all of God's Law.
This difference in our perspectives is highlighted even more in Mr. Alcorn's second justification. He introduces that justification with the statement, "There's something very flawed in the argument that 'choosing the lesser of evils is always evil.'" The flaw to which Mr. Alcorn was referring is that every candidate is an evil choice to some degree because every candidate is a sinner. Once again, this statement makes perfect sense from Mr. Alcorn's perspective on voting. His view of voting as a choice between the better of only two viable candidates is essentially an assessment of each candidate's value. First he assesses each candidate's ability to win, and then he assesses how closely the values of the top two candidates line up with the values of the Bible.
This method allows Mr. Alcorn to choose the most valuable candidate of the current election season in the same way that sports associations choose the most valuable player for a given season of sports. It would make no sense at all for a player from a losing team to win the MVP award even if he is a better player than any one on the winning team. In almost every case, the first requirement for winning the MVP award is to be on a winning team. This makes sense because the most valuable player is not the best player but rather the player who leads his team to victory. From Mr. Alcorn's perspective, the same thing is true of political candidates. He is voting for the most valuable candidate, and the first requirement of that title is the ability to win.
My perspective on voting, however, leads me to a different conclusion. I do not view my vote as a choice for the most valuable candidate but rather as a choice to obey God or not to obey God. Therefore, I decide who to vote for by first identifying the candidates for whom my vote would not cause me to violate God's instructions and then determining which among those candidates is the best choice for our nation.
The difference between this aspect of our perspectives can be illustrated very well from an event in our nation's history. In 1972, the Socialist Workers Party nominated Linda Jenness as their candidate for the Presidency. At the time of the election, Ms. Jenness was only 31 years old and did not meet the minimum age requirement for the President. She was still permitted to run, however, and she was on the ballot in 25 states. The candidacy of Ms. Jenness proves that an individual can be a candidate for the office of the President even if he does not meet all of the Constitutional requirements for that office.
Now, let's apply this fact to our discussion on voting perspectives. The candidacy of Ms. Jenness proves that, even though it is highly improbable, it is still possible that we might see a day when neither of the candidates from the two major parties meets the Constitutional requirements for the office of the President. Mr. Alcorn's choice in such a situation would still be limited to the two candidates from the major parties. In order to vote for the most valuable candidate, he would have to determine which of these two, unqualified candidates is the least unqualified and cast his vote accordingly. My perspective, on the other hand, would preclude me from voting for either of the two majority candidates. I view voting as a choice between obedience and disobedience to the instructions of God. God's Word teaches that we are to obey the law of the land unless it contradicts the Law of God, and therefore, I must exclude any candidate from my consideration who fails to meet the requirements established by the Constitution. It is only after excluding the unqualified candidates that I am able to utilize a values based assessment of the remaining candidates in order to cast my vote.
This same principle applies to the current election in that my perspective on voting requires me to first eliminate from consideration any candidate that fails to meet God's requirements for political leadership and only then to assess those candidates based on their value. One of those requirements can be found in II Samuel 23:3 where God said, "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." Since God requires that rulers fear Him, it is imperative that I eliminate from my consideration any candidate which fails to meet that requirement just as I would refuse to consider voting for a candidate who fails to meet the requirements of the Constitution.
Mr. Alcorn stated his final justification as, "What I want to do is make a difference with my vote." This is consistent with his decision to vote for the candidate that he thinks can accomplish the most good for the most people. When the election is viewed from the perspective of voting for the most valuable candidate, the idea of casting a vote that does not make a difference is completely anathema. From Mr. Alcorn's perspective, those who vote for a third party candidate are refusing to perform their duty as American citizens.
But from my perspective, whether or not my vote makes a difference is wholly inconsequential. I do not view voting as a decision between the better of the two most viable candidates. I see voting as another opportunity to obey God. Whether or not I think that my vote will actually make a difference in the future of our nation does not change the fact that I should obey the instructions of my Lord.
This philosophy can be found throughout the Scriptures, but I think that one of the best examples of it can be seen in John 21:17-22. In this passage, we read of Jesus commanding Peter to feed His sheep and telling him that he would die a martyr's death in his old age. When Peter heard that, he turned and saw John and asked the Lord what John would do in his life. Jesus answered, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." Peter had been instructed to do something for the Lord, but instead of focusing on obeying God's instructions, he began focusing on other people. This earned him a sharp reprimand from Christ. It was not his place to worry about the future of someone else. Peter's only responsibility was to follow the command of God.
The same thing is true of our responsibility in this election. It is not our place to worry about how our vote will affect the future of our nation. The Bible tells us in Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." In Psalm 105:25 we see that it was God who caused the Egyptians to turn against the children of Israel, and in Psalm 106:46, we find that it was God who caused the Israelites to find pity in the eyes of their captors. God is in full control of the future of our nation, and it is His vote that will decide whether we fail or whether we prosper. Our only responsibility is to fear Him and keep His commandments as we are clearly instructed in Ecclesiastes 12:13.
I pray that you have found this article to be enlightening, and whether you agree with me or not in the area of third party voting, I trust that you at least have obtained a better understanding of my perspective. It pains me to see brothers and sisters in Christ viciously attacking each other over this election, and I hope that, in reading this article, Christians on both sides will have found reason to temper their rage with understanding. The Bible says in Proverbs 27:17, “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” In this election cycle, let us both strive to use our disagreement to sharpen our minds with well reasoned discourse and not to dull them with vain epithets of contempt.
Other articles in this series:
The Lesser of Two Evils
A Biblical Strategy for Voting
A Duty to Principle
Pragmatism or Principles?
The Real Mitt Romney