How Should a Christian Vote in November?

The presidential election debate is nearing epic proportions – not the debate between candidates, but the debate about which candidate is most (or in this year’s case) least worthy to receive our vote.

Among Christians, this is especially vexing.

There does not appear to be a competent candidate among the possibilities of either party. If things go as most people expect, the two candidates who are most likely to survive the nomination process are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

In my opinion, neither of these candidates are morally fit to be president of the United States, even if they were politically qualified, which I do not believe they are. (Not preaching or politicking – just stating my opinion.)

Therefore, if I vote, it seems I must vote for the lesser of two evils, cast a write-in vote, or abstain from voting altogether.

The latter course would be, in my opinion, a desertion of my responsibility as a citizen of the country where God caused me to be born. The point is arguable, but I believe that “render unto Caesar” at least implies a responsibility to be an active part of the process of government.

Furthermore, refusing to vote would, in fact, be a vote, because my missing vote could cause the lesser qualified person to be elected. But at least I could pat myself on the back for taking the moral high ground.

I could cast a write-in vote, but in light of U.S. history, such an action would almost assuredly put into office the very person that I dislike most. Again, I could celebrate a personal moral victory, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

The only thing left is to choose between the lesser of two evils, an idea which is equally as abhorrent to me as the previous options. So what is a Christian to do? How do you participate in an election of immoral leaders and continue to promote the righteousness of Christ? There seems to be a general disconnect here.

I know that the word of God can answer every question of life if we allow God to speak to us through it. So I prayed for God to reveal a biblical solution to the dilemma we find ourselves in, and I would like to offer the following as a possible answer to that prayer.

First of all, God revealed to Habakkuk that He (God) was going to judge Israel’s wickedness by calling upon the Babylonians as his tool of discipline. Habakkuk was intensely angered by such a suggestion and argued vehemently against such an idea. How could God use a wicked ruler to carry out His righteous will?

Yet we know that this is exactly what God did.

When Nebuchadnezzar began the conquest of Judah, there was some resistance, but in general, the resistance was futile against such an awesome army as that of the Chaldeans, especially since they were instruments in the hand of God.

In fact, God instructed the prophet Jeremiah to tell the people to simply lay down their arms and surrender to Nebuchadnezzar and to willingly go into captivity.

He did what?!

You can read the entire prophecy in Jeremiah 27, but here are some excerpts (God is speaking):

Jer. 27:5 “It is I who by my great power and my outstretched arm have made the earth, with the men and animals that are on the earth, and I give it to whomever it seems right to me.

8 But if any nation or kingdom will not serve this Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, declares the LORD, until I have consumed it by his hand.

11 But any nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, I will leave on its own land, to work it and dwell there, declares the LORD.”

On the face of it, this seems so incongruous.

Why would God not defend Israel from such a wicked people? Why would God allow – or even better, why would God choose a wicked ruler to hold such dominion over His own chosen people?

In a word, the answer is “The Sovereignty of God,” or, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, “Judgment.”

This is God at work in the world, carrying out His perfect will through the free will decisions of men.

Concerning the rulers of nations, Daniel wrote, “…the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.” (Dan. 4:17, 25, 32; Dan. 5:21; See also Dan. 2:21 and Dan. 4:35)

Since He is omniscient, God already knows who will win the election in November. In fact, He not only knows who will win, but He determined the winner before there were even any candidates from which to choose.

In that case, we might argue that we are justified in abstaining from voting since the outcome is a given, but such a thought reveals our ignorance of how God accomplishes His purpose.

Although He does not need us, God has chosen to use man for the accomplishment of His eternal purpose.

God created the beautiful Garden of Eden, then placed Adam there with a command to make the rest of the world look like Eden. Why didn’t God just make the whole world look like Eden? Why command Adam to do it?

God chose the nation of Israel to be His chosen people before they ever were a people. And He chose to create the nation by the slow process of procreation beginning with Abraham. Why didn’t God just create a million people and call them His?

God chose Cyrus, the king of Persia, by name 300 years before he was ever born to be the instrument by which the Babylonians were judged and the people of Israel were freed to return to the Promised Land. Why did God wait on Cyrus? Why didn’t He just say the word and release the people instantly?

Why did Jesus have to die on a cross? It seems a cruel way to consummate the plan of redemption. It would seem to us that there must have been a better way.

But we would be wrong.

Except for a few occasions like creation, God always accomplishes His perfect will through the free will decisions of men.

Thus there is no conflict between sovereignty and free will.

This is just how God gets things done.

Thus choosing the lesser of two evils in the upcoming election is not a moral failure on my part, but a fulfillment of God’s plan.

Whoever the choices for POTUS are on the ballot in November will only be the choices because God chose them to be the candidates.

And since everything that God does is righteous, for me to choose the lesser of two evils that God put before me as choices would not be an act of immorality, but an act of righteous obedience.

When Adam Sinned

When Adam sinned, he did so from a condition of perfection.

Before Adam sinned, he knew no sin. His nature was unfallen. He had no experience with disobedience nor any modeling of it from any source within his culture. The only interpersonal relationship he had on a regular basis, other than with Eve, who also was perfect before the Fall, was with God himself – the Lord of all Creation and the archetype of righteousness.

Of course, Adam’s culture changed when Satan – himself a novice at the temptation of humans, though inexpressibly and universally successful on his very first attempt – made his appearance in the Garden in the form of the serpent.[i]

Even with such a nature and inheritance of righteousness, upon the first opportunity that Adam had to express his will in a case calling for a moral decision, seemingly without hesitation or argument he chose to reject the very God who created and nourished him. 

Even though he possessed an unfallen nature and derived from an uncorrupted environment, when Adam was given the choice, he chose personal pride over personal perfection and rebellion against God instead of the righteousness of God.

Even though he was perfect in nature and existed in perfect surroundings, with his eyes wide open to the consequences of his actions, Adam found it impossible to exercise his free will in the direction of righteousness when left to his own devices and apart from the direct influence of God.

Yet today there are those who insist that salvation ultimately turns on a man’s expression of his free will. God may offer the gift of salvation, but man must accept the gift before it becomes effective.

This is the same man whose nature, unlike that of Adam’s, is corrupted by sin from the moment of conception and whose environment and culture are equally corrupted as a result of the Fall. This is the same man who is surrounded and nurtured by individuals and a people of the same corrupt nature as himself.

According to this doctrine, man’s salvation is dependent upon his making a free will decision in favor of righteousness – a decision that, by its very definition, cannot be manipulated or managed by any external constraint, including that of God.

God may bring positive and righteous influence into the man’s life. He may have him born into a Christian family, surround him with Christian friends, and manipulate his life so that everything brings the man to the very brink of a decision for salvation. Yet God is powerless to move the man past that point, because God’s will is effectively blocked by the free will of the man.

For God to intentionally and willfully and unilaterally move the man from a condition of certain eternal damnation into a state of eternal life would be immoral – and therefore sinful – on God’s part if such a move was in violation of the man’s will.

Since God is perfect and cannot sin, then man’s free will is effectively more powerful than God. Therefore, assuming this assessment to be true, God cannot be omnipotent.

Yet, God is omnipotent.

And in spite of the apparent contradiction, there is a solution.

---

[i] Note that Adam never had a conversation with the serpent – with Satan. Satan never attempted to deceive Adam. Adam never bought into the lie that the fruit would make him wise or that he would become like God. Adam ate of the fruit with his eyes wide open to the consequence of death that awaited him and Eve for doing so. His sin was not so much that of pride as it was of idolatry. He listened to the voice of his wife over that of God.

Who Is A Christian, Part 5

This series has been interrupted a couple of times, once by a study of Joseph (Gen. 37) and again by an Easter-related study of the fig tree of Mark 11. Hopefully, the series will continue uninterrupted until its completion. So far, we have looked at two of five categories of evidences that define a Christian, Profession and Practice. Once again, the purpose of the articles is to help answer the question “Who is a Christian.” These are not intended to provide a listing of steps to becoming a Christian or even to becoming a better Christian. This series of articles is intended to define what a Christian looks like. I encourage you to respond if you have any questions or need clarity on any point. Thanks.

PASSION

Another aspect of the evidences from 1 John that stands out from among the rest is Passion. More than any other single feature (16 times), John writes that a Christian will love other people, especially other Christians. Of the 62 items that define a Christian or a non-Christian, just over 25 percent of them refer to the Christian’s ability to love others, in general, and especially love for the brotherhood.

All but five of these references to love include a reference to Christian brothers. This means that a Christian will love other Christians, both male and female, and will love the church in general. No person can legitimately claim to be a Christian who does not love the church which is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-20; Eph. 1:22-23; Eph. 5:30; Col. 1:24).

A true Christian will have a love for the brotherhood, the fellowship of other believers, which means that he will love the church, which is the body of Christ.

However, this is not the first time that John recorded such a thought. In his Gospel, John recorded that Jesus himself taught this principle to His disciples, including John:

By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35, ESV)

Are you a Christian? Is some other person a Christian? The answer is very simple: Do you love other people? Do you love other Christians? Does that person you may have questions about love the church? Note that this love is so much more than natural affection, or friendship, or fellowship, or brotherly love. This is agape, the kind of intentional, willful love that is passionate and sacrificial in nature.

In the early centuries of the church, church members demonstrated a sincere love for one another and the people around them, so much so that they directly impacted their culture.

Luke wrote in his history of the early church (the book of Acts) that the people of the church lived in “wonderful harmony” and were committed to life together, sharing meals at one another’s houses, “every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God.” Each person’s needs were met by the sacrifices of others in the fellowship.

Luke goes on to tell us that this love for one another within the church was noticed by the community around them to the extent that “fear came upon every soul.” In other words, the people of the community where the church was located stood in awe of what they were witnessing. The church had favor with all the people, meaning that “people in general liked what they saw.”[1]

One commentator remarked that “the humble and consistent lives” of the members of the early church “won the favor of the masses of the community” and silenced opposition. [2] Another wrote that the early church commended itself by its “lovely demeanor to the admiration of all who observed them.” [3]

In truth, this should be the typical reaction of a community to the church. After all, the church is the body of Christ – the physical reality of the resurrected Jesus. In his first historical treatise (the Gospel of Luke), Luke wrote of Jesus, “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”

In general, when people met Jesus, they liked what they saw. Crowds followed Him everywhere He went, so much so that, on occasions, He had to intentionally plan to get away from them for a time of rest. One reason may be the level of compassion that Jesus demonstrated towards other people. (Matt. 9:36; Matt. 14:14; Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41; Luke 7:13) And His passion for His disciples and all believers is clearly demonstrated in His pastoral prayer recorded in John 17.

This loving characteristic of the church continued on through the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries, and continued to awe the local communities. Tertullian, a major theologian of the time, wrote of the early church “…it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another…See, they say about us, how they are ready even to die for one another…” [4]

In his letter to the Roman Proconsul Scapula, Tertullian wrote, “This is the rule of our faith, that we love those who hate us, and that we beseech God to bless those who afflict us; and herein lies that goodness which is peculiar to us.  All men love those who love them, Christians alone those who hate them… Christians have no hatred or ill-will at any man, and least of all at Caesar; for knowing him to be set up by their God, they must needs love him, and shew him worship (reverence and respect).” [5]

In summary, we have seen two standards in addition to a profession of faith for determining whether or not a person is truly a Christian: Are they actively serving God in obedience to His commands, and do they love others, especially other Christians.

PDF

EPUB

KINDLE

---

[1] The references in these paragraphs are based on adaptations of Acts 2:42-47 as recorded in the KJV and The Message.

[2] Barnes, Alfred. Barnes’ Notes. Online Bible Edition, Version 4.32.01, July 18, 2014, Copyright © 1987-2014, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario, Canada NOB 2VO. Referenced hereafter as Online Bible.

[3] Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary, Online Bible.

[4] Quotation taken from Tertullian’s Apologeticum. Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall, 1869. http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-05.htm

[5] Quotation taken from The Address of Q. Sept. Tertullian, To Scapula Tertullus, Proconsul of Africa. Translated by Sir David Dalrymple, 1790. http://www.tertullian.org/articles/dalrymple_scapula.htm </span>

The Fig Tree, Part 2

The one thing that amazed me when I began to study the incident with the fig tree was how this event so paralleled the events of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. 

Part 2

Now let’s travel back in time – all the way back to the beginning of man’s time on the earth, to the Garden of Eden, and to another fig tree – the only fruit tree that we are familiar with to be specifically referenced by name in the Garden of Eden.[1]

In this Garden, God created Adam, the first man, though he was created as an incomplete being until God created man’s complement – a woman, whom Adam later named Eve. Both were created perfectly, for when God was finished, He reviewed His handiwork and announce it, not just good, but “very good.”

Yet all who know the story also know that shortly after their creation, the woman was tempted by and deceived by Satan into doubting the words of God and into acting upon that doubt. The man joined her in her rebellion, though he was not deceived,[2] but acted in willful disobedience to the clear command of God. By this one simple act of self-will, they stood condemned in the sight of God.

But Satan was not through with them yet. We tend to think that Satan has exited the picture about verse 6 of Genesis 3, maybe because he knew that God was on His way, but if we keep reading, the serpent is still in the picture in verse 14. Satan is the Great Deceiver, and he is still active in this story until cast out by God. Here’s how.

Just as they were blinded by the words of Satan, they remained blinded to their true standing before God. Instead of an awareness of their spiritual condition in the eyes of God, they could only see their physical condition. By their act of eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were made aware of a significant change in their relationship with God and with each other. However, instead of seeing this change in a spiritual sense, they saw only the physical.

Immediately they noticed something that before had been of no consequence to them – they realized that they were naked. Man had eaten of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He was imbued with a power which was intended only for God [3] – a power he was not capable of wielding.

Yet he tried to wield it and, in the limits of his inability, recognized his sinful condition, but, based on his own misunderstanding of the laws of good and evil, concluded that their nakedness was the sin itself and not the consequence of sin.

Once again, Satan was still at work here. With all of the resources at his disposal, Satan is determined to prevent man from understanding the depth and the degree of the consequences of his rebellion as well as its remedy. He could never allow man to understand that sin, though it may be revealed in the physical, actually finds its roots in eternity – in Satan’s own rebellion against the throne of God.

Since the root of sin is found in eternity, therefore, so must its remedy be found in eternity. Thus the remedy for sin could never be discovered within the realm of the knowledge of good and evil, but only in the grace of an eternal God and the righteous actions of an eternal Savior.

Working within the limits of the knowledge available to him – the knowledge of good and evil – and believing that his sinfulness was in his nakedness, Adam attempted to restore the relationship he had had with his Creator before his willful disobedience. He did so by visiting another tree in the Garden – the fig tree.

From this tree he gathered leaves and, sewing them together, covered up his nakedness and, at the same time – at least, in his own understanding – covered up (made atonement for) his sinfulness in the sight of God.

Because so much of what we believe about the Bible comes from tradition, we often do not stop to consider the truth of an issue in a Bible story. Here is an example.

When you hear the story of Adam and Eve sewing together fig leaves and covering themselves, what is the picture that is immediately formed in your mind? Unless I miss my guess, most people envision a man with leaves in front of or around his loins and a woman similarly attired with leaves around her loins and chest.

But suppose that sewing leaves meant that Adam and Eve wove the branches of fig trees so that they were completely covered. In fact, they were so efficient in their work that from a distance they looked very much like fig trees themselves. There they stood, covered in fig leaves, making a claim of righteousness based on goodness.  This was Adam’s profession.

Genesis 3:9 says, “The LORD God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” Since God is omniscient, certainly He would not need to ask where Adam was, therefore the question was rhetorical. Maybe when God came looking for Adam, all He could see was what looked like a fig tree.

Yet, when God approached, He who knows all things knew that Adam had been cut off from the source of fruit by his rebellion, and, in spite of his profession, could never bear any fruit worthy of repentance and salvation.

And thus Adam stood condemned and withered by the judgment of God.

PDF

KINDLE

EPUB

---

[1] From earliest conception, we have visualized or even taught that the fruit that Adam and Eve ate in their rebellion was an apple, but of course, such a belief is from a fairy tale version of the story, not from Genesis. Some would argue that the first fruit mentioned is that of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and that Adam ate of that fruit, which he did. But we have no personal experience with such a tree or what its fruit might have looked like. The same might be said for the Tree of Life. Even though these are trees that bear fruit, we do not have any first-hand experience with such trees. We only know them by the singular reference of Scripture. On the other hand, we all can have first-hand, physical knowledge of a fig tree. Thus this is the first and only fruit tree mentioned in the Garden of Eden with which we have any practical experience.

[2] Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Tim. 2:14

[3] Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever…“ Therefore the Lord God sent him out from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. Gen. 3:22-23