By Tim Wingate
(With
apologies to William Shakespeare)
“To vote or not to vote, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of the lesser
of two evils, or to resist evil in all and by opposing end them?”
Once
again, we are approaching that time when the focus of the American citizen is
on the issue of voting. One is faced
with the issue of whether to vote for the lesser of two or more evils or, not
to vote at all. On one hand, many of
those who consider themselves informed and patriotic, tout the mantra of "A good and responsible citizen must
vote!" Or, "If you don't vote
you are part of the problem not the solution and you don't have any right to
complain!"
On
the other hand, those who decry voting raise the issues of math probability and
legitimacy. The effectiveness of one
vote influencing the outcome of an election has been calculated to be 10,000 to
1. Furthermore, the Collier brothers in
their book, VoteScam: The Stealing of America, have given ample evidence of the
“fixing” of the millions of electronic ballots cast and the tabulations of
those votes. However, these two
extremes do not touch the issues of why to vote or, why not to vote. The true core issues that are important here
are the issues of truth, right, morality, and integrity.
Through
the years of my involvement in the “Christian patriot” movement, I have
observed many different people who bang one or more "patriotic
drum."
·
On
one end of the spectrum, there are those who declare that the Law is King (Lex Rex.) They deify representative majority rule and the Constitution with
its interpretations and re-interpretations by the high priests of the religion of
Federalism, the clerically garbed “Supreme” Court.
·
On
the other end of the spectrum, there are those who believe in man's “innate
goodness and desire to be free” to form a “libertarian” view of
government. They believe as Thomas
Jefferson said, “A government that governs best is the government that governs
least.” They would prefer an agrarian
republic which borders on benevolent anarchism.
Unfortunately,
both extremes and much that falls in the middle, fall short of the core issues
of truth, right, morality and integrity.
I am not implying people of integrity do not exist within the spectrum
of the body politic. However, a
standard of truth, right, morality, and integrity needs to be established for
there to be continuity in the “patriot movement.” Before we can continue, two very important questions must be
asked and answered:
·
Whose
standard of truth, right, morality, and integrity do we use?
·
What
standard of truth, right, morality and integrity, has been successful
previously?
I
believe the answers to those questions are contained herein. For many years, I called myself a “Christian
Patriot.” I was brought up to love *God
and country, and still do. However, my definition of this has radically changed
over the last few years. [* The Hebrew name of YH commonly pronounced
Yah is the actual name of God. (Exodus 3:13-14) The Tetragrammaton (the four
Hebrew characters that Moses wrote as the name YHWH is translated literally as
“I AM Because I AM”) has been incorrectly translated as “the Lord” or
“God.” The word “god” is of Germanic origin
meaning any god or deity. I have used
the traditional word “God.” However, I
do mean specifically the YHWH of the Bible and no other entity.]
In
his book, Slouching Toward Gomorra, Judge Robert Bork stated that short
of war, or major economic upheaval, the only other major event that could
change the direction and culture of a society was a common religious
experience. Sadly, we are beyond the
point of return unless there is a sovereign move of God's Spirit on the people
of this land. Without a return to overt
Christianity in our governmental and public institutions, we will stand in the
path of judgment.
In
the name of “plurality,
multiculturalism, and separation of church and state,” we have allowed the
influx of foreign gods, goddesses, and philosophies to take a predominant role
in our cultural direction. Many of us
who have loved this country and what we thought it stood for, have been like
Abraham arguing with God over how many righteous present it would take to hold
off the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
(Genesis 18:22-33.) Although the
numbers dwindle, we hope that the presence of the righteous will spare the
nation from judgment.
Who
is responsible for this situation? I am
not going to point a finger at any person in particular. However, the Bible does relate a similar
situation and places responsibility on some.
For example, in Jeremiah 10:21; 16:10-18; 23:1-2; 50:6; Ezekiel 13,
those who were responsible for teaching the people the truth were held
accountable for the actions of the nation.
Today, in our society we have the modern equivalent of that
situation. This raises a number of
difficult questions.
·
How
influential on society can a group of people be, whose religious nonprofit
corporate existence is "allowed" by the government?
·
How
influential are they when they know that if they spend over a certain limit of
time and funds for what the government terms, “non-religious activity” or if
they have policies that go against current "political correctness,” that
they stand in danger of losing a special “tax-exempt” status. (i.e. Bob Jones
University)
·
How
influential are they when the definition of “non-religious activity” is defined
as any political speech or activity even when motivated by religious precepts?
·
How
influential will they be in their culture when they know that if they lose that
special “status” they may lose their property to pay for back taxes? (i.e. Baptist Temple, Indianapolis)
·
At
what point is the line of compromise crossed?
·
How
much religious freedom do I have when my officially sanctioned religious
existence is dependent on a government that is now populated with people who
are intolerant of the very precepts of my religion?
The
fact is that we no longer live in a "Christian" nation. All one has to do is read Albert J. Nock,
Malcolm Muggeridge, F.A. Hayek, Francis Schaeffer, Robert Bork, James Dobson,
and tens if not hundreds of contemporary
“Christian" authors to find the documentation for this fact.
At
one time I thought that, maybe, I could help.
I became involved with
“Christian” political groups. I
helped to form Christian activist organizations. I called radio talk shows and hosted a radio issues oriented
program. I attended rallies, picketed,
went to leadership seminars, and wrote letters to all my representatives. I signed and collected signatures on
petitions. I wrote “letters to the
editor” and stood before a city council to voice my position on issues of
morality. I even became a
"Bircher" and eventually became the Illinois state coordinator for
the John Birch Society (‘92-‘93.)
Some
of this activity had a short term positive effect and I did it under the belief
that there was a chance that this slide or, as Robert Bork titled his book, Slouching
Toward Gomorrah, could be averted.
I
was wrong. Not because the activities
were wrong but, because I was still trying to prop up a system that is
inherently rebellious and self-destructive.
My and others attempts to influence our contemporary society toward
issues of truth, right, morality and integrity, were sincere and well
intentioned. However, we were missing
the mark by not addressing the core issues from a Biblical standard. So, what did I do? I rediscovered my perspective of the absolute.
Our
society was built upon several moral foundations and belief structures. However, before we continue there are two
caveats concerning the cultural worldview that must be kept in mind as we
examine those foundations and structures.
·
The
moral foundations and belief structures that I suggest were not necessarily
overt in the conscious minds of most people.
Rather, they were covert or subconscious. They were like of a long accepted belief that was taken for
granted as true. For example, presently
most accept that the Earth is spherical.
·
Antinomianism
is progressive. (The belief that God’s Law has been done away with in part or
in total and replaced by Grace) The
part(s) of God’s Law that are considered to be in force today and to be obeyed
have changed from what they were 300 years ago. They have also changed from that time, to the time of the
Reformation and on before. For example,
although most Christians would agree that the Ten Commandments are in force
today, there is the question of what day is the “Christian” Sabbath and whether
or not one should work and shop on that day.
Another example would be the concept of what modest apparel is, and how
it has changed several times within our own century.
The Foundations
1. Absolutes existed and were immutable. Natural Law, both physical (physics,
mechanics, mathematics) and moral law (Laws of "Nature's God,"
natural rights of man.) were absolute. Although the specifics of what comprised
these were debated, their existence as absolute was accepted as factual. (At least until the
"Enlightenment" of rationalism and subsequent relativism.)
2. The Bible was accepted to be the inerrant
Word of God at least in the original autographs. Although there were
differences in interpretation and translations, the mind set was that the Bible
was from the mind of God to the minds and hands of men through the
"divinely breathed in" inspiration of God. (2Timothy 3:16; 2Peter
1:20-21)
3. There was and is a people of destiny, a
“Holy Nation” (IPeter 2:9). Many of the
people of that time (200-400 years ago) understood where they had originated*
and sensed that they were a people of a destiny ordained by God. Their history had not yet been scrubbed
squeaky "P.C." clean. Thus,
many of them saw the founding of a people on this continent as the fulfillment
of Biblical prophecy and that they were as a new Israel in a new place
(IISamuel 7:10, 19, 22-24; IChronicles17: 9.) [* In the Scottish Declaration of
Independence the people then, in reciting their history, wrote of knowing that
they had come by way of Sythia and by way of the sea from the Caucus mountain
region and were descendants of the Israelites that had been carried into
captivity.]
4. God's Law was contained in the Bible and was
to be obeyed by the people of destiny to receive His blessings. If it wasn't obeyed then the curses against
those who disobeyed would come into effect. (Deuteronomy 28)
Now,
I know that many of you cultural anthropologists are throwing up your hands and
saying, "You can't pinpoint a
stage in the evolution of a culture and call it foundational. Societies are in a constant state of flux
with ever competing ideas of morality."
Oh, yes you can!!! There are
thousands of letters, sermons, articles and speeches from Jamestown to the
Plymouth Colony to the Federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers to the
adoption of the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that
expressly state that this nation was formed upon the moral principles of the
Bible as expressed through Christianity!
It
makes no difference in what stage of “flux” a society is. God's moral laws are absolute! Period. In the Gospel of Matthew 7:12; 22:36-40,
Jesus divides all the laws of God and the teachings of the Prophets into two
categories to be obeyed.
1. Love God
with every fiber of your being.
2. Love your
neighbor as yourself, treating others, as you want to be treated.
How does this relate to
voting?
If
you truly love God, then you will vote for the candidate that reflects God's
morality. They will not hinder; but
rather, they will influence their constituency toward obeying God's law. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you
will vote for the candidate that will uphold loving God with every fiber of
your being, loving your neighbor as yourself, and doing to others as you would
have it done to you.
When
Jesus answered the lawyer’s question in Matthew 22:36-40, he quoted Leviticus
19:18. If you would read the previous
17 verses of Leviticus 19, you will then get the context of not only who your
neighbor is; but also, how God expects you to express your love in actions.
Let
me explain it this way. When you study
the Bible, you will find that God has caused, or allowed, the decomposition of
several societies, nations, or city-states based on their commission of several
abominations. There are four
predominate abominations that if practiced unrepentantly by a society over time
will lead to that society’s demise. You have heard of the "Top Ten List?" Here is God's Top Four List for Destruction-
1. Idolatry
(Divination)
2. Shedding of
innocent blood.
3. Sodomy
(Homosexuality)
4. Unjust
weights and measures/usury.
How to choose a candidate.
When
I have been asked what criteria to use to choose a candidate, I reply with
God's top four. What is the
candidate’s position (moral compass) on:
1. Idolatry (Divination.) The question here isn't one of bowing before
a statue or stirring a boiling cauldron.
Rather it is one of the heart, the soul, and the mind. The pertinent question(s) are: Is God the
"Lord Most High, maker of heaven and earth?" Is God alone to be worshipped and praised for
His existence and for our creation? Is
God to be sought directly for guidance and determination of His will? Are God's laws to be studied and obeyed? Whose laws are paramount, the Constitution
and the Republic's or God's? Are God's
laws sacrificed on the altar of public policy and democracy? Are you seeking God’s guidance? If you are practicing any other form of
obtaining guidance, whether it is from tea leaves, pendulums, law books, legal
philosophy, Supreme Court decisions, tarot cards, horoscopes, psychics (Deuteronomy
18:10-14; Micah 5:12), angel prophets (Galatians 1:8), or your own will and
desires, you are in rebellion to God (1Samuel 15:22-23).
2. Shedding of innocent blood. (Proverbs 6:17; Leviticus 20:1-5) Another
easy one for most people with God's "moral compass." Most will respond that this refers to the
cultural misnomer of "abortion." Check your dictionary. Abortion is spontaneous. Aborticide is
usually premeditated. However, the
question of aborticide isn't the only issue here. There is also the issue of how the baby was conceived. There are many people who want the
"except in cases of rape & incest" clause kept in any anti-aborticide
legislation. They have changed the
issue from that the taking of innocent life is wrong. To, do the circumstances of how the child was conceived justify
the shedding of innocent blood? I see
no such exclusionary clause in God's law.
The next question in this category is also difficult. Does the candidate favor the waging of war
against innocent civilians both foreign and domestic? On this topic I could list several atrocities, here are just a
few:
·
The
breaking of treaties that were made in good faith upon the honor of Christian
men in the name of their government with peaceful Christian Indians and other
Indian nations. (I.e.: The Cherokee Nation and the subsequent “trail of tears.”;
Black Hills Sioux)
·
The
attacks upon the civilian population of country (bombardment of Vera Cruz
during the Mexican American War) that we invaded for the purpose of grabbing
land because they wouldn’t sell it to us at our price. (This was the first
official attack against a civilian population by U.S. military forces other
than the North American Indians.) More
recently, the escapades into Iraq and the Balkans.
·
The
declaration of Martial Law and the re-waging of war against civilian men, women
and children (the re-invasion of the south by the north for “reconstruction”)
because their representatives legally defeated a bill (14th Amendment) that the Federal government and the army wanted
passed.
·
The
use of paramilitary firepower and snipers against civilian “lawbreakers” (Waco,
Ruby Ridge)
The
arguments that are usually used to justify this shedding of innocent blood
are: they were of the wrong ethnic
group, (so their profession of faith in God didn’t count,) they some how had it
coming (which has literally meant that after much provocation by us they did
something that we could interpret as an attack or a threat,) or this was war so
that what ever we did was okay anyway.
Once again, I find no such clause in the Bible (except for a specific
reason, at a specific time, against a specific people, specifically ordered by
God. Deuteronomy 20:16-18.)
3. Sodomy/homosexuality. This is an easy one, almost a “no-brainer”
for those with God's "moral compass." (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1Corinthians 6:9) Does the candidate support the maintaining
or re-establishment of anti-sodomy laws?
Do they support special "gay" rights laws? Is the family no longer defined as two
married heterosexual adults of opposite sex with or without children? Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt
children? Anything short of the
scriptural standard misses the mark.
4. Unjust weights and measures/usury. This is an unfixed monetary system with
interest. Unfortunately, we are all
kind of stuck in this one. However, it
doesn't change the fact that this is listed as an abomination to God,
(Deuteronomy 25: 13-16; Proverbs 11:1; 20:10,23; Exodus 22:25; Leviticus
25:36-37; Deuteronomy 23:20; Ezekiel 18:1-13.)
This issue also relates to the eighth commandment, “Thou shall not
steal.” Interest and inflation are
theft. When the value of your property
(your labor) is determined by the value of a medium of exchange (Federal debt
represented by Federal Reserve Note “dollars”) that changes, and is out of your
control, your property can be bought for a lower price without you even knowing
about it.
For
example, let’s say that you agreed to clean my house for a fifty-pound bag of
wheat (the medium of exchange.) When
the time for payment arrives, I produce a bag of wheat claiming it weighs fifty
pounds. However, you demand that I
weigh it in front of you. I place the
bag of wheat on one side of the scale and then I reach into my bag of weights
and pull out one that has fifty pounds stamped on it. I place it on the other end of the scale and the scale
balances. Unless you brought your own fifty-pound
weight, you would have to accept my measurement. However, unbeknownst to you, I have several “fifty” pound weights
in my bag and the one I used for you actually weighed only forty-five pounds! I stole five pounds of the medium of
exchange (wheat) from you. This happens
daily with the “value” of the dollar on the international money market. Historically, the nations that participate
in this abomination eventually perish under the weight of their own unrepayable
debt and subsequent slavery to the lender(s).
Therefore, does the candidate support going back to a fixed weights and
measure money supply?
If
the candidate hasn't a clue as to what the Biblical answers are, then a vote
for him is a vote against God and His kingdom.
Yes, I said kingdom. The
scripture doesn't talk about a coming constitutional, democratic,
representative republic in the clouds, does it? No, it is the King's Dominion, Kingdom. Who is the King? Over
what does he have dominion? The answers
to those questions are the essence of this issue. Either you believe in His kingdom or, you believe there is not a
kingdom.
When
I am asked, to what political philosophy I subscribe, I respond that I am a
Theocratic Monarchist. I believe in the
theocracy of God, which exists right now among us. Jesus stated that his kingdom was not of this world. However, He also stated that the kingdom was
among us, and in us, and we are here in this world.
I’m
open to the concept that He will return again to visibly establish, rule, and
administer that kingdom. I also
believe that those who have been faithful to God and his Son will be rewarded
with places of rulership in that kingdom. (Revelation 2: 26-27)
This
concept is just a subtle change of attitude and perspective. However, it does make a difference in how
you look at your role and responsibility in this society. It gets a reaction from those who want to do
something within the "system."
I have been told, "If you don't vote, you don't have a right to
criticize!" They are saying that
if I don't participate in the lawless, idolatrous, corrupt, perverted political
system then I can't criticize the lawless, idolatrous, corrupt, perverted
political system! I disagree! That kind of thinking shows the corrupting
influence of lawlessness. If I do vote
for the lesser of two evils, then, isn't my criticism of evil hypocritical?
For
example, let’s "pretend" that we believe that stealing is wrong
without exceptions. However, we as a
society over time have changed our view from that stealing is wrong without
exceptions, to that a certain percentage of theft is acceptable. We now believe that confiscating up 30% of
someone's property is okay. Therefore,
we all participate in theft (30%) because the issue is now how much can we
steal, rather than that stealing is wrong without exceptions! (Estate &
“income” taxes sometimes are a higher percentage)
It is like the old joke about the guy who
approaches the young gal and asks, "Will you sleep with me for
$5000?" She replies, "Sure." He then asks, "Will you sleep
with me for $50?" She responds, "No way. What do think I am?"
He replies, "We've already established what you are. Now all we're doing is arguing over
money." The issue here is one of
compromise. At what point will you
compromise obedience to God’s Word?
We have been told that to choose the lesser
of two or several evils is our only choice.
I contend that the only choice for those who claim to be
"Christian" is, to not choose evil!
How
will you stand before God and say, "I voted for evil, but it was the least
evil"? We need to rediscover the
absolutes of the Word of God. We need
to stand up and make a stand for the righteousness of God.
So how do we do this?
·
First,
by going to God with a humble and contrite heart and repent from upholding
evil, even the lesser of evils.
·
Second,
study the scriptures for the qualifications that a candidate should
exhibit.
·
Third,
confront the candidate with these questions about their moral character and
what their moral compass is based on.
·
Fourth
either support or reject that candidate, but let your sphere of influence know
your reasoning and decision.
If
one of the candidates qualifies then support him and vote! If none of the candidates qualifies then, so
be it. However, I believe that our
reasons for qualification or disqualification should be broadcast in the most
public manner available as in talk shows, billboards, town meetings, posters,
flyers, etc. If the "salt"
never leaves the shaker, then what good is it?
Did you think that by your wishful thinking you were going to influence
those around you? If we are going to
vote to "not vote" on moral principals then we must be as “cities on
a hill” and let the light shine to our contemporaries.
Tell them WHY
you won't vote for evil!!!