abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by Anthony Cowley

As this issue "goes to bed," we are on the verge of massive changes coming from an exciting and bitterly contested election season. It is likely that there will be a massive "shift to the right" on Tuesday, November 8. The Republicans, with their "Contract with America," may gain de jure, or at least de facto control of both houses of Congress. Given the statism of this recent administration, this shift will be welcome by most of our readers. But, it is not the Second Coming, even if the Republicans gain control of both houses and the presidency in 1996. In fact, what is most likely to happen is that the Republicans and conservatives will be left holding the bag when the wrath of God is manifested in some signal way. Evangelicals had better be careful not to put their trust in princes who multiply chariots, for if we rely upon horses, or even donkeys and elephants, and not upon the Lord, our idols will be smashed and we along with them.

Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; Free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know, nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness. All the foundations of the earth are unstable.

I said, "You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes." Arise, O God, judge the earth; For You shall inherit all nations (Psalm 82:3-8).

This issue is devoted to the question, "Should Christians vote for non-Christians?" The uniform reply of our writers is a principled "No!" They give their reasons quite adequately. As my "swan song" editorial, I shall shyly demur from aspects of the consensus contained in the articles that follow. I do so hesitantly, but for weighty reasons. The NRA has not taken a dogmatic position on voting in recent years. Historically the RPCNA, the church from which many of the NRA's leaders have come, did not participate in voting because the Constitution of our nation was not Christian.

Today the RPCNA allows voting for Christians running on biblical principles for public office. This is the stance advocated by all of our writers, most of whom are not RPCNA members. Although as an RP I am happy to see my church principles coming into more prominence, I feel that it is important to balance the perspective with the kind of considerations that I believe have historically kept the NRA from pronouncing too dogmatically on this essential issue.

What I am arguing is this: Because we believe in Christian civil government, when possible it is our obligation to sponsor, support, and vote for Christians for public office. But, because we presently live under a non-Christian system with many good features, we are free to support and vote for those candidates who will uphold these better features, even where these candidates are not Christians, and depending on the circumstances, even when they differ with us on watershed issues such as abortion. This applies only when there is no better alternative available. An element of pragmatism is part of God's principled plan, and making the correct pragmatic choices requires prayer and God-given wisdom. As we participate in a less-than-Christian system, no Christian should condemn another Christian for casting a "pragmatic" vote when there was no viable alternative. But, if we use viability alone as a criterion up front, we underestimate God's ability to change the system.

So, when we cast a pragmatic vote for the lesser of two evils, we do so seeking the best possible outcome. It requires calculation and estimation and some guessing. Christian participation in non-Christian systems is affirmed by Scripture, but detailed instructions are not attached. The Bible always points us towards the perfect ideal for which we are ever to strive, but it allows us to live also in the less-than-perfect here and now. When we vote for the lesser of two evils, we must be aware that that is all we will get. But, when no better choice is available, then it is good to support the lesser evil. We cast such votes as people appointing servants, not electing kings. Our main task is to build the Christian Church into a godly mature society, not to throw inexperienced, unprincipled evangelicals into the political cauldron and hope that somehow this will bring about the kingdom. When the Church is strong, and the society is weak, then power will naturally flow to the Church. If the Church is just a baptized version of the world, Christians do not deserve to bear rule. In fact, it is counter-productive for the kingdom to attempt a premature "take-over."

The objective of the NRA is Christian civil government. In this we represent historic, orthodox Christianity, which in all times and all places has sought to see the nations come into covenant with Christ. Only since the Enlightenment has the concept of purely secular, religiously neutral government come to the fore. This, if not heresy, is close to it. The Bible clearly teaches that government comes from God, is instituted by His Authority for His purposes ( Rom. 13). The state is a covenantal institution, and nations are moral persons who are held accountable for the justice and injustice they exercise, in accordance with the moral will of God (Matt.25:31ff.; Joel 3:2; Amos 1:1-2: 3; Isaiah 10:5; 14:3, etc.). So, all government is essentially theocratic, i.e. God-ordained, and accountable to Him under His Law.

But, "theocratic" civil government is intended by God to become Christian government. God judges among the nations, and He has committed all judgment to His Son, the God-Man (John 5:22). Therefore, the nations must come to Christ, and covenant with Him. They must bow the knee to Jesus, for His name is above every name in heaven and on earth, including the name "United States" (Phil. 2:9-11). But the nations do not come to Christ to gain legitimacy, for they are already legitimate authorities, having been established directly by the Triune God. It is possible for them to so abuse their authority as to become tyrants. But, God will judge them.

It is just the same as in the case of the family: Two non-Christians may legitimately marry and create a valid and real family, apart from becoming Christians and joining the Church. They are a real, legitimate, but unsaved and non-Christian family. (A Christian child, or wife, in a family of other non-Christians remains part of that family covenant, and even brings that family into a new relationship with God [ 1 Cor. 7:12-16 ].) But all the individuals, families, tribes, and nations are to come to Jesus as individuals, families, tribes, and nations to enter into covenant with Him to become His obedient disciples (receive "baptism," Matt.28:19). Thus they become Christian individuals, families, tribes, and nations.

So, we are clear that the objective of our testimony is to bring the nations to Christ, to covenant with God through Him.

But, short of that objective being initially realized by a national covenant, we submit in the Lord to the extant governing authorities. God theocratically commands those of us already in covenant with Christ (the Church is under explicit Christocracy) to submit to those governing authorities over us who have not submitted to Christ (1 Pet. 2:13ff.), just as the Christian child or wife submits to all the lawful commands or requests of the non-Christian head of the family. We cannot justify rebellion against duly constituted authorities just because they are not Christian. (Nor can the name "Christian" justify tyranny on the part of a husband, parent, or governor!)

As native-born or naturalized citizens of the U.S., we are invited to play a part not just as subjects, but also as rulers in civil society. We share a piece of the national sovereignty which is vested in the people. We exercise this role by voting. We are entwined in a divinely instituted civil order, which has taken shape according to organic principles of national life and which has undertaken certain of its social responsiblities as a moral person according to a legal contract known as the Constitution.

This Constitution is inadequate in some ways. It falls short of being Christian, and it makes some other mistakes. Yet, it enshrines some very important principles such as representative government, popular sovereignty, and rule of law, for which Christians have been calling for centuries. Although it is not a Christian constitution, it is legitimate.¹ As citizens of this nation we partake of its civil life, its benefits and burdens. Christians in the U.S. share in the blessings and cursings common to its people. And we are given a place at the pluralistic table whereby we may influence the life of the people. This is a blessing from God. We know that He owns the table, all the people at it, and the food upon it. We can eat with them in good conscience since the earth is the Lord's and all that is in it (Psalm 24:1; 1 Cor. 10:23-33; cf. 5:11). We have a part to play. And, it is based upon the present covenantal situation in which we participate in the American system.

We may accept only a part of that role: paying our taxes and submitting to all the lawful commands of the government; or we may accept more of that role, including voting, sitting on juries, serving in the military, or in some level of government: running for office, working as jurists, legislators, bureaucrats, and executives. Most Christians advocate full participation.²

Our focus right now is on voting. For whom may we vote, Christians only, or for non-Christians as well? But to understand our task as citizens, as voters, we need to consider some aspects of one of the most important areas of theology, Christology: the study of the Person and work of Christ.

America is a rebel nation, not essentially because it has failed to come to Jesus, but because of its national sins against the Law of Heaven. Its only true salvation will be found repenting at the feet of the Christian's resurrected Savior, who sits at the right hand of the Majesty on High waiting for His enemies to be made subject to Him. The gospel is for the nations as well as for individuals. America can become a righteous nation only by coming to Jesus. But, short of this repentance, is the Christian's only task submissive dissent?

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. By right, Jesus owns all things as Mediator by gift and grant of His Father (John 5:22; Matt. 11:27; 28:19ff.; Eph. 1:20-23; 1 Pet. 3:22; Acts 3:25-26,4: 12; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Ps. 2, 8: 4-6; cf. Heb. 2:5-9). But men do not directly derive their existence from Jesus as Mediator. He made the world as the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Word, who "mediated" creation (John 1:1-3). He has ever "mediated" all knowledge, and true wisdom, for by Him kings rule (Prov.8:14-16; 1 Cor. 1:24; John 1:9). But He "mediates" these things not as "the Man Christ Jesus," (1 Tim. 2:5), but as God, the eternal Logos. And by "mediation" here we refer only to the exercise of His essential divine prerogatives, though personally distinct from the Father and the Spirit in the operation of these powers.

By His incarnation as a man, God the Son came into His own world, and to His own covenant nation, Israel, but they did not receive Him, though He was their rightful King (John 1:10-11; Ps. 2, 110; Acts 2:30-36). At His resurrection He was vindicated and proven to be King, not only of Israel, but through the new Israel--the Church--over all nations (Rom. 11:17-32; regarding the Church, see Isa. 60:12 and Matt. 28:19; regarding the extent of Christ's reign, see Isaiah 49:6; Rev. 2:25-27, cf. Matt. 11:27 and 28:19; Rev. 19:11-16; Matt. 22:7-10; Col. 1:18-21; 2:9).

The wrath of God comes upon men for disobedience, but it abides upon men because they do not come into the realm of grace. Jesus came to bring life (John 10:10), not death. The deadly cursings of the broken covenant of works remain for those who will not humbly submit to the terms of the covenant of grace: repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But the blood of Jesus does not cry out for vengeance (Heb. 12:24). Our nation should come to Jesus, but it is still a nation.

So, since the wrath of God does not come upon men and nations simply as creatures, as institutions, and since it comes upon them for positive violations of God's moral law, my position is that we now seek substantive righteousness, issue by issue, election by election, person by person--in legislating, living, and judging according to right law. We must be content with nothing less than perfection; we must not rest until we attain perfection. (Indeed, we have that perfection as Christians in Christ.) After all, our long-term objective is Christian civil government, a Christian social order, a Bible-based rule of law. God will not be at peace with the nations until they are fully submitted to Him. But it is better to have an orderly and moral lifestyle, even for a non-Christian.

However, we can work in this in-between time within the present covenantal situation to bring about as much righteousness as possible. Short of Christ's return, men will always fall short of the perfection of Heaven on earth. However, it is ethically, morally, civilly, and spiritually significant whether or not our nation is slave-supporting, racially equitable, pro-abortion, or socialistic. These are not neutral questions.

We live in the time when Christ has come, and rules over His Church, and over all things, but we do not yet see all things subject to Him (Heb. 2:8). We see that we can participate in non-Christian families, and retain Christian integrity, and most of us have participated in non-Christian schools, businesses, and other institutions in no way devoted to Jesus. Temptations and trials abound in such situations, but only extreme separationists insist that we cannot participate fully in the life of these institutions. Christians function first as salt and light. The process of change is long-term and painstaking.

Someday the meek shall inherit the earth, which belongs to our Lord Jesus, the humble ruler of all things (Matt. 11:27-30). But an "all-or-nothing" attitude is not righteous. In fact, it is usually a perfectionist's cover for irresponsibility and slothful sin. Political perfectionism does not fit with the biblical doctrine of conversion, which tells the sinner to repent and bow, and to "do justice" now, while insisting that the unregenerate is incapable of doing any spiritual good. It is often by trying to keep the law that the sinner is driven to seek divine grace, crying out, "O wretched man that I am, Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom. 7:9-8: 4; Cf. Gal. 3:19-24). Attempted obedience may lead to self-righteous phariseeism, or it may drive our nation to seek grace.

In any case, born-again Christians are the new principle of regenerate life implanted in society for the conversion of the nation (Matt. 5:13-16; Rom. 8:22-23; 1 Pet. 2:9, cf. Deut. 4:6-8). This would imply that we are to assist in doing as much good as we can, and in suppressing evil whenever possible.

Political perfectionism also does not fit with the doctrine of progressive sanctification, which acknowledges that significant remaining sin in the individual, church, or state, not only does not obliterate the image of God from creation, but it also does not destroy the reality of the righteousness in the weakest believer. So, we desire full conversion, total sinless perfection. We long for this, we seek it of ourselves and of our nation, because Jesus requires it (Matt. 5:48). But, we also realize that it will not be attained short of the resurrection, and it is cruel and irrational and even sinful to insist upon perfection before we recognize the reality of Christ in others, or ourselves, yes, even in our nation.

But, what of our national covenant? If the fundamental law of the land is non-Christian, how can we work within it? What can I mean by talking about "Christ" in our nation? Christ is in our nation, in the Church. The Church--Christians as citizens--should influence the society to become fully Christian, and lead it to do what is right. We should testify to the truth; we should live out the gospel; we should do whatever civil good we can legally do.

The implications seem to be that, while we seek a Christian-cove-nanted nation, we are in fact part of a non-Christian-cov-enanted nation, which very imperfectly attains a number of important ends of civil government. It is good for us to support the "better angels" of this mixed society in which we live. We can do this by voting.

Christians are never obligated to vote for non-Christians, nor for those who do not uphold any aspect of God's law; but I feel that they are free to vote for non-covenanted unbelievers if they are convinced, or hopeful, that such persons can forward some important legitimate end of civil government. If they are indeed the lesser of two evils, it is good for us to seek to stem the tide of greater evil. If we can have a "net gain" of good, we ought to seek to do it. But, this is at best an area of adiaphora, in which those who vote, or those who do not vote, should not judge their brethren. If we know what is good, we should do it, but if we cannot do it in faith, we should not (Jas. 4:17; Rom. 14:23).

There are certain freedoms inherent in the Christian life; with these freedoms come risks. Adiaphora ("matters indifferent") are not matters of ethical neutrality, or amoral realms. They are areas in which Christians do not have the kind of direct revelation sufficient to judge for anyone but themselves. They are "judgment calls."

A danger in Christian circles arises from our good love of the clear and wonderful and salvation-sufficient revelation that we have in Scripture. Indeed, we have so much good direction from God, that we tend to wish to carry this same sort of certainty into all realms and all the details of our lives. But, God has not willed it to be so. He has not revealed whether I should wear a red tie, or blue tie, or no tie at all. I am commanded to be clothed; I am commanded to be modest, but I don't have special divine revelation on all the details. Why? Obviously, because I don't need it. What I need, then, is wisdom. The wisdom to take those eternal principles and laws revealed in the Bible, and to apply them by the grace of God to the situations in my life with which God has entrusted me.

One of those situations is the opportunity presented to me in voting, where I, as part of the "sovereign" people of this nation, choose those servants which we as a moral person appoint to carry out our corporate will. For me not to participate because the results are not going to be heaven on earth flows from a false perfectionism. For me to ignore the moral issues (e.g., abortion) and just vote as if I were not a Christian would be forgetting that I am to be salt and light (we are not to pull the nation to the right, but to the light); to vote as if it were an ethically neutral act would be to pretend that there was not a greater Sovereign in heaven, who will hold me and my people accountable for our sins. To pretend I am not part of this people just because I am a Christian is to deny our common humanity, and the validity of God's ordained institution of civil government. To forget our goal of Christian civil government while seeking to do as much good as is possible in this election, is to ignore my duty to "watch and pray," and to do all things in Jesus' Name (Col. 3:17).

What we as Christians in modern representative governments need to come to terms with is that God has said that we are gods ( Psalm 82). By His providence we live in an age wherein every citizen is part of the "king" of the U.S., and kings need to seek wisdom, discernment, and judgment. It is best for us to hire and appoint Christian public servants. When we can, we must vote for men who fear God and set them over us. When all we can get is someone who is better than the fellow who is worse, well, we hire who we can to fill the position (or discontinue the position).

This is a heavy burden. We cannot require voting as an obligation of Christians. Voting for non-Christians is like eating meat offered to idols. Voting for solid Christian candidates is like eating meat not offered to idols. It is not wrong. In fact, it is necessary to eat. We had better be careful. The question is not whether or not the pagans have devoted the meat to the idols. The question is, is the meat good to eat?

Imagine a Christian Constitution, a Christian House, Senate, and president! It would be glorious, but it would still be shot through with human sin and failure. Even when we start to get a majority of Christians in civil office, that will not be heaven on earth. It will only be a beginning. Think of the healthiest Christian congregation you know. It's good; but it is not Jesus. Let's not give up, but let's not get down. Our obligation is to grow up into maturity so that we may be men and women able to bear rule in family, church, and state. Let's get busy.

End Notes

1. The framers of the Constitution sinned by not making the Constitution Christian. My parents sinned by not becoming orthodox Christians every time they heard the gospel, but they were good parents.

2. The old Covenanters, and the modern Steelites say, "Do not partake in the sins of the non-Christian system, dissent: do not vote, serve on juries, run, or take political office, or swear any unqualified oath to the U.S. Constitution." This is a consistent position, but I believe it is incorrect. In some cases it leads to the position that there is no legitimate extant civil government, and it justifies the actions of men like Paul Hill, of tax resisters and others who argue that we should submit only for the sake of fear, not for the sake of conscience.

back to top