Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

[JerryNumbers]

For those who say we should never vote for the lesser of two evils, Would you vote for a man who had an affair while in office and then gave orders to end her husband to the front line so he would be killed? if not you would not vote for a man like David, a man after God's own heart. Or perhaps a man with 700 wives and 300 more women on the side? Then you would not vote for Solomon, the man God had build the temple in Jerusalem. You see if we are not willing to vote for imperfect men, we would not approve of the men God put into place. Perhap if a man who was righteous enough to be a pastor was running we could vote for him, or would we critisize him for not preaching the gospel instead!!! As to Jesus not doing anything in politics, his entire reason for coming would have been undermind if he had, as he would have had to overthrow the roman empire, and become king. Then he would not have been crusified. He WILL come again one day and set up a kingdom. Now tell me how will me voting for a man that is not perfect undermine my work here on this earth? If I feel led (which I do not) to be president, how would that destroy my work for Christ? If I was led to do so it might be that God would use it to spread the Gospel through freedom. Another thought,(I have mentioned this before) Christ did not have a home (owned or rented). He traveled from town to town preaching. Those who feel that since Jesus did nothing political, neither should we need to move out of their homes (if they own they need to sell), quit trying to be conected to this old world, and travel preaching. Some may say "I do preach" but still have a home. Christ Never Had A Home, so neither should you!!!

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

My citizenship is in heaven, not this world.

1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Even God’s Word lets everyone know its OK to have a house, food, clothing, yet some ignore this, & use it as an attack.

Try again.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

And

1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Oh, you will never change a heart with politics, only make it harder, yet someone that heart the Gospel, might under go a heart change.

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

That my friend, is what every saved person is ordained to do by Jesus. His kingdom is not of this world, & the work He has given His people to do, is not of this world.

[JerryNumbers]

Over here many people will vote for the one they think will have the best chance of beating the one they dislike most.

It is called 'tactical voting'

It works like this, (say) there are three candidates, Labour, Lib Dem, and Conservative.

'One' likes the Conservative best and the labour he hates. But the Con, is last in the polls so 'one' votes for Lib Dem, as most likely to beat labour.

On the other hand 'one' may think they are all rubbish, so vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party. Have you got one of those?

I honestly think the majority of people over here vote for the one that they think will help their pocketbook the most, & I include many Christians in that group.

[John81]

I honestly think the majority of people over here vote for the one that they think will help their pocketbook the most, & I include many Christians in that group.

That's how Bill Clinton got elected.

[Invicta]

In our parlimentary elections, we often have a number of minority candidates. Some withh be local pressure groups, campaigning against a new road, airport, resevoir or w.h.y. Others are only stand to excercise their right to stand, and will give some strange reason. Others like the Monster Raving Looney Party stand for some reason of which I am not sure. They always get some votes, some of them quite a lot of votes, so a lot of people don't just vote for their pocketbooks. Some vote for them as a protest vote.

If I wanted to stand for parliament, I would have to send in a nomination form signed by 10 sponsors. I would also have to pay a £500.00 deposit, which will be forfeited it I did not get 5% of the votes. Most of the minorities don't get 5% so lose their deposit. Sometimes one of the major party candidates does not get 5%. I would also be able to send one election communication to each elector in the constituancy, post free.

I can't think why I have not done it before. Perhaps it is that £500.00?

[JerryNumbers]

In our parlimentary elections, we often have a number of minority candidates. Some withh be local pressure groups, campaigning against a new road, airport, resevoir or w.h.y. Others are only stand to excercise their right to stand, and will give some strange reason. Others like the Monster Raving Looney Party stand for some reason of which I am not sure. They always get some votes, some of them quite a lot of votes, so a lot of people don't just vote for their pocketbooks. Some vote for them as a protest vote.

If I wanted to stand for parliament, I would have to send in a nomination form signed by 10 sponsors. I would also have to pay a £500.00 deposit, which will be forfeited it I did not get 5% of the votes. Most of the minorities don't get 5% so lose their deposit. Sometimes one of the major party candidates does not get 5%. I would also be able to send one election communication to each elector in the constituancy, post free.

I can't think why I have not done it before. Perhaps it is that £500.00?

Of course i have no idea why people vote the way they do in your country for I know very little about your people & your country.

Yet I do know that many Christians in my area vote for the party that they think will help their pocketbooks the most, & they will tell you this. And of course a conversation on politics with them is usually more heated than one on the Bible. I suppose that is because politics is so much about their pocketbook.

[rancher824]

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

My citizenship is in heaven, not this world.

1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Even God’s Word lets everyone know its OK to have a house, food, clothing, yet some ignore this, & use it as an attack.

Try again.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

And

1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Oh, you will never change a heart with politics, only make it harder, yet someone that heart the Gospel, might under go a heart change.

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

That my friend, is what every saved person is ordained to do by Jesus. His kingdom is not of this world, & the work He has given His people to do, is not of this world.

In the verses you gave, where does it mention having a house?? I see food and clothing, but not a house. It does say to be content with what you have. Does that mean it is wrong for the homeless man to want a home, but fine for the millionare to have one??? I guess I am confused. All I know is Jesus (our example) did not have one, and those who were close to him in the book of Acts sold theirs. Can you give me a verse that says it is okay for us to have homes?

[John81]

In the verses you gave, where does it mention having a house?? I see food and clothing, but not a house. It does say to be content with what you have. Does that mean it is wrong for the homeless man to want a home, but fine for the millionare to have one??? I guess I am confused. All I know is Jesus (our example) did not have one, and those who were close to him in the book of Acts sold theirs. Can you give me a verse that says it is okay for us to have homes?

Jesus had a home, his earthly parents home, until He departed for full-time ministry and no longer needed a home. Not everyone in the book of Acts sold their homes. Those who had excess holdings sold them in order to help lift up their fellow believers. Throughout Acts and other books of the New Testament we read of Christians in their homes and sometimes of believers gathering in a Christians home for "church".

The point for Christians is that this world is not our home, we are pilgrims in this world. There are things we need for survival, and God promises to supply those needs. What we don't need is excess or extravagance. If a 50,000 dollar home would do our family very well, why buy a 300,000 dollar home? If two cars will serve our family well, why buy 5? If we can buy our clothes from a place like Wal-mart why go to another store that charges 3 or more times the price for basically the same thing?

The point is, we should be seeking the kingdom of God, working to expand His kingdom, not build a tiny one of our own.

[rancher824]

Jesus had a home, his earthly parents home, until He departed for full-time ministry and no longer needed a home. Not everyone in the book of Acts sold their homes. Those who had excess holdings sold them in order to help lift up their fellow believers. Throughout Acts and other books of the New Testament we read of Christians in their homes and sometimes of believers gathering in a Christians home for "church".

The point for Christians is that this world is not our home, we are pilgrims in this world. There are things we need for survival, and God promises to supply those needs. What we don't need is excess or extravagance. If a 50,000 dollar home would do our family very well, why buy a 300,000 dollar home? If two cars will serve our family well, why buy 5? If we can buy our clothes from a place like Wal-mart why go to another store that charges 3 or more times the price for basically the same thing?

The point is, we should be seeking the kingdom of God, working to expand His kingdom, not build a tiny one of our own.

Jesus parents home I do not see counting. Their sins were not counted as his, so if having a home were a sin them having one would not make him sinful. As to the book of Acts, we read

Act 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
Act 4:35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Act 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Act 4:37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Note that in verse 34 we read as many as were possessors. It does not say abundant houses, or extra it says possessors. Now you can define that as extra if you desire, but it does not say that it was extra. Those who did have homes and churches meeting there are just historic facts and do not negate the fact that Jesus tells us he did not have a place to lay his head (home) and the fact the book of acts points out that when the church drew close to God the members sold their homes. They were no longer tied to this world by "owning" a part of it. They looked only to the things of God!!!

Now I will say that I own my home (or that God has given me the ability to posses the property that belongs to Him), and do not believe this to be a sin. My point is that the argument that Christ did not participat in politics is proof we should not is a bad argument. Their are many things that we are allowed to participate in that Jesus either could not (they were not invented) or did not participate in, yet they are not sinful in and of themselves. We can participate in them and work for him at the same time. Politics is one of these. Now I will admit readily that the majority of politicians today and throughout history have had sin in their lives. But at the same time I will tell you the majority of "preachers" have had some great sin in their lives. This in and of itself does not make it evil. Noah was declared in 2 Peter a preacher of righteousness, yet we find him getting drunk after getting off the ark. This is but one example of the fact that when we look at the life of any man through a magnifiing glass we will find sin. Does this make it right? No. But We are in this world. To totaly stay away from that fact we would have to go out of this world (1 Corinthians 5:10) and that is not God's plan. He has differant Jobs for each of us IN THIS WORLD. Mine is to teach young people in the church as I build homes in the world. Yours I am sure is differant. Anothers may be to show the world a man can stand for Christ while leading this nation back to God. Do I see this coming? No, I admit I do not. But when we look at the OT could the people have seen some of the times God used a single man to turn the nation back to himself (Gideon comes to mind). Are we fully putting our trust in God by saying no christian should try to turn our country back to God? Or would we be fully putting our trust in God by praying he send a Godly man that our nation would choose to follow. I feel it would be the latter. Is voting for the lesser of two evils right or wrong? Lets look at some more examples. Abraham the great patriarc. Who would not be willing to support a man like Abraham. Of course there is that thing of having a son out of wedlock with his wifes servant and then sending the woman and child away. I guess that Ideal man is out. I have already mentioned David and Solomon. How about a man like Good king Josiah. He did turn the nation back to God. Oh but wait, God ended his life early for fighting against a nation God was behind. So I guess knowing he lead against the wrong army, we had better not vote for him. The list could go on and on.

[John81]

Jesus parents home I do not see counting. Their sins were not counted as his, so if having a home were a sin them having one would not make him sinful. As to the book of Acts, we read

Note that in verse 34 we read as many as were possessors. It does not say abundant houses, or extra it says possessors. Now you can define that as extra if you desire, but it does not say that it was extra. Those who did have homes and churches meeting there are just historic facts and do not negate the fact that Jesus tells us he did not have a place to lay his head (home) and the fact the book of acts points out that when the church drew close to God the members sold their homes. They were no longer tied to this world by "owning" a part of it. They looked only to the things of God!!!

Now I will say that I own my home (or that God has given me the ability to posses the property that belongs to Him), and do not believe this to be a sin. My point is that the argument that Christ did not participat in politics is proof we should not is a bad argument. Their are many things that we are allowed to participate in that Jesus either could not (they were not invented) or did not participate in, yet they are not sinful in and of themselves. We can participate in them and work for him at the same time. Politics is one of these. Now I will admit readily that the majority of politicians today and throughout history have had sin in their lives. But at the same time I will tell you the majority of "preachers" have had some great sin in their lives. This in and of itself does not make it evil. Noah was declared in 2 Peter a preacher of righteousness, yet we find him getting drunk after getting off the ark. This is but one example of the fact that when we look at the life of any man through a magnifiing glass we will find sin. Does this make it right? No. But We are in this world. To totaly stay away from that fact we would have to go out of this world (1 Corinthians 5:10) and that is not God's plan. He has differant Jobs for each of us IN THIS WORLD. Mine is to teach young people in the church as I build homes in the world. Yours I am sure is differant. Anothers may be to show the world a man can stand for Christ while leading this nation back to God. Do I see this coming? No, I admit I do not. But when we look at the OT could the people have seen some of the times God used a single man to turn the nation back to himself (Gideon comes to mind). Are we fully putting our trust in God by saying no christian should try to turn our country back to God? Or would we be fully putting our trust in God by praying he send a Godly man that our nation would choose to follow. I feel it would be the latter. Is voting for the lesser of two evils right or wrong? Lets look at some more examples. Abraham the great patriarc. Who would not be willing to support a man like Abraham. Of course there is that thing of having a son out of wedlock with his wifes servant and then sending the woman and child away. I guess that Ideal man is out. I have already mentioned David and Solomon. How about a man like Good king Josiah. He did turn the nation back to God. Oh but wait, God ended his life early for fighting against a nation God was behind. So I guess knowing he lead against the wrong army, we had better not vote for him. The list could go on and on.

It is no sin to own a home. I understand that you were attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion but it's not helpful in this case and not all people understand such an argument.

As to the specific case of Jesus, He never needed a home. In that society a man would get a home when he struck out on his own to begin a family. Jesus never went from home to establish a life for Himself. Jesus went directly from home into what would be akin to a missionary/evangelist ministry and no home was needed.

The main factor with regards to Jesus and politics is that Jesus put the kingdom of God first and placed the winning of the lost as the means of transforming society one person at a time.

God can use a particular person to do amazing things, but the OT examples regarding Israel were specific to them. God selected Gideon. Has a political leader come forth here that can honestly make that claim? Even if we look to Gideon his example was flawed and we see the people turned to evil quickly. Why? Because their hearts were not changed.

If we want true change in our nation (in any nation) the model given for Christians to follow is prayer for those in leadership, walking in the Spirit (not in the flesh) so others may see the light of Christ in us, and making disciples.

That doesn't mean we can't vote but we must recognize the fact that worldly politics is not the answer to any nations problems and will not turn a nation to Christ.

If one studies some of the effects of the Great Awakening, the preaching of Billy Sunday and others, it becomes clear that when a movment of the Holy Ghost goes forth and many are born again, then there is real change in a nation, a State, a city, a locality.

In many towns, for instance, where Billy Sunday preached and many were born again, the change in the hearts of the people brought an end to saloons, houses of prostitution, sincere church attendance, etc. The very things we need today. At the same time, in many towns Sunday preached in, mayors and other prominent citizens were also born again and from that point on they lead and served as followers of Christ. This is the change we need, this is the change God calls us to work toward.

[1John2:15-17]

It is no sin to own a home. I understand that you were attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion but it's not helpful in this case and not all people understand such an argument.

As to the specific case of Jesus, He never needed a home. In that society a man would get a home when he struck out on his own to begin a family. Jesus never went from home to establish a life for Himself. Jesus went directly from home into what would be akin to a missionary/evangelist ministry and no home was needed.

The main factor with regards to Jesus and politics is that Jesus put the kingdom of God first and placed the winning of the lost as the means of transforming society one person at a time.

God can use a particular person to do amazing things, but the OT examples regarding Israel were specific to them. God selected Gideon. Has a political leader come forth here that can honestly make that claim? Even if we look to Gideon his example was flawed and we see the people turned to evil quickly. Why? Because their hearts were not changed.

If we want true change in our nation (in any nation) the model given for Christians to follow is prayer for those in leadership, walking in the Spirit (not in the flesh) so others may see the light of Christ in us, and making disciples.

That doesn't mean we can't vote but we must recognize the fact that worldly politics is not the answer to any nations problems and will not turn a nation to Christ.

If one studies some of the effects of the Great Awakening, the preaching of Billy Sunday and others, it becomes clear that when a movment of the Holy Ghost goes forth and many are born again, then there is real change in a nation, a State, a city, a locality.

In many towns, for instance, where Billy Sunday preached and many were born again, the change in the hearts of the people brought an end to saloons, houses of prostitution, sincere church attendance, etc. The very things we need today. At the same time, in many towns Sunday preached in, mayors and other prominent citizens were also born again and from that point on they lead and served as followers of Christ. This is the change we need, this is the change God calls us to work toward.

AMEN!!

[JerryNumbers]

In the verses you gave, where does it mention having a house?? I see food and clothing, but not a house. It does say to be content with what you have. Does that mean it is wrong for the homeless man to want a home, but fine for the millionare to have one??? I guess I am confused. All I know is Jesus (our example) did not have one, and those who were close to him in the book of Acts sold theirs. Can you give me a verse that says it is okay for us to have homes?

I've given it to you rancher, yet it seems you cannot comprehend. And as John stated, Your attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion.

[rancher824]

It is no sin to own a home. I understand that you were attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion but it's not helpful in this case and not all people understand such an argument.

As to the specific case of Jesus, He never needed a home. In that society a man would get a home when he struck out on his own to begin a family. Jesus never went from home to establish a life for Himself. Jesus went directly from home into what would be akin to a missionary/evangelist ministry and no home was needed.

The main factor with regards to Jesus and politics is that Jesus put the kingdom of God first and placed the winning of the lost as the means of transforming society one person at a time.

God can use a particular person to do amazing things, but the OT examples regarding Israel were specific to them. God selected Gideon. Has a political leader come forth here that can honestly make that claim? Even if we look to Gideon his example was flawed and we see the people turned to evil quickly. Why? Because their hearts were not changed.

If we want true change in our nation (in any nation) the model given for Christians to follow is prayer for those in leadership, walking in the Spirit (not in the flesh) so others may see the light of Christ in us, and making disciples.

That doesn't mean we can't vote but we must recognize the fact that worldly politics is not the answer to any nations problems and will not turn a nation to Christ.

If one studies some of the effects of the Great Awakening, the preaching of Billy Sunday and others, it becomes clear that when a movment of the Holy Ghost goes forth and many are born again, then there is real change in a nation, a State, a city, a locality.

In many towns, for instance, where Billy Sunday preached and many were born again, the change in the hearts of the people brought an end to saloons, houses of prostitution, sincere church attendance, etc. The very things we need today. At the same time, in many towns Sunday preached in, mayors and other prominent citizens were also born again and from that point on they lead and served as followers of Christ. This is the change we need, this is the change God calls us to work toward.

I agree with most of what you are saying John. Even if a nation has a Godly leader they will not be Godly until they give their hearts to the God of that leader. And your correct we cannot put our full faith in the politics of this world. Neither can we put our full faith in the faith of any other man, political or religious. But we are allowed to live in this world, therefore we should be doing what we can (putting feet to our prayers) to keep the freedoms to worship through the legal means we are given. And as I have pointed out, if we do not vote for the lessor of evils, we could not even vote for the men we think were Godly men of the Bible. They each would fall way short of the qualifications we would call the perfect man.

[rancher824]

I've given it to you rancher, yet it seems you cannot comprehend. And as John stated, Your attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion.

No Jerry, I am taking "your argument" to the logical conclusion. Stating things are sinful because Jesus did not do them is a very dangerous statement. As I have said, Jesus points out he had no home. By your argument that would mean we should have no homes. Jesus did not own a piece of this wicked world. I mean how can you be more entangled with something than owning a piece of it?? But there is no sin in owning a home. Jesus mission just had no need of it. He came as a servant, not a master. Your statement

We can’t, we cannot please Him who has saved us while entangled in worldly affairs, for it chokes out the word of God. And politics is the affairs of this life, an not the affairs of our Savior.

says it is a sin to be into politics (yes I am ready for you to tell me not to make it you saying something you did not, but that is what you said). But it is not a sin to be in politics any more than being a carpenter, truck driver, or any other occupation. Let me explain. As a carpenter, my dad was once asked about helping (this was the contractor he worked for talking) on remodeling a bar if the contractor got the job. My dad said he would not help with it. If he had, he would have been putting his job before God. The contractor did not even try to get the job, and all was well. Now most carpenters would have had no problem with the thought of working on a bar. Does that make it sinful to be in carpentry? No!! Or with truck drivers, most would not mind hauling liquer. Many if not most do not mind fixing the books so to get more miles. Does that make it sinful to drive a truck? No!! Not if a man is not willing to comprimise his faith in God. Daniel was in politics. He obeyed all the laws of his govt that he realy did not want to be a part of until one came that would comprimise his faith. He then stood to the point of death. There can still be Godly men in politics today.
And again I ask you where do these verses

1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Even God’s Word lets everyone know its OK to have a house, food, clothing, yet some ignore this, & use it as an attack.

say anything about a house? They actualy would more defend no house for it says to be content with food and raiment.

[John81]

I agree with most of what you are saying John. Even if a nation has a Godly leader they will not be Godly until they give their hearts to the God of that leader. And your correct we cannot put our full faith in the politics of this world. Neither can we put our full faith in the faith of any other man, political or religious. But we are allowed to live in this world, therefore we should be doing what we can (putting feet to our prayers) to keep the freedoms to worship through the legal means we are given. And as I have pointed out, if we do not vote for the lessor of evils, we could not even vote for the men we think were Godly men of the Bible. They each would fall way short of the qualifications we would call the perfect man.

It's not about finding someone "perfect", as we know they don't exist. The questions we should be asking is whether or not any of those seeking our vote are men of charactor, integrity, honour. Can they be trusted or are they liars.

If there is a man of charactor we could vote for, that one would be considered "evil". If we have a dozen men running for a particular office and none of them are men of charactor, then they could all be viewed as "evil" so if we vote for any one of them we would be voting for an evil person.

One thing many forget is that we are not forced to vote for anyone. If there is not a person of charactor to vote for in a particular category, we don't have to vote in that category.

[rancher824]

I would like to add that I have not seen anyone here saying that politicians are THE answer to Americas problems. I think we would all agree the only true answer is God. But there is no sin in trying to guide our country toward freedom through voting so that we can continue to preach openly. Yes I know that many revivals have came through persecution, but I would rather pray that we would open our eyes enough that the churches would start preaching strong and loud through freedom, than to see my children taken from me and murdered because I was caught teaching them about Christ.