I voted
today… for Tim Pawlenty. I know a
lot of you, after reading that, have already decided that I am an idiot.
Perhaps I am. From what I understand, in the state of Tennessee, where I live
and where I voted, the votes of those whose names were not on the ballot were
not even tallied. And Pawlenty’s name was not on the ballot. That means, from
the perspective of some, that my vote meant absolutely nothing. I have taken
that into consideration, and thought long and hard about it, but at the end of
day came to the conclusion that, at least, by way of this blog, and by
Facebook, and Twitter, I can tell people about my vote and the reasons that led
me to vote the way I did. That, from what I have been able to sort out, is a
better stewardship of my time and efforts than not voting at all.
Now, with that
in mind, let me try to explain as succinctly as I know how the thought process
that went into my decision.
First and
foremost, in all my life, and in all the decisions I make, I am a Christian. My
loyalty to Jesus and to the gospel trumps all other loyalties in my life.
Having said that, though, I am conscious there are some political questions
that are clearer from a biblical perspective than others. In this post, which I
wrote shortly after the election four years ago, I spell out a basic outline of
my political views from what I consider to be a biblically informed perspective:
http://sbcimpact.org/2008/11/11/morality-politics-and-a-broken-heart.
Even so, I am
aware that many may be in basic agreement with what I wrote there and end up on
opposite sides of me when it comes time to cast their ballot. What I wrote
there has more to do with general principles than with specific strategies for putting
those principles into practice. A lot of those potential strategies, on
whatever side you take, are complex, and while I have given a fair amount of
time and effort toward trying to understand them (reading articles, listening
to debates, etc.), I freely confess that a good grasp of the ins and outs of a
number of them is beyond my pay-grade.
In trying to
better understand the views of the various candidates and the degree to which
they may or may not coincide with my own, in addition to reading from their own
propaganda outlets, I have used several of the online “choose-a-candidate”
sites I have discovered. Recently, I found two that were pretty thorough, and
seem to me to do a good job of objectively presenting the issues and giving an
opportunity to register the comparative weight you, as the voter, attribute to
each issue. These are http://www.selectsmart.com/president/
and http://graphics.wsj.com/votecompass/?mg=inert-wsj.
There are others, but these are the ones I used most recently.
At the end of
one of these it presents a graph that shows your own overall political
tendencies according to the answers you give on the questionnaire. The graph is
divided into four quadrants, according to the voter’s degree of agreement with
what are determined to be socially liberal or conservative positions, and
fiscally liberal or conservative positions. When I took this test, and when I
have taken similar tests in the past, I have consistently scored in the
socially conservative/fiscally liberal quadrant. I know, I know, a lot of you
are thinking by now that all the suspicions you had that I may be an idiot are
now totally confirmed. But, as best as I have been able to sort out the issues,
that is where these tests show my views to lie.
The ironic thing
about it is that particular quadrant is the one quadrant of the four in which
there is no announced presidential
candidate—whether among Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or any of the
various other third-party or independent candidates—whose overall views also
fall into that general classification. Not one!
Some tests told
me that, among the various candidates, my views are closest to those of Romney,
and some closest to those of Obama, but with whatever candidate, the
correspondence of overall agreement was always fairly low.
Given all that,
I have been faced with a dilemma. I decided a long time ago I would never vote
for a candidate who is not clearly pro-life. Thus, for me, Obama has been out
of the question from the get-go. At the same time, though, there are a number
of matters that have caused me to be reluctant to back Romney. Other than the
fact that I disagree with him on a significant number of specific political issues,
I do not like the idea that he is a Mormon, and the
potential influence a Romney presidency may have on the spread of the Mormon
false gospel around the world. I am very concerned that political
support for Romney has led some evangelicals to publicly water down their
defense of the gospel. I do not like the fact that, when given an opportunity
to do so, Romney
has not disassociated himself with the blatantly racist views propagated in the
Book of Mormon, nor with the racist historical legacy of his religious heritage.
I do not like the fact that he has a demonstrated history of waffling on the
issues of abortion and the sanctity of marriage. Last and not least, I cannot
get away from the lingering feeling that he is the candidate that most clearly represents
the interests of the wealthy and big business, when the Bible teaches that, as
a general rule, as believers, it is the rich who are most often opposed to the
interests of the gospel:
James 2:5–7. “Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are
poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he
promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the
rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into
court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom
you belong?”—(along with a whole bunch of other passages I could pull out if
you need me to).
I am not saying it is a sin
to be rich, nor that there is no such thing as a godly, compassionate, generous
rich person. I am saying, though, that, as I read the Bible, the general tenor of
its overall message cuts against the interests of the rich and in favor of
those of the poor. I do not believe in liberation theology. I believe the
central message of the gospel has to do specifically with the death, burial,
and resurrection of Jesus, and with the spiritual salvation He bought for us at
Calvary, and the eternal state of our souls. But, as I read it, when it comes
time for us as Christians to decide how we use our influence in this world to
love and serve those around us as a result of the life transformation the
gospel brings about in our hearts, it seems the Bible would caution us more
against the danger of falling in the trap of siding with the rich than in that
of siding with the poor.
One other factor in my
decision is that I do not, as a general rule, like the two-party system. I
believe it systematically eliminates the possibility of someone with views
similar to mine from even being considered as a viable candidate. It forces
Christians to choose between the supposed “lesser of two evils.” For this
reason, all things being equal, in this election, I would have voted for a
third-party candidate.
Why, then, did I choose to
write in Pawlenty, a registered Republican? I searched and searched and
searched. I read the platforms of the various announced third-party candidates.
But, in the end, I could not find one that came any closer to my own views on
the issues than either Romney or Obama. It seems that practically all the third
parties out there are driven by some extreme agenda or another, and my own
views on the issues are actually more moderate—with the notable exception of
abortion, on which I am pretty hard-line pro-life.
Actually, from what I have
been able to gather, Pawlenty’s fiscal positions are a bit to the right of
those of Romney, and, as a result, further away from my own. That made it hard
for me to decide. I thought about the possibility of writing in Huckabee as
well. But, having watched and listened to Pawlenty on several occasions, I have
been impressed with his overall demeanor and even-handed approach. He comes
across to me as a Christian gentleman, and as a reasonable and open-minded
public servant. On the social and moral issues I rate as highest priority, he
appears to be in basic agreement with my own views. And he actually did declare
himself as a candidate in the Republican primary, so I know there is some
degree of interest and willingness on his part to serve as President. And, even
with some of his positions on especially fiscal issues that are not in line
with my own, he is at least closer to my positions than any of the third-party
candidates I have been able to find.
Another factor that led me
to seriously consider the possibility of voting for Romney is the hope that
somehow that vote might have a positive influence toward saving the lives of
unborn children. I am still hopeful, if Romney wins, and if he has the
opportunity to appoint new Supreme Court justices, that Roe vs. Wade may
eventually be overturned, and that in some states abortion may be outlawed and
some mothers may as a result be dissuaded from making the tragic decision to
abort their babies. I am hopeful he will follow through with his promise to reinstate
the Mexico City Policy through administrative means.
In the end, though, since I
live in Tennessee, and the electoral votes of Tennessee have been de facto wrapped up a long time ago, I
decided I could make more of a statement by voting for someone other than
Romney than I could by voting for him. My vote is, essentially, a vote for the
future. Thabiti Anyabwile sums up my thoughts on this well here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2012/10/23/are-christian-voters-soldiers-entangled-in-civilian-affairs.
So, there you have it. You
may well not agree with me. That is fine. We live in a free country, and for
that I am grateful. And I am open to being shown how, in one way or another, my
perspective may be mistaken.
In the meantime, I realize
that, in the overall scheme of things, gospel faithfulness is much more
important than political correctness. I also remain hopeful for a future in
which, to some limited degree, the two might be able to coincide more than they
do now in the United States of America. I do pray, as God, through Jeremiah, directed
the captives of Judah to seek for the peace of Babylon (Jeremiah 29:4–7), for
the peace and prosperity of our country. I pray for justice for the oppressed
of the world. I pray for freedom to proclaim the gospel. But, at the end of the
day, when all is done and told,
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.
On Christ the Solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand.