Kevin McCullough yesterday, and again today, on Town Hall has taken an unequivocal stand that Christians are REQUIRED by their duty as Christians to Vote in the upcoming Presidential Election. His primary (indeed only that I could see) Proof Text for this is Matthew 22:15-22 (and parallel accounts in Mark 12 and Luke 20) with the punch line being: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s." KMc transitions, if I understand his argument and thinking correctly, to the principle that in our Constitutional Republic places ultimate power and responsibility for governance in the hands of "the people" as Divinely endowed inalienable rights which are then DELEGATED to our REPRESENTATIVES. Thus, in a "democracy" it is the Christians Duty to accept this God given responsibility and exercise the Franchise. Please note in passing that these God endowed inalienable rights are bestowed equally on believer and non-believer, "the rain falls on the just and the unjust."

Now aside from the fact that KMc’s exegesis of the passage in question is open to challenge, (and some have done so quite neatly and ably on both the original comment thread and the current one), I will not dispute either point that Christians DO have a DUTY to EXERCISE their God endowed and inalienable rights (and RESPONSIBILITY) to, in concert with their similarly endowed fellow citizens, GOVERN. Though I would suggest, as have others, the far better passage for establishing that Principle is Romans 13. And I would note the KMc goes breezin right by a whole BUNCH of Christian Tradition through the ages that makes the case the MOST obedient choice is SEPARATION from the world–-the Amish for example.

What I DO and WILL dispute is KMc’s APPLICATION of the Principle. Specifically his false dilemma of HAVING to vote for either Hillybama or The McChurian Candidate. I grant that his dilemma is INFERRED rather than directly stated by him (thought he comes dang close a couple of times). Nonetheless, I argue that both NOT voting for either Hillybama or McAin’t AND NOT VOTING AT ALL may be obedient choices for the Christian.

A word on MY bona fides here. I am an Evangelical, a group KMc addresses by name. (If you want a definition ask him. I would suggest his reference to "Bible Believing" offers a clue, and I would not gainsay it.) I am also a Pastor, which both allows and obligates me to say "This is what I think the flock should do." If you want to argue that only qualifies me to say it on Sunday in MY pulpit to MY flock, I won’t dispute you, but it does suggest where I am coming from. You can also argue that trotting out the fact I have an M.Div. from Duke doesn’t qualify me for ANYTHING and I won’t dispute that either. But I will say it shows I have at least a little knowledge to bring to this table. Having said that, I stand by our Protestant belief that even if KMc comes to the table strictly as a layman, (and for all I know he’s got a better Theological Education and more years experience than me), he is, nonetheless, a fit interpreter of Scripture.

I just think he’s wrong on this one, not that he shouldn’t have or didn’t have the right to.

The CRUCIAL problem with KMc’s argument is how he sets it up. He tacitly, admits the Candidates offer little to vote FOR, but says: "but large issues do loom in the near future" and argues that "if we as evangelicals remain silent" while evil polices are enacted "we must understand that we play a part in allowing these things to happen." I think it a reasonable inference to conclude KMc is imputing RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY here.

To put it another way, KMc can be reasonable read as saying "if these bad things happen because Christians didn’t vote it’s partially YOUR fault."

In this, KMc is edging toward an application of Augustine’s Just War Doctrine in Presidential Politics. Augustine, to oversimplify, basically says that in considering whether or not a War is Just, (one could argue "right" or "righteous" may be applicable terms) a Christian must run the following equation: Is the amount and type of evil inherent in the Act of Waging War GREATER than, EQUAL to, or LESS than the Evil that can be reasonably expected to occur if the War is NOT waged. In short, if the War PREVENTS or HALTS a GREATER evil (The Holocaust say, or Sodem’s Rape Rooms perhaps? Slavery? The enslavement of Women under Islam?) then, under certain specific circumstances, the War is"Just."

Agreed, KMc does not specifically invoke Augustine, and it can be argued, that Augustine’s Doctrine is Specific to War. I maintain, however, that the Theological underpinnings of KMc’s "it will be your fault" argument, can be found in "Just War" and, further, that Augustine’s Doctrine CAN be applied to ANY situation (or dilemma) in which the Christian is being asked to decide on a Morally Ambiguous course of action.

And, again, I AGREE with KMc’s "it will be your fault" argument UP TO A POINT! Where he goes seriously astray, however, is in failing to follow his own logic all the way OUT!

I Timothy 5:22, depending on how you translate it, and I’m no Greek Scholar, reads "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands and (by not being hasty) do not share in the sin of others."

In other words, "people are guilty of their leadership." If KMc is right about being partially responsible for what Justices are placed by our representatives and for what those Justices do, or for what laws or enacted or what Evil is not restrained, then it applies EQUALLY to ALL EITHER (or all) of the Candidates can reasonably be expected to do if we vote for them!

To put it another way, we share in the sin of Hillybama’s pro-abortion, and theft of other’s wealth, but we also share in McSame’s failure to restrain the theft of our culture and our Free Speech!

Specifically if you vote for Hillybama, you are guilty of Socialism Straight. If you vote McSame, you are guilty of Socialism Lite! I would suggest that it MAY be possible that NEITHER are obedient Christian actions!

One could easily vote for another, so called, "Third Party" Candidate on the ballot. Or one could refuse to "lay hands on" any of the choices and thus avoid "sharing in the sin of others." This could be done for a variety of reasons. To "send a message" to "protest" to simply testify to the TRUTH–"NONE of these people are fit to lead our Republic and I refuse to enable them to do so!"

Here is where I suggest KMc needs to think his argument ALL the way THROUGH! And needs to parse carefully what I agreed to about Christian Responsibility in a Constitutional Republic.

It is our DUTY to Undertake the Responsibility of JUST GOVERNANCE! That is NOT the same thing as an unequivocal duty to VOTE! It MAY be that by NOT voting a Greater Good is served. That one or more Parties and or the Electorate may be made to see that Christians will NOT acquiesce tamely to bad choices and false choices. That we will not "lay hands on" Socialism in ANY form or dosage and thus share in its sin! That we will not reward the bad behavior of bad choices by the Parties simply because THEY offer us no better ones. The Greater Good may be served by saying "neither Hillybama or McAin’t is acceptable."

Surely SOMEONE SHOULD stand up for THAT Witness, and if NOT the Church than WHO?

I say if you CAN put "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on the ballot and have it count you SHOULD!

I suggest that Christians ought to get busy making sure that that is ALWAYS a choice on EVERY ballot! Until then, NOT voting may be your ONLY way of making that statement.

Now I would suggest that Christians consider here the EFFECTIVENESS of such a Witness from a COMMUNICATION standpoint. It might be an "uncertain signal" if the Powers that be simply have to guess how many Christians didn’t vote that normally would have. All voting for, Ralph Nader say, might be a clearer signal.

But KMc needs to take his argument one step further. The "Greater/Lesser Evil" Equation needs to be worked ALL the way to the end. His "large issues in the near future" have to be thought ALL the way around.

Put simply, will Hillybama or McAin’t do more harm to the Republic–OVERALL and LONG TERM?!

I believe that McAin’t will.

I believe he will give us Souters and Oconners which will be nearly as damaging as Hillybama’s Ginsbergs. I believe he will give us Shamnesty and lose the War on the Southern Front just as Hillybama will. I believe he will limit the size of Government only slightly more than what Hillybama will do. I believe he will be just one more step on the McSame "follow the moderate" Road that we have been HERDED down to the BRINK of Socialism.  He will LOSE the War on the Home Front as Hillybama will. And I would suggest it is of limited utility and benefit to Stand Firm on the Eastern Front while SURRENDERING on the Southern and Home Fronts.

I believe McSame's Socialism Lite is the slow poison that kills all the more ASSUREDLY because it accustoms the victim (as we have been being accustomed since Reagan left office) until the Fatal Dose is absorbed.

I believe that with Hillybama’s Socialism Straight there is at least a CHANCE, a HOPE, that America will Choke on it and Puke it up before the Deadly Dose is absorbed. There is NO such chance with the McChurian Candidate.

I have concluded Hillybama is THE LESSER EVIL for that reason. And I will most likely vote for HB for that reason. Hope for a Hurl!

Further I believe the Establishment Machine Party Bosses (EMPBs) of the Gilt Bird Cabin Conservative Free GOP have COUNTED on Christians going along with McAin’t because they left us no choice. I believe they only care about their Power and not Conservative Principles and would gladly "follow the moderate" to Socialism. I believe they have been HERDING us that way! And I believe they wanted McAin’t because they DIDN’T want an Anti-Amnesty candidate anywhere on any ballot. In THAT case either to vote for Hillybama or to abstain from voting is to refuse to reward their EVIL! I consider THAT a Christian Duty! I consider Christians to have been "unequally yoked" in the GOP since Reagan left office and that we have been Victims of Spousal ABUSE! (See my other blogs.). I would suggest it is the Duty of Christians NOT to enable a Spouse Abuser.

And one more thing. If KMc is RIGHT, then the DUTY of Christians in AMERICA includes the following: "When ANY form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT (and by KMc’s logic the DUTY) of the PEOPLE to ALTER or ABOLISH it and to institute NEW GOVERNMENT."

I suggest for the first time anywhere I know of in print, that it MAY BE TIME, for Christians to START PRAYING for REVOLUTION as well as for REVIVAL! Perhaps it is time to wonder which one has to come first?! And to consider if it is our Duty, as our Founders considered it THEIR CHRISTIAN DUTY, to Prepare and Plan, as well as to Pray.

The Big Mick