Should Christians Vote?

[All Becomes New]

I was in a discussion with someone just now on X. We were talking about politics. I started by saying that if a Christian on X makes 90% of their posts about politics, then I would doubt whether that person was actually a Christian or not. Why? Because where your treasure is, your heart will also be there. And from the mouth, the heart speaks. This led us on somewhat of a rabbit trail of what the purpose of government is, whether Christians should be politicians, and eventually, whether Christians should even vote.

The nub of the issue is whether we, as Christians, should compromise on our values. This could be my personality talking (as I am an INFP according to MBTI, which is not something I put a lot of stock into but may shed some light on my perspective), but I've never thought that it is wise to compromise on your convictions (see the book of Daniel for more). Some things we hold with an open hand and say, "I think it is X, but it could be Y." Other things we die for. Holding certain propositions humbly is only prudent, especially when it comes to something like eschatology. But the purpose of government, according to the Bible, as far as I can see, is to instill order and punish lawbreakers. That's all the government really has to do, according to the Bible. So, when you have a government as big as the government in the US, it opens up a lot of questions. For example, in politics, everything is a game. Every politician is trying to finagle their own values into the system. And with that comes a great deal of compromise. One of the reasons that Joe Biden is such a bad president is because he is a compulsive compromiser and never puts his foot down on anything. Compromise makes for weak leaders.

So, if compromising for politicians is wrong, then the only logical conclusion is that we are merely voting for whose compromises we like the best. That, in turn, makes every person who votes a compromiser. Now, you might point out that who we vote for will impact us a great deal in terms of freedom and such. But if our freedoms are restricted, even to the point of government persecution, I am not convinced that this would be a net loss. In the US today, about 65% of the American population claim to be Christians. We know that the number of actual Christians and not those who are Christians in name only is far far less than 65%. I would put it at 10% or less, personally. Yet, at the same time, those true believers act as the salt of the earth and a righteous remnant, and they are necessary to preserve society. The righteous remnant will preserve society whether or not they vote.

With all that said, it is starting to look more and more like Christians should not vote because to vote is to compromise. Compromise does not make more people Christians, but it ends in a deteriorating effect on society where you have so many fake Christians that it actually ends up confusing things as to how many Christians actually are preserving society.

 

[NBB]

The bible says we should pray that the authorities leaves us live in peace.
With voting you can actually do something yourself about it. So if one party is pushing for anti christian stuff let's say, we should vote for the 'less worse' option, so they can let us live in peace. Is not compromising your values, you actually defending them.

 

[All Becomes New]

Is not compromising your values, you actually defending them.

It compromises your values unless you align with the politician for whom you are voting.

 

[NBB]

It compromises your values unless you align with the politician for whom you are voting.

You are defending your values, you don't need to associate yourself with the politician you vote, you just are voting the less damaging option, defending your values and country.

 

[All Becomes New]

You are defending your values, you don't need to associate yourself with the politician you vote, you just are voting the less damaging option, defending your values and country.

That is backwards. You don't do negative votes. You do positive votes. You vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST a candidate.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I was in a discussion with someone just now on X. We were talking about politics. I started by saying that if a Christian on X makes 90% of their posts about politics, then I would doubt whether that person was actually a Christian or not. Why? Because where your treasure is, your heart will also be there. And from the mouth, the heart speaks. This led us on somewhat of a rabbit trail of what the purpose of government is, whether Christians should be politicians, and eventually, whether Christians should even vote.

The nub of the issue is whether we, as Christians, should compromise on our values. This could be my personality talking (as I am an INFP according to MBTI, which is not something I put a lot of stock into but may shed some light on my perspective), but I've never thought that it is wise to compromise on your convictions (see the book of Daniel for more). Some things we hold with an open hand and say, "I think it is X, but it could be Y." Other things we die for. Holding certain propositions humbly is only prudent, especially when it comes to something like eschatology. But the purpose of government, according to the Bible, as far as I can see, is to instill order and punish lawbreakers. That's all the government really has to do, according to the Bible. So, when you have a government as big as the government in the US, it opens up a lot of questions. For example, in politics, everything is a game. Every politician is trying to finagle their own values into the system. And with that comes a great deal of compromise. One of the reasons that Joe Biden is such a bad president is because he is a compulsive compromiser and never puts his foot down on anything. Compromise makes for weak leaders.

So, if compromising for politicians is wrong, then the only logical conclusion is that we are merely voting for whose compromises we like the best. That, in turn, makes every person who votes a compromiser. Now, you might point out that who we vote for will impact us a great deal in terms of freedom and such. But if our freedoms are restricted, even to the point of government persecution, I am not convinced that this would be a net loss. In the US today, about 65% of the American population claim to be Christians. We know that the number of actual Christians and not those who are Christians in name only is far far less than 65%. I would put it at 10% or less, personally. Yet, at the same time, those true believers act as the salt of the earth and a righteous remnant, and they are necessary to preserve society. The righteous remnant will preserve society whether or not they vote.

With all that said, it is starting to look more and more like Christians should not vote because to vote is to compromise. Compromise does not make more people Christians, but it ends in a deteriorating effect on society where you have so many fake Christians that it actually ends up confusing things as to how many Christians actually are preserving society.

I voted without compromise, at least for president. But then I wasn’t stuck on just Kamala or Donald.

 

[NBB]

That is backwards. You don't do negative votes. You do positive votes. You vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST a candidate.

If you don't vote and the anti christian party wins, you are doing yourself and your country a disservice.

 

[All Becomes New]

If you don't vote and the anti christian party wins, you are doing yourself and your country a disservice.

I don't think you have understood the OP.

 

[All Becomes New]

I voted without compromise, at least for president. But then I wasn’t stuck on just Kamala or Donald.

I can respect that.

 

[zippy2006]

So, if compromising for politicians is wrong, then the only logical conclusion is that we are merely voting for whose compromises we like the best. That, in turn, makes every person who votes a compromiser.

This is an invalid argument. Politicians have positions, we learn what those positions are, and then we vote according to who we believe to be the best candidate.

Voting is not compromising. To vote for a politician is not to value everything they value. It is merely to affirm that they are the best person for the job, given the available options.

If you need to hire someone for a job, and you hire the person who is best qualified out of a limited pool, you have not compromised even if the person who is best qualified has significant flaws. To hire such a person is not to say, "I value your flaws and I hired you because of them."

 

[All Becomes New]

This is an invalid argument. Politicians have positions, we learn what those positions are, and then we vote according to who we believe to be the best candidate.

You speak as though you have no idea how politics works and who the types of people who want to get into politics are.

 

[zippy2006]

You speak as though you have no idea how politics works and who the types of people who want to get into politics are.

If you think you have a valid argument for your position, you are more than free to try to present it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That is backwards. You don't do negative votes. You do positive votes. You vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST a candidate.

Most people vote against a candidate.

 

[All Becomes New]

If you think you have a valid argument for your position, you are more than free to try to present it.

The reason I said that to be a politician is to compromise (at least in the US) is because I know people who have tried to run for political office. They basically ended up saying, "This isn't for me," because it was like a minefield with how much crap you had to deal with getting anything done.

 

[zippy2006]

The reason I said that to be a politician is to compromise (at least in the US) is because I know people who have tried to run for political office. They basically ended up saying, "This isn't for me," because it was like a minefield with how much crap you had to deal with getting anything done.

Suppose that two candidates for our job posting are compromisers. Let us call this one of their flaws. And suppose that only two candidates are available for the job. As I said above, hiring one of these two candidates is not "compromising."

To hire such a person is not to say, "I value your flaws and I hired you because of them."​

 

[All Becomes New]

Suppose that two candidates for our job posting are compromisers. Let us call this one of their flaws. And suppose that only two candidates are available for the job. As I said above, hiring one of these two candidates is not "compromising."

To hire such a person is not to say, "I value your flaws and I hired you because of them."​

Why should you choose between the two at all? Also, you are saying, "With your flaws, I still pick you." You don't get to pick and choose which things about the person you are voting for. You are voting for the whole person: good, bad, and ugly.

 

[zippy2006]

Why should you choose between the two at all?

Because we need an employee.

Also, you are saying, "With your flaws, I still pick you."

Yep, given the pool of candidates.

You don't get to pick and choose which things about the person you are voting for. You are voting for the whole person: good, bad, and ugly.

Nope, you're not. No politician thinks that voters have voted for their bad qualities. In fact everyone knows that this is false, so it is strange that you would claim such a thing. The politician's mandate is to serve his electors and constituents, and in order to do this he must distinguish between the parts of him that they voted for and the parts of him that they did not vote for. The people will help make this clear, and it will also be reflected in his bid for re-election.

The politicians knows, for example, that his duties extend to his promises and positions, but that he has no duty to the people to indulge his bad habits (because he knows that he was not elected in virtue of his bad habits).

 

[All Becomes New]

Because we need an employee.


Yep, given the pool of candidates.


Nope, you're not. No politician thinks that voters have voted for their bad qualities. In fact everyone knows that this is false, so it is strange that you would claim such a thing. The politician's mandate is to serve his electors and constituents, and in order to do this he must distinguish between the parts of him that they voted for and the parts of him that they did not vote for. The people will help make this clear, and it will also be reflected in his bid for re-election.

The politicians knows, for example, that his duties extend to his promises and positions, but that he has no duty to the people to indulge his bad habits (because he knows that he was not elected in virtue of his bad habits).

Very naive.

 

[Tom8907]

Valid points on where the treasure is but ultimately it is the decision of the Christian on whether they vote.

 

[timothyu]

A Christian's only prerequisites is to put the will of God ahead of the will of man and to love all as self. So anyone wishing to run for office may do so based on those merits, but it is unlikely they will achieve anything in this world man has made in our own selfish image. Letting political matters into Christianity is another matter and totally against the will of God.

Many people i know down there (I happened to be visiting during the election) chose the 'none of the above' option to make their statement. They chose to exercise their human right to have a say but chose no to vote in support of those of adversarial ways, those who use God but refuse to change themselves to suit HIS will.

It is unfortunate the Christian religion doesn't teach this simply because the gentile governing body sold out to the Roman Empire 1700 years ago, abandoning the Kingdom and teamed up with the world of man to eventually become a worldly power of its own, and of course has never repented of that betrayal to God ever since.