Ask The Pastor — Is it wasting your vote, by voting third party?

First, your vote is not your vote. Your vote belongs to Jesus Christ. You are merely exercising it in His stead. As such, as a Christian you can not vote for either of the major parties because they are the embodiment of evil. Voting for Democrats gives us international socialism. Voting for Republicans gives us National Socialism. Both positions are anti-Christ.

Thus Christians are in the position of voting for third parties such as the Constitution party. Now, it may be the case that such a candidate doesn’t win but when one votes third party they are hoping to have real influence in the major parties in an indirect fashion. Recall that Eugene Debs ran third party candidacies on the Socialist ticket several times in the early part of the 20th century. We all know he didn’t win. What we don’t remember is that the Democratic party eventually adopted large sections of the Socialist party platform that Eugene Debs ran on. The Democratic party moved towards the Socialist party, partly because of the influence of Eugene Debs and the votes he received.

The same could have been true of the Democratic party in 1972 and 1976 when George Wallace was shot. Wallace had run as an independent in 68 and brought those votes into the Democratic primary in 72 and 76. Wallace very likely would have won the nomination in 72 if he had not been shot and he would have likely won in 76 except because of a flare up in the assassination injury he received in 1972 he had to be carried into Florida on a stretcher. Florida went to Carter that year because people would not vote for a man for President who had to be carried about on a stretcher. The point here is that the Democratic party would have been changed by Wallace’s third party candidacy in 1968. Other examples could be elucidated. The point is that your vote for a third party is not a wasted vote because often the major parties move towards the third parties in order to capture their voter base in subsequent elections.

Hardy and Reyner — Magistrate To Uphold 1st Table

[God to be honoured more than Man].

“…divers Nations appoint various punishments, all some, for those that violate Religion, tell me, I beseech you, Is it a capital crime to speak Treason against the three Estates of the Land, and shall it deserve lesse to belch out blasphemy against any of the three Persons in the sacred Trinity? Is it an offence worthie of punishment to abuse the Sonne of a King? and is it lesse to dishonour the Sonne of God? shall they who rob your houses be condemned, and these that rob your soules escape? are those women which adulterate their husbands beds justly sentenced? and shall those that adulterate Gods sacred Word go free? Fidem ne sen/are Deo levius quam homini? Is it a more veniell offence to break faith with God then man ? “

Nathanial Hardy, 1618-1670, The Arraignment of Licentious Libertie, and Oppressing Tyrannie. In a Sermon before the Right honourable House of Peeres.Febr.24.1646 p.18.

[How we may prevent idolatry]

” Execute judgement for God, every one as farre as his power will stretch. First, doe judgement upon thine owne selfe for thy sinnes in all wayes of godly revenge, as by Fasting & c. sing mercy and judgement to thy family, as David Psa.101. Doe thy best that judgement that hath beene turned to wormewood and hemlocke, may run downe like a mighty streame, in publique. and where thy hand cannot reach a blow, or cast a stone at an idolater, blasphemer persecutor, & c. let thy heart at least doe it. For if a mans consenting to, or approving of an act of injustice may in guilt him, as I may say, in it as it was with the Jewes, whose state was ruined for killing Christ and the Prophets, though most part of them had never seene any of them Mat.23.37. why may not a mans executing judgement, with his heart, when he can proceed no further, be accepted, in respect of him, for an act of justice, by him that is pleased both in good and evill actions, to accept the will for the deed?

This duty is principally incumbent upon the Magistrate, who is to
execute judgement of the Lord, not arbitrarily as himself pleaseth; but according to the rule of the Word, both for mater and manner.
1. For the matter man hath no warrant either to leave grosse and horrid sinnes unpunished in the committers of them; such as are the ring leaders in idolatry and persecution; nor yet to commute or change the nature of the punishment.”

William Reyner, d.1666, Babylons Ruining- Earthquake and the Restauration of Zion delivered in a sermon before the honourable house of commons… Aug. 28 1644. p.44 Later Reyner questions the motives of Magistrates who punish theft, yet do not pursue idolaters etc.

Vines Calls R2kt virus Socinian … Hardy Also Dismisses It

[Blasphemers and seditious heretics still to be executed].

” For the blasphemous and seditious Haeritickes, both Lutherans and others of the Reformed churches do agree that they may be punished capitally, that is for their blasphemy or sedition; but the Socinian stands out here also, and denies it; alleadging that the punishment of false Prophets in the old Testament was speciali jure by speciali law granted to the Israelites, and therefore you must not looke (saith the Socinian ) into the olde Testament for a rule of proceeding against false Prophets and blasphemers: Nor (saith Calvin and Catharinus ) can you find in the new Testament any precept for the punishment of Theeves, Traytors, Adulterers, Witches, murtherers and the like, and yet they may, or at least some of them bee capitally punisht: for the Gospell destroys not the just lawes of civill policy or Common¬wealths;… “

Richard Vines 1600-1655, The Authours, Nature, and Danger of Haeresie. Laid open in a sermon Preached before the Honourable House of Commons… March 1646. Lon. 1647 p. 64

Interesting that Vines attributes as Socinian the R2kt virus view.

[God to be honoured more than Man]

“…divers Nations appoint various punishments, all some, for those that violate Religion, tell me, I beseech you, Is it a capital crime to speak Treason against the three Estates of the Land, and shall it deserve lesse to belch out blasphemy against any of the three Persons in the sacred Trinity? Is it an offence worthie of punishment to abuse the Sonne of a King? and is it lesse to dishonour the Sonne of God? shall they who rob your houses be condemned, and these that rob your soules escape? are those women which adulterate their husbands beds justly sentenced? and shall those that adulterate Gods sacred Word go free? Fidem ne sen/are Deo levius quam homini? Is it a more veniell offence to break faith with God then man ? “

Nathanial Hardy 1618-1670, The Arraignment of Licentious Libertie, and Oppressing Tyrannie. In a Sermon before the Right honourable House of Peeres.Febr.24.1646 p.18.

Sarah “Serpico” Palin And The Christian’s Quandry Part III

Now comes the “Quandry” part. In many respects Sarah Palin looks to be a an attractive candidate. Who could not admire and energetically cheer her decision to have a downs syndrome child? Just thinking of her decision to have this child brings tears to my eyes. Who could not want to support her and so stick their thumb in the eye of those in the liberal mainstream establishment who hate any thing that smacks ever so slightly of something remotely Christian? Sarah Palin seemingly has many of the right convictions but according to God’s word she is not the man for the job of Vice President and Christians who take Scripture seriously would be hard pressed to justify a vote for her.

First, Scripture teaches that God’s created order disallows a woman as civil magistrate. Though most American citizens and most American Christians hate it, the reality is that God’s word teaches that Man was to be the covenant head, and that woman was made to be man’s companion and help-meet. Scripture teaches (I Tim. 2:13, I Cor. 11:13, I Cor. 11:8-9) that the creation order was by design and that the teleological end of that creation order, in regard to male female relationships was that man should have positional, authority and leadership priority. The position of men and women in this regard is not something that is cultural, nor is it something that came about because of the fall, but rather the position of men and women is anchored in the creation order. People are welcome to defy that order but someone has to be the one who tells them that the snap-back of reality is painful.

Some will argue here that I am applying something that is perhaps true of the church and the family but is in no way true of the civil realm. This is not solid reasoning. First, Scripture clearly teaches that men are to be leaders in each of these authoritative realms that God has ordained. The man is to servant-rule in the home (Eph. 5:22-24), the church (I Tim. 2:11-14, I Cor. 14:34-35) and the civil realm (I Cor. 11:3, Ex. 18:21). It would be passing strange were God to ordain men to rule in realm of the Church and Family but allow Women to rule in the civil realm. Indeed, such an arrangement would make God the author of confusion. The fact remains, as our climate indicates, that if it is ever argued that women should be allowed to be leaders in any one realm only a matter of time will separate that argument from the argument that allows women to lead in all spheres.

To round off this first point we should answer a ready objection. Some will contend that even though it is not God’s ideal that women lead as civil magistrates that Christians still ought to vote for a female candidate if she is better qualified than her opposing male candidate. The problem with this argument is that such reasoning would lead us to similarly reason that a wife that is better qualified to lead her home than her husband should be allowed to do so on that basis. The problem in such reasoning is apparent.

Second, Scripture explicitly teaches that one qualification for civil magistrate is maleness. Whenever Scripture speaks to the issue of qualifications for those in the civil realm it universally speaks to men. Now, we may wish that wasn’t the case till the cows come home but our wishing doesn’t change what the Scriptures teach. The constant premise of Scripture is that men will be the civil magistrates. A look at Ex. 18:21 and Deut. 1:13 reveals that the call for magistrates begins with maleness. The Hebrew word for ‘men’ in those passages is the gender specific word for individuals of the male persuasion. Further the guidelines in Deut. 17:14-20 for a future King assumes maleness since that future King is to be a “brother” and is forbidden to multiply wives. Further references that reinforce this observation are II Sam. 23:3, Neh. 7:2, Prov. 16:10, 20:8, 28, 29:14, 31:4-5, Rom. 13:1-6.

Now, there will be those who disregard such an argument by saying that “that was just their culture, so naturally they wrote that way.” Such an approach fails to take into account the creation order argument made above. Further such an objection evacuates the idea that Scripture is Holy Spirit inspired. The Holy Spirit chose the very words of Scripture and the words He chose for civil magistrate leadership are words that are rightly translated ‘male.’ We may not like it and so we may develop all kinds of gymnastic hermeneutics to escape it but the Scriptures teach what they teach. The explicit teaching of Scripture is that God follows His created order by requiring that civil magistrates, like Elders and Fathers be male.

Thirdly, the teaching of Proverbs on what constitutes a virtuous woman implies a rejection of women being civil magistrates. In Proverbs 31 we find the teaching that the center of a woman’s interest should be her home. This observation cuts deeply on the Sarah Palin nomination because Governor Palin is in a position where she needs to be giving all of her attention to her home. Now, the idea that women should find the center of their reality in the home is passé in our times. This is clearly seen in the Palin nomination, as it seems to be subtly suggested that because Palin has been nominated as Vice President women have now arrived where the really important action is unlike that crummy work of being a wife and mother. Proverbs 31 also teaches that it is the virtuous woman’s husband who sits in the gate (serves as civil magistrate) and not the virtuous woman herself. Now, Prov. 31 does teach that the importance of the virtuous woman is lauded in the city gate, no doubt by her husband, as her works are praised in the city gate. I fully recognize that it is difficult to hear but Christians do women a godly favor by not voting for them in as civil magistrates.

Fourthly, Scripture indicates that female leadership is a judgment against a people. In Isaiah 3:12, the prophet, as God’s spokesman, wails over the state of the covenant community proclaiming, “As for my people, children rule over them and women are their oppressors…” Sarah Palin’s nominee to be Vice President is yet one more indication of God’s judgment against both the nation and the Christians in the nation. It indicates that the Church has lost its saltiness and its light bearing capacity to repel darkness. Further, the fact that so many Evangelical Christian are wetting their pants in glee over this nomination reveals, once again, how Evangelicals are leading the way in applauding God’s judgment against them.

Fifthly, the example of Deborah proves at best that God will use female leadership as a reproach to men to accomplish his ends. Many will appeal to Deborah as an example of God using women as civil magistrates. The problem with this is that the account of Deborah clearly indicates the weakness of men. Also from Scripture we learn that God directly raised up Deborah to do his work, in light of the weakness of men. I seriously doubt that anyone would make the argument that God has directly raised up, in a revelatory sense, Sarah Palin in light of the weakness of men to be a civil magistrate.

Also on this score we must be careful that we don’t take an instance from one of Israel’s lowest and most confused points to overturn the clear and explicit teaching of Scripture on male leadership in the civil realm. God can speak through Donkeys but we would be wrong to set out in the pastures waiting for God’s Word from an Ass. Even so God can lead through women in the civil magistrate but it is sin for us to vote for women against God’s explicit Word in hope that God will give us another Deborah.

Finally, some will argue that as America is not a covenanted nation then Christians shouldn’t have to worry about God’s standards on voting. It is true that America is not a covenanted nation but it is not true that God’s standards therefore do not apply to the Christians dwelling in the non-covenanted nation. Christians for their part must continue to apply God’s standards and that means not voting in favor of God’s judgment.

Everything I’ve read suggests that Sarah Palin is a fine woman. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, though she seems to be ideologically in the right place, she remains the wrong man for the Vice Presidency. Still, because of this Nomination I see John McCain winning convincingly in November. Would that Christians wouldn’t join themselves with this judgment.

Sarah “Serpico” Palin And The Christian’s Quandry Part II

Now, Sarah Palin does not come without her weaknesses to the McCain campaign.

First, certainly the McCain campaign believes that Palin will be able to thrive in atmosphere that they have placed her, but it remains an open question whether or not Palin will be able to move from the greenhouse of Alaska where she has been growing to the harsh national environment to which she has now been transplanted. Juneau isn’t Washington D.C. and the Fairbanks media isn’t the New York media. This woman, because of her pro-life, pro-Jesus, pro-America, anti-buggery, anti-global warming positions is in for a crap-storm the likes she has never known. Can she withstand it? I believe that the media and the left establishment will seek to do to Palin what they did to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, because I believe that she is just that kind of threat to the establishment. Sarah Palin strikes me as an American every woman, who caught a lightning bolt to the Alaska Governor’s chair. Is this American every woman who loves Jesus, looks after her children, satisfies her husband, and hunts and fishes on the side tough enough and clever enough to mix it up with the smarmy Ivy League serpent bastards who own the court that surrounds the Presidency? I honestly fear for this woman.

Second, while Palin helps McCain ideologically speaking she does almost nothing for him regionally speaking. Alaska has three electoral votes and while every electoral vote in this campaign is going to count, one has to wonder whether or not McCain would have been better served to choose someone with better regional and electoral heft.

Third, Palin’s inexperience is a wild card in this whole campaign. Certainly, she has more experience than Obama but will voters still voter for her realizing that 72-year-old men drop dead all the time? The idea of being one heartbeat from the presidency takes on deeper meaning when the guy at the top of the ticket is comparatively close to the average life expectancy of an American male. It is true that Palin has more experience than Obama but that is not saying much and one has to wonder if the average voter is ready to put someone whose resume swells at being mayor of a city of 9000 who has been Governor of a small state for less than two years a heartbeat from the presidency. I press this issue because I think it is more likely that Palin will be President upon the death of John McCain then it is that Barack Hussein Obama will ever become President.

Fourth, on the inexperience subject again, one wonders how she is going to fare in the Vice Presidential debates. People, should realize that politics, like any other profession, is not for novices. If Sarah Palin cannot hold her own against Biden on national television that will severely hurt John McCain. Palin is in the position where she must become expert enough in a whole number of national and international issues to be able to speak on convincingly and intelligently. As Governor of Alaska has she thought about Georgia and Russia? As Governor of Alaska has she pondered the ins and outs of the strength of the dollar in foreign markets? As Governor of Alaska what does she think about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac? There will be no hiding any ignorance of these subjects and a similar host of them while on public television in a nationally broadcast debate.

The final section will seek to lay out an argument on why Biblical Christians can never vote for women civil magistrates – not even female civil magistrates that might otherwise serve our agenda