The Political Party of God

Democrat? Republican? Libertarian? Constitution Party? Which one best represents the scriptures, or even best represents the interests of God in our governmental system? How can we best hope to be a good representative for God's kingdom within our earthly kingdom? I believe that we're supposed to be a good witness in everything we do, including voting for a candidate that will adequately represent us on Capital Hill, but how do we do that?

Here are some thoughts and/or guidelines for Christians:

  1. Does the party platform align with scripture? Take a look at the party's general tenets - what it stands on, how its members generally vote, etc. For me, the Constitution Party is closest to the scriptures, with the Republican party coming in a far second. I have issues with some of the national Constitution Party's theonomistic tendencies, though. I don't like the idea of stoning homosexuals to death, one part of Rushdoony's M.O.; and this modern harbinger of extreme Mosaic Christian Reconstructionism is closely associated with many of the founders of that party. However, they do want to rid the country of abortion (a.k.a. murder), they would never consider homosexual marriage to be a norm and therefore deserving of federal funding, and they would certainly enter into war a lot less quickly than others. The Republicans say that they stand for these things, but their party members are not zealous enough to do drastic things to accomplish the "impossible". Some of the Tea Party-backed Republicans certainly have the right tendencies, though. They also desire a biblical tendency of fiscal responsibility, shunning socialism and promoting a very biblical ideal of equipping people to work for themselves. Democrats, on the other hand, prefer to deny the biblical definition of life, tax and spend at an irresponsible rate, and have little respect for consulting scripture in the midst of law-making.
  2. Does the candidate's platform align with scripture? What's his voting record? Does he follow through on his word? Does his life represent his platform? Liars should never be rewarded with an office, and we are responsible for researching if the candidate is a believer that would represent my best interests (which is God's kingdom) in governance. I would lean toward an individual like Ron Paul to most adequately represent those interests. Though the Constitution Party candidate could better fulfill that role, there is no chance in our current two-party system to elect such an individual, and there never will be while their platform is based primarily on Mosaic law.
  3. No party is perfect. Even the Constitution Party. Of the two big parties, Republican platforms more closely align than that of the Democrats. Yes, there are gaping holes in the areas of mercy, tenderness, and control of the dangers of life (e.g., gun control, financial regulations), but is that really the role of our federal system? Is it meant to be the role of any state system, even? I think that the enumerated powers should keep them limited in these areas. Besides, if the church were doing its job, the government wouldn't need to step in.
  4. No one is righteous, but believers have more of a shot at doing God's will. 'Nuff said. I believe that there are more atheists, non-evangelicals, and church absentees in the party of the donkey. Though unfortunately there are a handful of those in the Elephants, they mostly seem to desire church, the scriptures, and evangelical leanings. They certainly have more of a tendency for allowing more faith-based initiatives and freedoms of religion. The Dems want to stamp out all expression of public religious displays, especially where it is related to public funding in any way. Jefferson never meant as much through his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and anyone who has done at least a little due diligence on the matter knows it well.
  5. Can one adequately vote their conscience? If I had to vote my conscience, I'd probably end up writing in my pastor every time. Even then, sin prevails at times. He's not perfect, no party is perfect, and I think we need to help affect change by voting in the primaries and general election for a candidate that will realistically win. Writing in a candidate that may not even be counted is an absurd waste of time. To not vote would be to shun one of the greatest opportunities we have as believers to shape our communities and the greater good of the state. I don't buy the argument that our country should be punished by the policies of the Dems if an adequate candidate is not presented by the Republicans, and I think anyone shirking their vote should have to continue to live under those liberal policies even when the 'pubs rescind them. Don't want ObamaCare? Tough, you should have voted, so now individually you have to continue living in that cursed environment. Ah, well, maybe not.
So, short of voting for the "Christian" party, there really is only one best option, though it's definitely far from being perfect... voting Republican. Especially when it's a Tea Party-backed candidate (and no, I'm not a racist or anything silly like that, so don't go there; I think that whole claim is a straw-man to dodge the real issue of fiscal responsibility). No one else even comes close to a real chance of winning, in our current environment. Vote your conscience, or vote effectively. I choose to effect change and actually have someone representing. The challenge after that point is keeping these representatives accountable for actually voting their promises into effect.

No comments: