TO VOTE OR NOT TO VOTE

I have been troubled to hear Christians saying:

·       “I’m sitting out these elections. It seems that God is bringing judgment on this country in light of the two candidates we have to choose from.”

I am troubled by this response for many reasons. While it might be true that God wants to judge this nation (and perhaps even the rest of this world), our responsibilities are clear. We have to seek the welcome of our communities and even our nations.

This was the message that God had given Jeremiah deliver to the Jews in their painful and humiliating exile in Babylon. They were instructed to seek the welcome of that unrighteous town.

Even when God told Moses that He would destroy the nation of Israel and create a new nation from Moses (Exodus 32:10), Moses didn’t say. “Well, if that’s your will, then do it. I won’t oppose that.” Instead, Moses understood the role to which he had been called and intervened in favor of Israel:

·       But Moses implored the LORD his God and said, “O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.’” And the LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people. (Exodus 32:11-14)

We too have a role to play – that of the light of the world. We have to, therefore, ask of ourselves, “Which candidate has the policies that will best protect the innocent and promote justice and welfare?”

Jesus told a revealing parable about a Good Samaritan. The religious leadership passed by a bleeding man lying in the side of the road without offering the slightest assistance. We would be tempted to think, “Evidently, this mugging had occurred because God had allowed it. Evidently, this man’s karma was bad and he received just what he deserved.”

However, such thinking didn’t enter into Jesus’ parable. Instead, this was a man who clearly needed help. That is what mattered, not his karma.

Let’s apply this to our own nation. Our nation is bleeding. Our job is not to consider its karma or what it might deserve in God’s eyes. Our job is to stem the bleeding.

Mordecai knew of Haman’s plans to exterminate the Jews, and he did something about it, even asking Esther to risk her life. He could have instead thought to himself,

·       “Evidently, the Jewish people deserve this. After all, we had been condemned into exile for our sins, and then we failed to return to Israel along with the other exiles. Instead, we became comfortable in the land of the Persians and didn’t want to give up our comforts to return as pioneers to the Promised Land. Perhaps we deserve the punishment that Haman wishes to bring upon us. So let’s just allow the chips to fall where they may.”

However, Mordecai knew his duty and intervened to save his people Israel. He would leave the rest up to God.

We Christians cannot abandon the political arena or any other arena. Instead, our duty is to shine the light of Christ in whatever arena God might have placed us. Voting is one arena that we should not ignore.

Ashamed of the Gospel: The Charge of “Fundamentalism”

Shame is an excellent tool to silence opposition, and Pope Francis knows how to use it, charging “fundamentalism” to silence theological consideration.

On September 16, 2015, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) wrote:

·       Religious fundamentalism keeps God at a distance, and keeps believers from building bridges with others, Pope Francis reflected on Sunday during a radio interview.

That’s odd! I thought that God wanted us to believe certain fundamentals of the faith like:

·       "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:16-17)

Aren’t we supposed to be assured by the fundamental truth that Christ died for our sins and, on the basis of this, to know that we have peace with God? However, it seems that, according to Francis, this fundamental truth would “divert [our] minds from him”:

·       “Our God is a God who is close, who accompanies. Fundamentalists keep God away from accompanying his people, they divert their minds from him and transform him into an ideology. So in the name of this ideological god, they kill, they attack, destroy, slander. Practically speaking, they transform that God into a Baal, an idol.”

I had no idea that this fundamental truth would “keep God away!” However, it is this truth coupled with the truth of my utter unworthiness that draws me lovingly to those I would ordinarily hate. (Okay, I have much more growing to do in the area of love.)

I am therefore mystified that, according to the CNA:

·       The Pope said that no religion is immune from the possibility of fundamentalism. He said fundamentalism, instead of creating a bridge, creates a wall that blocks encounter with another person. It seeks ways to disagree. With fundamentalism, he said, “you can’t have friendship between peoples.”

Instead, it is these Christian fundamentals that shoot down my arrogance, belief in my entitlement, and humble me to follow Jesus. It is these truths that have motivated me to reach out in friendship and to forgive those who hurt me. Why? Because of another fundamental – I must forgive as I have been forgiven.

Instead, it matters what fundamentals are embraced. If “world conquest” is the fundamental, this will have a stifling effect upon friendship. Also, if “violent socialistic revolution” is the fundamental or ideal, then chaos and destruction is guaranteed.

However, if love and justice are our fundamentals, we can expect better fruit and the blessings of God.

It is worthy of note that Francis has his own fundamentals. Here are some of his sayings:

·       "You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity."

·       "A Christian who does not protect creation, who does not let it grow, is a Christian who does not care about the work of God; that work that was born from the love of God for us. And this is the first response to the first creation: protect creation, make it grow."

·       "God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

·       "The 'big bang,' that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God, on the contrary it requires it."

·       "This is playing with life. Beware, because this is a sin against the creator," he said, denouncing euthanasia as a "false sense of compassion" in November. The comments came on the heels of Brittany Maynard's advocacy efforts to die with dignity, but he did not address her death specifically.

·       As bishops ended a two-week conference in October by rejecting landmark wording that would soften the church's stance toward homosexuality and divorce, Pope Francis said: "God is not afraid of new things" and called on the church to adapt to "changing conditions in society."

Clearly, Francis has his own fundamental beliefs, and he is entitled to them. However, it does not seem that he extends this same courtesy to others. This disguised intolerance for the theology or fundamentals of others is also apparent in certain New Age thinkers.

Eckhart Tolle, Oprah Winfrey’s New Age guru, raises Francis’ objection:

• “If you go deep enough in your religion, then you all get to the same place It’s a question of going deeper, so there’s no conflict here. The important thing is that religion doesn’t become an ideology…the moment you say 'only my belief' or 'our belief' is true, and you deny other people’s beliefs, then you’ve adopted an ideology [theology or fundamental]. And then religion becomes a closed door.”

Everyone has their ideology, even Tolle. He too is a fundamentalist! His ideology is mystical and experiential as opposed to rational. His ideology excludes no less than the ideology of the Ayatollah. He even obliquely appeals to his own ideology to defend his fundamentals.

We are all fundamentalists. Instead, the question should be, “Do I have a theology or fundamentals that accords with reality, justice, and love?” Francis has been pushing an anti-capitalistic, pro-socialistic fundamental and castigates the church for not following suit.

However, the church has many reasons to question the implementation of more entitlement programs in the place of biblical interventions.

Charles White, professor of Christian Thought and History at Spring Arbor University, writes about one biblical intervention:

• The Methodists made such an impact on their nation that in 1962 historian Elie Halevy theorized that the Wesleyan revival created England’s middle class and saved England from the kind of bloody revolution that crippled France. Other historians, building on his work, go further to suggest that God used Methodism to show all the oppressed peoples of the world that feeding their souls on the heavenly bread of the lordship of Christ is the path to providing the daily bread their bodies also need. (Mission Frontiers, Sept-Oct 2011, 6)

• Coming to Christ through the Methodist movement changed the loves of a million people in Britain and North American in the eighteenth century….most of these people and their children moved from the desperation of hand-to mouth poverty to the security of middle-class life as they made Christ their Lord and experienced the impact of His power on their economic lives. As these people moved up the social ladder, they began to influence the political life of their nation. They helped to transform Britain from an eighteenth-century kleptocracy – where the powerful fueled their lives of indulgence by exploiting the poor into a nineteenth century democracy – which abolished slavery and used its empire to enrich the lives of every subject of the crown. (9)

Before this glorious movement of the Spirit, England had been in turmoil. White explains:

• The police were also overwhelmed by the fighting and killing of the mob. The law executed people for 169 capital crimes, but the regular march to the gallows did nothing to make the streets safe at night. Sexual immorality was common at all levels of society, and the nation was overwhelmed with illegitimate children. (7)

What made the difference? Wesley formed people into small groups where they would pray, confess their sins, and pledge to follow Christ in all His teachings or fundamentals (Matthew 28:19-20)! No mention was ever made of entitlement programs.

According to God’s revelation to the Prophet Jeremiah, the fundamentals of biblical instruction are essential – the one thing that is worthy of boasting:

• This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

According to the Apostle Peter, the knowledge of the fundamentals is the basis for all forms of blessing:

• Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:2-3)

Let us therefore not be ashamed when others attempt to shame us as “fundamentalists.”

THE BIBLICAL CASE AGAINST INCOME EQUALITY (IE)

Actually, the biblical case against income equality is a case that need not be made.  And why not? Because non-income equality—NIE—is clearly the biblical norm, except in very limited and special circumstances! Even the continual admonition to care for the poor is predicated on the fact that in this life there are those who “have” and there are those who “have not.”

Let's look at a few verses that assume NIE:

**One person gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous person will prosper; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed. People curse the one who hoards grain, but they pray God’s blessing on the one who is willing to sell (Proverbs 11:24-26).

Clearly, in Bible times, some people had accumulated substantial resources, while others were in need. Job, the most righteous of men, had honorably accumulated great wealth.

**[Job] owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East (Job 1:3).

Despite Job's great wealth, God pointed him out to Satan for his surpassing integrity:

**“Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil” (Job 1:3, 8).

Job's great wealth did not lessen God's estimation of him. Even with his vast resources, Job was steadfast in serving God.

In contrast to the situation with Job, Jesus told a parable about a foolish farmer who had a great harvest and had built a new barn to store his bounty. However, the farmer was foolish, not because he had great wealth, but because his wealth had become more important to him than God. Thus, for his compromised heart, he suffered great loss:

**“This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God” (Luke 12:21).

The Bible never identifies wealth as an evil in itself. Instead, it is the love of wealth and anything else in this world wherein the problem lies:

**Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them (1 John 2:15).

To love God is to put Him ahead of everything else (Matthew 6:33). This means that we have to put all of our resources at His disposal. 

However, this truth from God’s word does not mean that a government has a right to control our lives by enforcing a top-down program of IE. In fact, such control is antithetical to God's control and guidance. Therefore, Jesus warned in Matthew 6:24 that we should disdain the idea of taking on a second master—in this case, the government—to micro-manage all of our income.

For the ancient Israelites, God's plan was that Israel was to be led by judges and not by the domination of kings who would tax them to finance their own agendas. However, after warning Israel against taking on a monarch, He relented and acquiesced to their demands.

There is nothing in the Bible that requires IE. Instead, the Mosaic system was designed to benefit the diligent, the righteous, and those who worked hard:

**The righteous eat to their hearts’ content, but the stomach of the wicked goes hungry (Proverbs 13:25).

This is a picture of NIE, not IE. Fairness, according to the way the Bible views these matters, required that those who were hard workers be allowed to profit from their labors:

**All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty (Proverbs 14:23).

Conversely, the wicked were not to be rewarded:

**The house of the righteous contains great treasure, but the income of the wicked brings ruin (Proverbs 15:6).

IE excludes any consideration of conduct. IE would reward drunkenness, drug abuse, and adultery in the same way that it would reward hard work and honesty. In light of this, taking from the righteous hard-worker to give to the wicked was regarded as unjust. However, IE removes the necessary consequences from the wicked and the lazy to their own destruction.

In contrast, God's system would bless the righteous hard worker:

**Wealth and riches are in their houses, and their righteousness endures forever. Even in darkness light dawns for the upright, for those who are gracious and compassionate and righteous. Good will come to those who are generous and lend freely, who conduct their affairs with justice...The wicked will see and be vexed, they will gnash their teeth and waste away; the longings of the wicked will come to nothing (Psalm 112:3-5, 10).

Once again, instead of income equality, nearly everything in the Bible points to NON-income equality. And even though there are many admonitions to freely give to the needy, it is tacitly understood that the giving is to be done in such a way that people are not dis-empowered or enabled to become irresponsible.

Therefore, the Apostle Paul taught that giving requires great discernment so that those who are not worthy of the church's alms do not receive them:

**Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives (1 Timothy 5:3-6).

To support those who were living for their own pleasure was to enable a sinful lifestyle. Instead, the church had a responsibility to the worthy poor who could not support themselves otherwise. Where possible, the family had to take care of their own who were in need:

**No widow may be put on the [alms] list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry... Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to... If any woman who is a believer has widows in her care, she should continue to help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need (1 Timothy 5:9-11, 13, 16).

This requires wise discrimination and not IE with its unwillingness to discriminate. To support the wrong people might deprive them of the motivation to trust in the Lord for their support…and to work! It might also enable them to live sinful lives.  

We have already seen how entitlement programs undermine the family and community, trapping their "beneficiaries" in webs of dependency. This is the fruit of indiscriminate giving and will inevitably be the fruit of any programs connected with income equality, should such programs ever be enacted.

We have also seen the utter unsustainability of communism and even socialism. Eastern Europe still has a long way to go before it recovers from the grip of its communist legacy.

Tough love can be merciful. It can motivate people to escape dependency and degradation, as Paul

argued:

**For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12).

It is not surprising that those who were "unwilling to work" were also "idle and disruptive." We undermine the integrity and character of the needy when we give them an income for which they do not work. 

Compassion requires understanding and discernment—the very thing that IE programs cannot provide. Instead, if we really care about others, we will give them what they truly need and not a monetary drug that corrupts and addicts.

The poor and needy must have access to the same opportunities that others have. However, equal opportunity is not the same thing as enforced equal income, which has been consistently proven to be destructive, in light of the abject bankruptcy of the communist “experiment.”

Meanwhile, there have been many documented, successful Christian interventions that have dignified the poor and have elevated them out of poverty and the alcoholism that so often accompanies their plight. Marvin Olasky has written extensively and in great detail about some of these outreaches in his book, Compassionate Conservatism.

Problem Verses

1. "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" (Matthew 5:42).

Actually, this isn't a problem verse. If anything, it supports NIE and not IE, by demonstrating the legitimacy of the presence of both those who have and those who have not.

However, this verse does seem to argue against discriminate giving in favor of indiscriminate giving, or, at least, loaning. But we need to remember that Jesus often taught hyperbolically. Yet, even when he “exaggerated for effect,” a case can be made, even within the contest of the Sermon on the Mount, for Jesus’ support of discriminate giving. In this verse, Jesus shows how even God the Father “discriminated”:

**But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins (Matthew 6:15).

The Father is very discriminate: He forgives only those who forgive!

Jesus even advised others to discriminate against giving to certain people:

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces" (Matthew 7:6).

2. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need (Acts 2:44-45).

This seems to support IE, since all had "everything in common." However, there are several important differences.

For one thing, the believers willingly and voluntarily pooled their resources. In other words, what they did was light years away from the heavy hand of any government compulsion. This is also a classic example of discriminate giving because not everyone was included—only believers!

For another thing, there is no indication that this was to become the norm for the church or society in general. Instead, the way the early church pooled their resources in this case was for a special purpose at a specific time.

At this time, many thousands of devout Jews living in the diaspora were in Jerusalem for Pentecost. A great multitude of them had just become believers and had no other way to learn about the Gospel other than to remain with the Apostles. However, it is probable that their limited funds would not enable them to remain long in Jerusalem. Therefore, it is probable that the Jerusalem believers thought it necessary to support these brethren while they remained.

Finally, nowhere in the Epistles do we find any move whatsoever towards adopting income equality. Instead, the Epistles contain numerous appeals for individual giving as opposed to appeals to a church bureaucracy to give from its corporate account. Thus, the picture is complete. The Scriptures are clear in their unbridled support of NON-income equality!

A Secular Peace-Giving Spirituality

From whence comes peace? One secularist hopes that our common human concerns and needs might provide the necessary human glue for peace:

·       Commonality in our beliefs; commonality in our concept of the world; commonality in our hopes for the future of humanity.

He feels that world peace can be achieved once we identify and discuss our common concerns, and he has a point. We do share many common concerns - peace, happiness, prosperity, and health, among other things. It would therefore seem that cooperation, and not conflict, should provide the common ground for ongoing win-win transactions. This is something we couldn't possibly achieve with a mosquito, whose interest - sucking our blood - is diametrically opposed to ours.

However, we have always shared these common interests, but wars have persisted. In fact, the ancients might have had even more savvy than we. They would marry their daughters off to rival kings. Pretty clever!

There also seems to be another problem. Many leaders have had ambitions - world conquest, for example - that have trumped our shared concerns.

This very evident problem has many thinking in terms of promoting a benign universal spirituality that would pronounce an emphatic "no" against our destructive tendencies.

What would such a spirituality look like? Secularism insists that God must be left out of the picture. After all, God just causes divisions, right? Consequently, the unifying moral code would be strictly pragmatic. It would be based on promoting those behaviors that serve human thriving.

But could such a spirituality win the hearts of humanity? Can humanity be convinced, by virtue of a secular morality, to love and not to enslave? After all, our world has shrunk. We are so interconnected. Will not the subjugation of one people negatively impact others so that all would just want to do good?

Are there any lessons that we can learn from the past? For example, what principles had made this nation great? Alexis de Tocqueville, French statesman, historian and social philosopher, wrote Democracy in America (1835). It has been described as "the most comprehensive and penetrating analysis of the relationship between character and society in America that has ever been written."

Tocqueville had been well acquainted with the demands for freedom and equality that had arisen from his own French revolution, albeit grounded in the hatred and murder of the clergy. This revolution had confidently sought to push aside anything that stood in its way.  However, with the advantage of decades of hindsight, this had become something that the French wanted to avoid at all costs. Tocqueville, therefore, wrote,

·       The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom.

He therefore appreciated the moral constraints that he found so ubiquitously associated with democracy in the USA:

·       I do not question that the great austerity of manners that is observable in the United States arises, in the first instance, from religious faith... its influence over the mind of woman is supreme, and women are the protectors of morals. There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated...

Continually, he found that the fruitful expression of democracy was inseparable from its underlying Christian roots:

·       In the United States the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people.... Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent; the consequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle of the moral world is fixed and determinate.

·       I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

The Founding Fathers could have told Tocqueville the same things. George Washington, our first President, often spoke on the central role of the Christian faith:

·       You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. (The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779)

Even our first Unitarian President, John Adams, affirmed that Christianity was necessary for national welfare:

·       "The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer.

·       And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

·       Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.” (June 28, 1813 excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson)

·       "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever." (Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.)

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President, arguably our least religious President, wrote:

·       "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237)

James Madison, framer of the Bill of Rights and 4^th President of the USA:

·       I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. (The Papers of James Madison, William T. Hutchinson, editor (Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Vol. I, p. 96, to William Bradford on September 25, 1773)

Why are we so quick to forget their lessons and observations? Why, instead, are we placing our hope in a new and untried spirituality?