This is Theological Foundation's afternoon lesson number 11, and right now what we're considering is Christ-centered voting. Last month we considered the doctrine of Christ's kingship over the nations, and now we're going to apply that. And we're going to specifically apply it in terms of voting, but I think you'll find that a lot of these principles are going to shed light on politics in general, Christ-centered politics. But we're going to focus on Christ-centered voting. Now, I'm going to give a presentation on this that I've used before in various venues, and then after I'm done with the presentation, we'll take questions during whatever remaining time we have. So, be jotting down questions that you may have regarding anything that you hear me say. The first thing we're going to begin with is part one, the voter. The voter. Now, to most Americans, the practice of voting for political candidates is a religiously neutral exercise. But from a biblical standpoint, voting is an important aspect of human life. And the chief end of human life is what? To glorify God and to enjoy him forever. That's from our shorter catechism, question number one. Now, for the Christian, all of life must be aimed at God's glory, 1 Corinthians 10.31. This is especially true of matters relating to civil government, which is ordained of God, Romans 13 verse 2, and over which Jesus Christ has been crowned King of kings and Lord of lords and ruler of the kings of the earth, Revelation 1.5 and Revelation 19.16. The right to elect government officials gives each Christian citizen a share in both the privileges and responsibilities of civil rule. As Jesus observed, to whom much is given, much shall be required. And so we ask, how ought God's people to exercise this right of appointing public officials? Scripture tells us that the prophet Daniel did so by appointing Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Daniel 2.49. In Psalm 101, verse 6, King David describes his own philosophy of appointing officials in this way, he who walks in a blameless way is the one who will minister to me. Like Daniel and David, each citizen is obliged to select godly leaders who will self-consciously labor for God's glory. Just as employees answer to a supervisor for their conduct on the job, so every voter will someday answer to the Lord's anointed King, Jesus Christ, for each candidate, platform, or initiative that he or she has supported. We must all, therefore, strive to be Christ-centered voters. But what does it actually mean to be a Christ-centered voter? To answer this question, some observations are in order. First, morally, we are bound to obey the voice of God in Scripture, subjecting ourselves to His holy will in all things, including how we vote. To do otherwise would be sin. Second, from a practical standpoint, we serve a sovereign God who immutably declares, those who honor me, I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed, 1 Samuel 2.30. Hence, any approach to social reform which compromises the royal authority of King Jesus is supremely impractical. How can such an agenda expect to succeed apart from the sovereign blessing of God? And how can it expect his blessing while remaining indifferent to the glory and kingship of his beloved son? The implicit premise of every compromise reform effort is either A, God does not exist, B, God exists but is not greatly offended when his honor is publicly disregarded, or C, God is greatly offended when disregarded but will not punish the offenders. Of course, all three of these premises are erroneous. Disregarding God is highly offensive to him, and such offenses do reap his providential displeasure. Hence, Christians must reject any social agenda which fails to reverently submit to his word. Indeed, advocating such an agenda invites the just wrath of a sovereign God, the sovereign God, upon whom they depend for every ounce of their political success. What could possibly be more impractical than that? By contrast, modern politicians are remarkably consistent in their approach. They truly believe that political agendas rise and fall based upon the will of the voting public, big corporations, and party elites. As such, they structure virtually all of their actions around the goal of pleasing, you guessed it, the voting public, big corporations, and party elites. In other words, their all-consuming endeavor is to please those whom they expect to determine their own success or failure. Christians can and must learn from these results-oriented politicians. If, as the Bible teaches, political agendas ultimately rise and fall according to the sovereign will of God, then pleasing Him must be the foundation of any political reform movement that hopes to experience lasting success. Well, thus far we've considered the voter. Now we proceed to part two, the candidate. the candidate. In 1651, the Scottish Parliament crowned Charles II King of Scotland upon condition of his public acceptance of the Scottish National Covenant and the Solemn Ligon Covenant, documents outlining the nation's self-conscious subjection to King Jesus and to the scriptures as the supreme law of the land. Tragically, however, the king's signature was insincere. Soon after his coronation, Charles II disavowed his oath and began prosecuting the supporters of the covenants. This sad turn of events demonstrates that no matter how righteous a candidate's self-professed agenda may appear, it means very little if he cannot be trusted to follow through with it. For this reason, it is crucial that we understand the following two essential marks of a vote-worthy political candidate. Essential mark number one, he must be a credibly professing Christian man. He must be a credibly professing Christian man. There are two kinds of individuals in this world. First, those who have been made alive by the Spirit of God and are being conformed daily into the image of Christ. And second, those who remain dead in their sins, blinded and enslaved by Satan and dominated by selfish lusts. In other words, a man is either a servant of Christ or a bond slave of the devil. The scriptures are clear that there can be no middle ground. No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other, so said our Lord in Matthew 6.24. While God alone infallibly discerns men's hearts, Jesus commanded his followers to know a tree by its fruit, Luke 6.44. But what does this mean? First, it means that those who profess no allegiance to Christ and have no interest in His church ought to be taken at their word and regarded as spiritually dead, 1 Timothy 2.12. Second, those who profess allegiance to Christ while remaining indifferent toward His word and unresponsive to His church ought to be regarded as religious hypocrites rather than brothers in Christ, Matthew 18.17. And third, those who profess allegiance to Christ but who belong to secret societies, heretical groups, or false churches, that is Mormons, Freemasons, Romanists, et cetera, ought to be regarded as under the dominion of Satan, who is himself the author of every false religion, 1 Corinthians 11, 1 through 15. Over against these negative examples, the vote-worthy candidate will be a man unashamed of the gospel and holding active membership in a true Christian church. He will be a man whose sworn allegiance to Jehovah is unmistakable, who regularly studies the scriptures, and who is not afraid to openly avow the supreme authority of King Jesus, even in the public square. Some may ask, Why must the vote-worthy candidate be a godly man? Why not a godly woman or a godly young person? According to Scripture, God has assigned ordinary human leadership to adult males. 1 Corinthians 11.3, verse 8, and verses 11 and 12. The application of this principle in the church originates from its regulation of the family, as Paul makes clear in 1 Timothy 3, 4, and 5, requiring an elder to be, quote, one who rules over his house well, having his children in submission with all reverence. For if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? End quote. Moreover, The scriptures teach that male headship in the state is but an extension of male headship in the family, as was evident when God instituted civil authority among, quote, Noah and his sons. Genesis 9, one through seven. Among Israel and the chosen men from its patriarchal tribes, or father's houses. Deuteronomy 1, 13 through 15. 1 Chronicles 26, 30 through 32. It would be unreasonable, therefore, for a husband to be the authoritative head of his wife in the household, only to be under her authority in the civil realm. Ephesians 5, 22 through 24. In fact, the rise of women and young children to civil authority is specifically cited in Scripture as a mark of God's judgment. In Isaiah 3, 11 through 13, the Lord rebukes the wicked Israelites declaring, quote, woe to the wicked, it shall be ill with him for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them. Oh my people, those who lead you cause you to err and destroy the way of your paths. The Lord stands up to plead and stands up to judge the people, end quote. One example of this is the extraordinary case of the prophetess Deborah, whom God installed as a judge in Ephraim during a time when the male tribal leaders failed to properly lead, Judges 5, 1 through 9. This is not to say that Deborah's godly counsel was a judgment or that the Ephraimites had reason to rebel against her. but the fact that God invested her with civil authority was a mark of his displeasure with the Ephraimite men of that generation. Similarly, while Christians today are by no means exempted from submitting to youthful or female rulers, scripture is clear that this phenomenon is extraordinary, unnatural, and to be avoided whenever possible. Experience confirms that some Christian candidates will be godlier than others. However, any politician who lacks a credible profession of faith in Jesus as his Savior and Lord cannot be considered vote worthy. Electing such a candidate, no matter how right he may be on this or that particular issue, is very dangerous because it puts the civil sword in the hand of Christ's enemy. No matter what values a Christless candidate may profess to hold, he remains under the dominion of sin and Satan, who has blinded his mind, 2 Corinthians 4. While God often for the good of his church restrains such rulers from being as wicked as they might otherwise be, it is unreasonable to expect God to do so when his own people have themselves willingly voted them into office. 1 Samuel 8. In such instances of recklessness, rather than presuming upon God's merciful restraint of the wicked, Christians should expect to see their society given over to even more extreme violations of moral law." Romans 1, 26-32. Furthermore, casting a vote for an unbeliever openly defies the authority of King Jesus. Psalm 2 is clear that every civil magistrate is duty-bound to kiss the Son in worshipful submission of His royal authority and to trust in Him. All who refuse will be dashed to pieces as a potter's vessel and perish in the way. Of the presently exalted Christ, Psalm 110, five and six says this, the Lord, meaning Christ, the psalmist is here speaking to the father, the Lord is at your right hand, he shall execute kings in the day of his wrath, he shall judge among the nations, he shall fill the places with dead bodies, he shall execute the heads of many countries, end quote. If our exalted Lord is actively destroying rulers who refuse to kiss the sun, ought Christians to vote for these individuals? How can the body of Christ support those against whom its exalted head has openly declared war? This would be thoroughly inconsistent with the very fabric of union with Christ, with whom all believers are presently seated in heavenly places, Colossians 3.1. Indeed, what loyal subject would dare lend support to a national foe while sitting in the king's presence? And what bride would seek to advance the cause of her husband's enemies? How outrageous! And yet, this is precisely what takes place when Christian voters support Christless candidates. With respect to Christ, the Bible is clear that the Father put all things under his feet and gave him to be head over all things to the church, Ephesians 1.22. As such, a very real chain of command has been established by God, obliging every civil ruler to submit to Jesus as a superior civil officer. Too few Christians recognize the significance of this. Think about it. How many church members would vote for a deacon who did not recognize the authority of the elders? How many corporations would hire a CEO who refused to acknowledge the authority of its board of directors? How many Americans would vote for a president who refused to acknowledge the authority of the legislature or the judiciary? Such things are self-evidently absurd. Common sense tells us that no individual is fit for any office in any context if he does not openly acknowledge all legitimate authority to whom or to which he is accountable. How, then, can Christians, who claim to believe that Jesus is the ruler of the kings of the earth, vote for rulers who deny his lawful authority over them? If the rejection of the Supreme Court's authority would disqualify a candidate for office, how much more so a denial of the supreme authority of the judge of all the earth? Of course, this in no sense takes away from our duty to submit to ungodly officials and to pray for their restraint and illumination. Romans 13, 1 Timothy 2. But submitting to a Christless magistrate is a far cry from actively supporting his candidacy. Well, we've looked at essential mark number one. Next, essential mark number two of a vote-worthy candidate. He must demonstrate wisdom and godly character. When electing civil elders to rule over their tribes and clans, God gave Israel the following instructions through Moses. Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you." Deuteronomy 1.13. Later in Deuteronomy 17, 18, and 19, Moses advises Israel concerning their future election of a king, that he must write out his own copy of the scriptures, end quote, read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord, his God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, end quote. Our sinful tendency as fallen creatures is to selfishly abuse whatever power or authority we possess. For this reason, a vote-worthy political candidate must have a proven track record of unselfish leadership and God-fearing personal integrity both at home and in the workplace. If a man has been an unfaithful husband or negligent father, can we really expect him to be a faithful and diligent steward of civil authority? If he has involved himself in questionable business transactions, filed dishonest tax returns, or refused to be forthright about major public accusations, can we really expect him to enforce the law equitably upon others? In addition to personal integrity, the vote-worthy candidate must bring a measure of wisdom and experience to the table. He must be familiar not only with the scriptures, but with all of life, including the society and people which he is to govern. Anyone who reads the Proverbs of King Solomon will be struck not simply with his knowledge of God's law, but also with his knowledge of human nature, human relationships, economics, and the created world. Without a working knowledge of these subjects, a ruler's familiarity with Scripture is unlikely to produce real solutions to the problems of the Commonwealth. In Jeremiah 23, God rebukes the shepherds, that is the civil rulers of his people, for abusing their authority. Rather than tending to the needs of the people, they oppress them for personal gain. Sadly, human governments are frequently guilty of such tyrannical abuses of power. When evaluating a political candidate, therefore, it is important to observe his sensitivity and care for the needs and liberties of even the most vulnerable members of society. A vote-worthy candidate will attend to the legitimate concerns of every citizen under his charge, defending the cause of the oppressed and preventing envious class warfare from victimizing the wealthy. He will attend to the genuine needs of the widow and orphan without using such legitimate expenditures as a pretext for massive state expansion and taxation. So much for the vote worthy candidate. Now we proceed to part three, the platform. It may rightly be said that a good platform is meaningless without a godly man to enforce it. However, we must not suppose that electing a credibly professing Christian will, by itself, guarantee God's blessing. We must also evaluate his stated agenda or platform. This, of course, presupposes the existence of an objective standard of evaluation. When asked to define this standard, Christians today offer a variety of answers. We will briefly consider two common but erroneous standards followed by a look at the scriptural standard. Erroneous standard number one, the lesser of two evils approach. The lesser of two evils approach. What happens when a vote worthy candidate is nowhere to be found on the ballot? Ought Christians to simply look at the platforms of the two major party candidates and vote for the so-called lesser of two evils? According to many Christians today, the answer to this question is a rather passionate yes. There are, however, several major problems with such an outlook. First, this supposedly pragmatic approach has proved a dismal failure, particularly in the United States. Writing in 19th century America, Presbyterian minister R.L. Dabney observed, quote, American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it but never retards it and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor. Wherewith shall it be salted? He goes on, it is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only and not of sturdy principle. End quote. Voting for the lesser of two evils at best puts society on a slower, more gradual road to perdition. And such gradual declension is often more dangerous in that it occurs at a less disturbing, less noticeable pace. In truth, the triumph of lesser evil is of great use to Satan because it allows moral decline to press onward, cleverly disguised as moderation. Consider once again the effect of this philosophy on American politics. Are not today's conservatives more unbiblical than yesterday's liberals? And yet, are we not constantly being told to vote for them in opposition to more evil alternatives? Such an environment creates wily politicians who know full well that they can continue to live immorally and support unbiblical legislation so long as they appear ever so slightly less evil than their opponents. Second, if Christians are required to support the lesser of two evils, then they would technically be required to vote for Stalin over Hitler or vice versa, which is patently absurd. Incidentally, if the current trend of moral backsliding continues, the prospect of seeing a Hitler or a Stalin on our ballot may not be so far-fetched. Finally, this flawed approach of the lesser of two evils typically opposes third-party Christian candidates on the supposition that they have no chance of winning. Godly men with scriptural principles are effectively discouraged from running for office since they cannot even count on fellow evangelicals to vote for them. In this sense, it guarantees the political dominance of evil candidates, thus perpetuating the status quo of moral declension. And that is an evil far more severe than enduring another four years of any one official. Now we move to erroneous standard number two, the few key issues approach. The few key issues approach. Some Christians argue for a more objective standard by which to evaluate a candidate's platform. They seek, as it were, to draw a line in the sand with respect to vote worthiness. This standard, they contend, is to be defined by a few key moral issues. In order to achieve reform on these crucial issues, however, great latitude is afforded with respect to a candidate's religious and moral convictions. An advocate of this approach might say, I will vote for any candidate who opposes abortion and homosexual marriage, even if he is not a Christian and has no professed allegiance to Jesus Christ. Almost without exception, the key issues valued by these voters are taken from the second table of the moral law, which commands love and peace between man and man. At the same time, the issues that are often perceived as non-essential, as mere icing on the cake, relate to the first table of God's law, which commands supreme love for God and His glory. If we could just end abortion and stop homosexual marriage, these voters contend, then perhaps we could gain sufficient momentum to move forward incrementally toward a more Christian society. But as you might imagine, there are several glaring problems with this approach. First, By lowering the vote-worthy threshold to just a few moral issues, it leaves the door wide open for candidates who lack a credible profession of faith in Christ. The Pope, for instance, who opposes both abortion and homosexual marriage, falls into this category. But would any blue-blooded Protestant ever suggest coming under the civil authority of the papacy? The few key issues approach is inconsistent with the sovereignty and holy jealousy of God. In our world of sin and misery, societal peace and liberty are attained solely by God's goodness. Hence, when a society disregards its first table duties, thereby robbing God of his due honor, is it not pure folly to expect him to shower that nation with second table blessings, peace, and liberty? As we know all too well in the United States, a society which seeks to maintain horizontal morality between man and man without self-consciously recognizing its vertical relationship to God in Christ will eventually be given over to all manner of horizontal wickedness and perversion, Romans 1. God will not allow His creatures to get along well without Him. Only when He is acknowledged and worshipped will He rend the heavens and pour out peace and liberty upon a nation. First-table sins must be addressed before second-table problems can be substantially resolved, since the latter are God's judgment on a nation for its tolerance of the former. Until God's people begin to realize this God-centered paradigm, abortion and homosexual marriage will continue to prevail as tokens of divine wrath. Third, Advocates of this few-key-issues approach have adopted unscriptural moral priorities which lack due sensitivity to the sinfulness of first-table transgressions. After the tragic events of 9-11, some misguided Christian leaders suggested that God was judging America for homosexuality and abortion. Such statements reflect an unhealthy moral bias, which views second-table issues as the primary basis upon which God deals with human societies. Biblically speaking, this is incorrect. Romans 1 informs us that sins like abortion and homosexuality are not so much the underlying reason for God's judgment as the judgment itself. A more accurate diagnosis of contemporary American culture would stress its remarkable indifference, if not hostility, to scriptural truth and to the Lord Jesus Christ. Of the cities which refused to hear the gospel, Jesus declared, assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city, Mark 6, 11. If God truly does view a society's rejection of his preached word as more heinous than the violence and perversion of Sodom and Gomorrah, then the political priorities of most American evangelicals stand in need of some serious correction. All in all, we must reject the few key issues approach for its failure to distinguish between the deadly disease of godlessness, which plagues modern society, and on the other hand, the various ethical symptoms, which often appear on the surface as a result. Well, now we move to consider our standard, the scriptural approach. According to the testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, there are at least three general qualifications that must characterize the platform of a vote-worthy candidate. We will now attempt to consider these qualifications and how they serve as helpful guides for the Christ-centered voter. Qualification number one, a stated intention to publicly kiss the sun. RP Testimony 23.4 says that, quote, every nation ought to recognize the divine institution of civil government, the sovereignty of God exercised by Jesus Christ, and its duty to rule the civil affairs of men in accordance with the will of God. It should enter into covenant with Christ and serve to advance His kingdom on earth, The negligence of civil government in any of these particulars is sinful, makes the nation liable to the wrath of God, and threatens the continued existence of the government and nation." The engine of national politics has no neutral gear. Every vote cast brings a people either one step closer to reformation or one step closer to destruction. Voting for a candidate that is indifferent toward the legal recognition of King Jesus is a step toward divine judgment. Of course, even if voting for Christ-rejecting conservatives could guarantee certain temporal advantages, such as protecting private property rights, and preventing unfair taxation, our Lord requires his followers to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all of these things shall be added to you. Matthew 6.33. If we as Christian voters would simply stick to our Christ-centered principles, would not God freely bless our nation with unprecedented safeguarding of our life, liberty, and private property? Would he not graciously furnish us with, in other words, all of these things? Qualification number two of a vote-worthy candidate. A self-conscious appeal to the authority of Holy Scripture. A self-conscious appeal to the authority of Holy Scripture. RP Testimony 2315 affirms the citizen's duty to, quote, vote for civil rulers who fear God, love truth and justice, hate evil, and are publicly committed to scriptural principles of civil government, end quote. RP Testimony 2329 then declares that, quote, the Christian should support and vote only for such men as are publicly committed to scriptural principles of civil government, end quote. Some might read these statements and conclude that they simply require a candidate's platform to include one or two positions that agree with the Bible. For instance, a professed atheist candidate may oppose high taxes and advocate capital punishment for convicted murderers, both in keeping with the Bible. Such a candidate on this interpretation would qualify as vote worthy simply because he holds positions that can be traced back to scripture. However comforting such an interpretation may be for the average American values voter, it fails to capture the testimony's straightforward meaning. More is required than an agreement with the Bible on a few matters of public policy. If this were the case, every candidate on earth would be vote worthy since every man, by the light of nature, holds to one position or another that is traceable to the Ten Commandments, Romans 2, 14, and 15. By contrast, RP Testimony 2329 speaks of the vote-worthy candidate's duty to, quote, openly inform those whose support he seeks of his adherence to Christian principles of civil government, end quote. While Christian principles may yield a variety of perspectives on key issues, a vote-worthy candidate will always ground his platform on the authority of scripture as the infallible word of the triune God. As God's servant for our good, Romans 13, 4, this is the very least we should expect from him. Qualification number three. A consistent public witness against anti-Christian principles, that is anti-Christian principles of civil government. Consider the following statements from the RP testimony relating to the taking of civil oaths. RP testimony 2326. Quote, it is the duty of the Christian to ascertain whether any prescribed oath of allegiance to the civil authority involves acceptance of the unchristian principles stated or implied in its constitution or government. If the oath of allegiance to civil authority explicitly or by clear implication requires support of anti-Christian, atheistic, or secular principles, then the Christian must refuse on these grounds to take the oath of allegiance. Acts 529, Acts 4, 18 through 20, end quote. Also, RP Testimony 2328, quote, it is the duty of the Christian Church to testify to the authority of Christ over the nations against all anti-Christian, atheistic, and secular principles of civil government and against all sinful oaths of allegiance to civil governments. When the Church, by orderly processes in her own courts, determines that the oath of allegiance to a civil government compromises the Christian's loyalty to Christ or involves the Christian in support of sinful principles of civil government, the Church must require her members to refuse such sinful oaths." The RP testimony is quite clear that all Christians must refrain from taking unlawful oaths, and by implication, from putting others in a position to take those oaths, such as by voting for someone who would take that oath. It also asserts that all Christians must strive to bear a consistent witness against all anti-Christian principles of government. These principles apply to every citizen, including all voters, candidates, and elected officials. Quite naturally, this general principle begs to be applied concretely to specific oaths of office, thereby raising an extremely difficult question. According to the above principles, is it lawful for a Christian to swear unqualified allegiance to the U.S. Constitution or to vote for someone who would do so? Historically, the RPC&A has given various answers to this question, including strictly prohibiting the oath, allowing the oath alongside an explanatory declaration, which expresses verbally Christ's supreme authority, and allowing unqualified acceptance of the oath, as is our present practice. The chief concern, of course, regarding the unqualified oaths that are taken to the U.S. Constitution has always been that this document establishes human government upon the authority of we the people rather than the Lord and His anointed, Psalm 2, 1-3. Apart from a casual reference to Anno Domini, that is, in the year of our Lord, and some borrowed Christian notions of limited government, the entire document, that is, the U.S. Constitution, is thoroughly and self-consciously without Christ and without God in the world. So far from covenanting with Christ to advance his kingdom and vowing to punish all outward violations of God's moral law, as is stated in Romans chapter 13, punishing evil, it establishes a form of pluralistic religious freedom which places Christ and his truth on equal footing with all other religions. during a time when virtually every state in the Union required legal witnesses, jurors, and magistrates to swear an oath to the Triune God and His Word, and when the state constitution of Massachusetts required its municipalities to fund local Christian congregations, at that time, the U.S. Constitution charted a new course of secularism that was eventually imposed upon the states, leading our nation precisely to its present state of agnosticism. Without a divinely revealed foundation for truth and morality, it should not surprise us to witness the unprecedented ethical chaos that has enveloped our society. The false religion of pluralistic secular humanism, which makes man the measure of all things, is largely the result of the principled secular humanism of the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, this is a very, very difficult issue, and we ought to proceed with all due caution. At this point, it is not our desire to draw dogmatic conclusions, but to ask pertinent, respectful questions, such as the following. One, can a Christian consistently bear testimony against all secularistic principles of civil government if he publicly takes or votes for someone who takes an unqualified oath to support and defend a secular humanist constitution? Two, Can a Christian consistently swear an unqualified oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic if he himself is at enmity with its most fundamental principles of pluralistic secular humanism? Three, if it would be unlawful for a Christian to swear unqualified allegiance to an Islamic constitution, what makes it lawful for him to swear unqualified allegiance to a secularist constitution? Four, may the Christian swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution with the implicit understanding that his oath is subordinate to the scriptures? And if so, where does one draw the line? In other words, could one swear unqualified allegiance to the Nazi party and then say, well, it's implicit that it's only insofar as it's scriptural? Where does one draw the line? Five, If a Christian states an explanatory declaration after taking the oath, qualifying his allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, should this satisfy his conscience, or must he simply refuse the oath altogether? It is to be admitted that reasonable Reformed Christians, elders, and denominations may disagree on how to best answer these difficult questions. Nevertheless, these are questions that must be thoughtfully considered by all who desire to engage in Christ-centered voting. And now we conclude with part four, some concluding thoughts. When individuals are converted to Christ, reconciliation to God is always the foundation of ongoing renewal. Psalm 130, verse 4, there's forgiveness that God may be feared. Similarly, it is not until a nation cries out to King Jesus, humbly seeking God's forgiveness and renewing grace through him, that it may expect lasting revitalization. Until Western society is transformed by the gospel, there is every reason to expect things to go from bad to worse. Nevertheless, there is great reason for hope as we carry out the Great Commission. Lo, I am with you always, says our Lord, even to the end of the age, Matthew 28, 20. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of Christ-centered voting is that it requires a great degree of trust in God. From merely a human standpoint, it makes little sense to spurn popular consensus in the name of honoring Jesus. In our own day, political coalitions that ignore him usually prove much more competitive than those that honor him as king. Hence, many Christians are tempted to throw Christ-centered voting under the bus, as it were, in favor of what they regard as more pragmatic solutions. Such believers genuinely desire to make a tangible, discernible impact on their world, even if this impact is very slight and comes at the high cost of unbiblical compromise. While we may sympathize with such admirable motives, this tyranny of the urgent is no excuse for reducing or abandoning the robust, Christ-exalting civil agenda of biblical Christianity. God calls each generation of Christians to honor His Son in their society, regardless of whether this produces an immediately discernible impact. Philippians 2.15, Daniel 3.17 and 18. As loyal subjects of King Jesus, it is our duty to honor Him in every aspect of our lives, including at the voting booth. Will you, out of a genuine zeal for His glory, commit yourself to vote only for godly candidates who will avow explicitly scriptural principles of civil government? As we have seen, both the Word of God and the testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America call for that type of commitment. How will you respond to this counter-cultural aspect of Christian doctrine? Will you submit your political involvement to the teachings of scripture? Will you kiss the sun this November? The choice is yours. Does anyone have any questions? John. There is some provision of being involved in an explanatory vote. The question is, isn't there some sort of explanatory oath? And the answer is yes. I don't have that with me, but I could find it. In the history of the RPCNA, we have had these explanatory declarations where someone can take an oath of office and then give a further declaration that this is only insofar as his commitment to Christ and the scriptures. So this would be sort of a middle way between the older position of not having anyone take any oaths to the Constitution or the current position, which is just at every individual's discretion, they can pretty much do as they feel comfortable. They're allowed to take the oath, in other words. But that would be a middle road where a lot of RPs even today actually still do the explanatory declaration. A friend of mine was in the Marines and he used that. Yes, John? John's pointing out this does impact people coming in and being naturalized as American citizens. This is an issue where the RPC&A split in a sense. People left us over this in 1833. But I think of late, at least in the 20th century, the explanatory declaration was a way for people to take that oath. Also during the 20th century, there was an emphasis on American loyalty over against communism and during war times. So a lot of school teachers in the RP Church use the explanatory declaration to continue their service in a public school to take certain oaths of loyalty. If anyone's interested in getting a hold of an explanatory declaration, I can find it. But I suspect it would be just something to the effect that my allegiance to the nation is only insofar as Christ and the scriptures allow me to do that. So it means that you're essentially taking exception to the secular basis of civil government that is currently on the books. So if you'd go to Article 6 of the Constitution, you would see that they clearly say, no religious test oaths may be used for any service in the government. Of course, that was the practice of the day, historically, in Western culture. You had to have some commitment to God and His Word. They say that's outlawed, but you must swear allegiance to the Constitution. In my mind, at least, and historically for RPs, this is a clear indication of idolatry. They're saying, let's get rid of any commitment to God and the morality of the Bible, as long as you're committed to we the people. So the explanatory declaration allows you to take exception to that and say, well, I don't necessarily agree with that, but I'm certainly a loyal, patriotic citizen. Any other questions? Tim. Can you please address the comment that goes like this? If you decide to abstain and not vote for anybody, based on these principles. You are wasting your vote. You're throwing away your vote. Or the comment that says something like, if you vote for this Christian candidate, You're sort of throwing your vote away anyway, because he doesn't stand a chance of winning if you're actually voting for the most popular candidate. So I think there's several problems that you bring up there as you're asking about whether it's valid to say, well, you're throwing away your vote if you don't vote for a certain candidate, or if you vote for the third-party Christian candidate, you're really helping the worst guy to win, that sort of thing. Several problems there. First, it's pragmatic. A vote, which comes from the same root as the word vow, is you're stating some measure of allegiance and support with that person. So, if that's a person Christ is going to dash to pieces like a potter's vessel, is that the person you want to be associated with and you want your vote to be behind? That's what a vote means. It's not just a pragmatic thing. But when you look at it pragmatically, it doesn't even make sense pragmatically. Because this is what they've been telling us for how many, I mean, over a hundred years. They've been telling Christians to vote for compromised candidates because they're the lesser of two evils. And one party will try to appeal to Christians on one particular moral issue and really get them all on board to win elections. And what have we seen? Things have gotten worse. It hasn't worked. Abortion's worse now than ever. Gay marriage, whatever you want to call it, all these things have gotten worse and worse and worse. not better. So the problem is the lesser of two evils approach focuses on just the immediate, you know, this election. They don't realize if every Christian refused to vote for anyone but the ones the Bible says are vote worthy, politicians would listen and we would have a huge impact on society. But we don't play hard to get. We're easy. They just say the word pro-life and we all vote for them. And then what do they do? They haven't ended abortion. How many Republican Congresses with Republican presidents have we seen? We've at least seen a pretty long administration where that was the case. And it didn't solve the problem. It's getting worse. So I would just say, play hard to get. Stick to biblical principles. So pragmatics is wrong, but lesser of two evils isn't even pragmatically acceptable. John. Yes, as John said, the true wasted vote is voting merely pragmatically, but the real vote is using it for the glory of God. God can take a few loaves and fishes and multiply that and bless that. And when we play the numbers game, we're no different than the people of God in the past who were unfaithful and who just We're trusting in chariots and horses and these sorts of things, but God takes pleasure in those that say, you know what? Like Gideon, we have 300 men, but we're going to trust in God, and he's going to give us the victory. And if we would do that, he would give us the victory. There's no doubt about that. I don't think biblically we can doubt that whatsoever. But, I mean, it's easier said than done. So I just want you to think about these things. I'm not trying to beat anybody over the head is the point. Any other thoughts or comments, questions? Laura. I have an issue thinking this way about voting for Christian leaders, because most of them aren't. And you're thinking, I don't want to waste my vote and all this stuff. But I forgot, this last election cycle, I was talking to other Christians, and we were in a dilemma about who to vote for. And it occurred to me, I was reading about Elijah, and I thought to myself, God be pleased if we voted in a veil worshiper, because it did quote, unquote, good things. Because I thought of it that way, because veil worshipping is idolatry, right? A person who does not worship God is not. But in this modern age, we kind of like to put idolatry as more softer language, because we don't want to be dogmatic or sound harsh. And we don't want to be harsh or mean in a lot of ways. But I had to think about wood back in the old days. God would have pleased with me voting for a bell-worshipper, even if he did good things for them both. than in my mind it was clear before I was going to know. And another thing I asked, I don't know who I asked, and you go over the Old Testament and God is pleased with this king, not pleased with this king, God is pleased with one king, another king, and the most, the reason he's pleased with them is the love and the obedience of the king. So the next question I ask myself is, If you're in that time of a certain king, how did the people feel? Did he look good or not look good? That was another question I had. Because I'm thinking, there probably were kings that economically did well during that time, right? And that helped me to think about how sometimes the kings who were pleasing to the people got absolutely hated. So, yeah. Yes, I think reading the Old Testament, especially Kings and Chronicles, with thinking how would this apply today is very important. Who would Elijah vote for? One thing you see often in the prophets is the Egypt and Assyria factor, where the kings say, well, in order to protect the nation of Judah or whatever it is, we need to align ourselves with the king of Assyria. He'll come and help us. Or the king of Egypt will come and help us. And think of all the tragedy that we're preventing, the moral atrocity that we're preventing by aligning ourselves with these ungodly people that can add numbers and add force. And God says, first of all, that's sin. But secondly, he says it's like leaning on a broken reed and it'll pierce your hand. So, pragmatically, it failed. When they leaned on those sorts of policies and platforms, they didn't succeed. So, anything else? All right, let's pray. Father, we are humbled whenever we come to the Word of God because we see that it speaks with such authority and such specificity to things that at times we realize we had no idea before that it spoke to those things. Father, we've all been in that situation, even on this particular issue perhaps, and so we pray that your Spirit would give us wisdom, that we would not be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, but that we would be good Bereans and look these passages up and think about them and receive what your speaking into our hearts and we pray that we would then apply those things as citizens of this nation and that you would bless this nation and its leadership with wisdom and repentance and faith that we might avert the coming destruction which we deserve, but which we pray, Lord, that you would delay. And we ask this all in Jesus' name, amen.