by 
I’ve been covering Huckabee a lot in the past few days– and for good reason. Right now, my vote is his to lose. But there are things that could make me change my mind. The biggest problem that I have is that I believe that he believes that government is the answer to some problems that I think government should stay out of. Which got me thinking this morning– who would the Apostle Paul vote for if he were here in the U.S. in 2007.
Roman Citizenship
For one thing, I’m not sure. We know that he enjoyed being a Roman citizen (something that he had to be by birth or purchased and we believe that Paul was the latter. We know that he knew the political system, and respected the authority as coming from God.
But that’s an “easy” position to take when the line of kings comes from birth or by military victory. It’s a different thing when it comes by the hand of the people (or is supposed to), and if you believe in free will, or that you will be accountable to God for the person you vote for– that makes it more sticky.
Samuel and Saul
Certainly Samuel and Saul would come to some Paul’s mind. Samuel had to go get a king at the people’s request, even though God said it was the wrong idea. Does this mean that it’s sometimes acceptable to take the best option available?
Or how about this one: Can God’s choice for President actually be the one we think is the one that least lines up with His will– simply because He has a purpose and wants to bring judgement? How do we know how to vote His will?
Prayer and the Spirit
I think that Paul would rely on prayer and the Spirit to make this decision– just like we would. I think that he would look for the candidate with the greatest potential to to not harm the Christians in the sharing of the Gospel. Most of all, I think that Paul would have so much to do in correcting so much of our theology that he’d be pretty busy preaching the Word to get involved in the election!
What do you think?
Great post. As a Conservative, I have been hand wringing over my vote, as well.
I can make a strong case for many.
Huckabee- Not sure. “Teach a man to fish..” pops in my head.
I will support whom ever gets the Rebublican Nomination. Any Republican is a million times better than the opposition.
Interesting post. It’s also interesting when you consider that David wouldn’t have been ANYONE’s first pick. Any of his brothers looked better than him. We know God looks at the heart and not outward appearances and not human displays of power or prestige.
In regards to the previous commenter, I personally can’t just line up and support whoever gets the Republican nomination. I couldn’t vote for Rudy. I’m not sure I could vote for Mitt. I wouldn’t want to ever put someone in office that would knowingly support killing babies in utero. For me, that is a make or break voting issue. I don’t know how I would feel about “sitting out” a vote… but I don’t think I could bring myself to vote for a pro-choice candidate- EVER. Regardless of what kind of oration he/she gives about conservative judges or changes of heart, or whatever.
You know I support Huckabee. I don’t like any government involvement… but the truth is we’re already there. And if those dollars can be better used (education dollars, for instance), then by all means, use them more effectively. Frankly, if the church was doing its job, there wouldn’t be a need for government to do anything for anyone. We’re the ones that ought to be caring for the poor, sick, needy, orphans, widows, etc… we ought not be relying on the government. But the American church is more interested in acquiring land, building bigger barns (I mean, buildings, ahem), and redecorating the barns that it has than in helping real live people. Yes, I’m speaking in generalizations… but the gov’t is now doing what the church ought to be doing, and we as Christians ought to step up and admit that. So to me, gov’t involvement in things like that is just a sad indictment of the American church.
~Jess
Alli, I’ve been a voter for the “lesser of two evils” for many elections. Like Jess, I don’t want to sit out, and until this cycle I’ve seen “electability” as a high qualifier on my list– even though the republican scarcely carries my state (I’m a blue state conservative). That being the case, I’m struggling over the current set of nominees.
Jess, I’m very much in favor of Huckabee– some of my family supports Ron Paul, but I’m not anti-war, and I don’t believe that we can get to a place where we’re more constitutionally in line with what we should be by vetoing everything. I think that we’d end up with a mess.
I agree with Mitt and Rudy. Mitt seems to find all the right things to say now that he’s running. Rudy is the ultimate triangulator– for abortion but for strict constructionist judges…
This will probably be a tough election for a lot of us.
I’m very curiouse about this voting for the lesser of two evils that most people I’ve met talk about. Why do you limit yourselves to republican or democrat. When you cast your votes into either of those categories, just because you don’t think it will count otherwise. You are wasting a vote. Why don’t you guys vote for a third party member that truly agrees with all your ideals?
Loc, I think it has to do with how high up on the list of things you’re looking for “electability” is. Right now, this is one of the big things being debated about between Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards on the Democrat side. They keep showing polls that try to guess which candidate has the best chance.
Each person has to decide for themselves where “electability” is on their scale of qualities that they are looking for. Because the President has not come from the Democrat or Republican party for a very long time, the odds are in their favor the most electable person that gets the closest to whatever values you have placed above or around “electability” will be a Republican or Democrat.
This isn’t to say that this is the ideal scenario. In an ideal world, I believe that you’d find many candidates from many parties with a whole lot more choice. Some blame this problem on feminism (Vox Day is a big proponent of this belief) and some evidence chicanery in the parties themselves to guard power. I believe that if I remember my history correctly, the Founding Fathers believed that no Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates would get the number of electoral votes so that they envisioned that the House and Senate would be choosing the office holders on a regular basis.
Another interesting thing is what’s changed over time– did you know that at one time the Pres and VP offices went to the top two candidates? So you could have had a Republican President and a Democratic Vice President (A Bush-Gore Presidency!?).
Additionally, Loc, voting for a third party candidacy will likely yield the person you LEAST want as President (ex: 1992- Perot voters who would have backed Bush1 went for Perot, so the election went to Clinton, with 40-something percent of the vote).
I’d have to be pretty dadgum disenfranchised and COMPLETELY unable to stomach one of the two-party candidates before I’d turn to a third party guy. For example, I don’t think I could vote Rudy. So at that point, if it’s Rudy vs. Hillary, and then, for example, Ron Paul was running as a 3rd party guy, well then I’d have to seriously consider him, even though, like Min, I have some SERIOUS reservations about Paul’s practicality in the real world of American executive politics.
It still doesn’t make sense to me. By voting for the most electible and not the one who agrees with you the most, you are assuring that the group that agrees with you the most will never get enough votes to rank in as electable.
Everyone I have ever met has said ‘well I don’t completly agree with him, but if I vote for who I truly believe will be the best president the other side will win’. It seems if people just stopped thinking like this things would change and we would get canidates that we really wanted. Instead of just this lesser of two evils guys.
Every vote counts, and every time you vote for who you want instead of who is most electable, you make who you want to be president more electable.
*sigh* sorry if that was repetative and a little all over the place, but it is a hard idea to explain.
The problem is that no one likes to lose, and people believe the stakes are high.
Yes, Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot managed to get enough of the vote for people to begin to believe that it was possible to have a 3rd party, but there was always the rhetoric that Jess mentioned– that the 3rd party guy is sucking votes from the more desirable of the top two guys.
So, if I really don’t want the Democrat, but I like the Independent, if enough people that agree with me vote my way, the Democrat is elected (regardless of how this effects the long term strategy).
Now, there may be something to a long term strategy if votes could be swapped or you vote your conscience when there isn’t a chance (for example, I’m a blue state conservative, so the republican will probably not win).
I would still advocate for a disbanding of political parties– that would be something that would make a big difference, but I’m sure people would find some other way to organize, and you’d also miss out on the labeling.
People have spent way too long getting together in these parties that they are different from, but they’ve bound this way all centered around the electability question.
Hehehe, Paul would indeed have a fit with our churches of today. He endured beatings, stoning, shipwreck while serving the Lord and today a church is lucky if it can get 1/3 of its people back for Sun evening services, that is if the church hasn’t just rolled over and quit having Sun eve and/or Wed eve services already. Sad!
As far as the election, there is no way I will just support whoever the Republican party nominates unless that person lines up with what I believe ex: pro-life! I will write in the canidate I support if I have to. Right now that is Huckabee although I am in the listen and learn stage right now.
I believe as a Christian I have a responsiblity to vote for the canidate that is closest to Bible values. It is up to God who wins. The Bible still says Dan 2:20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:
21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
Yeah, I gotta say, at least in the primaries, I ABSOLUTELY vote my conscience… In this particular case I will be voting for Ron Paul…
When it comes to the final election however, I do get torn all up about who to vote for. Now, Perot was before I was able to vote, however, I was old enough to be following along, and at that time I would have voted for him…
I see lots of support for Ron Paul, and since I can agree with all but two of his stances (he inadvertently supports gay marriage, by saying the gov’t ought to remain out of it, and I personally agree with the war, but I would be willing to move on from it in an honorable way if one could be found.)I am hopeful that I could see Ron Paul win the primary, but not in my state. It seems that he has lots of grassroots support, perhaps those people will actually vote!
well anyway, I couldn’t vote for Rudy, and I doubly couldn’t vote for Hillary… if it came down to the two, I would write in Ron Paul, or not vote at all. Probably write in, because then they would total that, and perhaps there would be enough write ins to make a statement…
Well anyway, nice to see you again MIN.
Mrs. Meg Logan
Kerri– I think that Paul would no doubt see a lot of churches as a mission field all of their own, since he often started in synagogues.
Mrs. Meg Logan, glad to see you back as well. There is actually a billboard for Ron Paul up in my area, which is strange because of how long it’s been up compared to my state’s primary date.
Both of you touch on good points, though. Kerri– how do you determine what God’s qualifications are for President? Is gay marriage really a big problem or not?
MIN,There are signs all over around here. In fact a sign is how I learned that he was even in the running. Seems he is growing in popularity too, locally and in the circles I swim in on the internet.About if gay marriage is really a big problem, personally, I don’t think so. The law doesn’t legislate the telling of lies, but it does try to prevent murder, and, I think that is the right idea. If it is going to take away someone else’s right to life and liberty, then it ought to be illegal, but if it is sin which really only affects those who participate willingly, well… how can we really legislate that?Mrs.Meg Logan
Heck, I might even vote for Ron Paul! From a 20/20 interview with John Stossel:
JS – Should gays be allowed to marry? RP – Sure. JS – The state says we believe in this… RP – Sure. They can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want; just so they don’t expect to impose their relationship on someone else. They can’t make me personally accept what they do; gay couples can do whatever they want.
Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz80H5Su8AA