Christian Denominations that Don't Vote

[robt.k.fall]

 

[Scarlett O.]

I am voting.

I am voting for Trump.

Both as a Christian and as a woman, it makes me sick to do so. He is not who his supporters believe him to be. This is now the third time I am casting a vote for him just to keep someone else out. That's no reason to vote for someone that you have no respect for. Not one shred of respect.

As a Christian, I believe that Harris and Walz cannot go in. Absolutely NOT.

I believe Christians should vote and vote their conscience even it that means a third party.

 

[JonC]

I am not voting.

For most of my life I was a Republican, but over the past couple of decades I have been convicted not to try to change the World by participating in the politics of the World.

This will be my first time not voting. The last two times I supported Trump.

In a way I am glad to see the GOP embracing abortion as a choice and homosexuality. I understand this was necessary for the party to compete. A minority bit important minority (one the GOP cannot afford to loose) are pro-abortion and are homosexual. I get the compromise for a political win.

I do not blame the GOP for embracing what was necessary to gain political power. That is the nature of politics.

But it also validates (to me) my convictions.

Even if I had not the convictions about participating in these powers, I could not vote in good conscious for the current GOP platform (and the GOP could no longer survive if it maintained a pro-life and sexually moral position).

But my conviction is more about allowing myself to become of the World by trying to change a world already condemned from within. I believe we are called to be a holy people, separated to God.


I believe that each Christian needs to prayerfully consider whether to participate in worldly politics and afterwards do as their conscious dictates.

We explain and debate our various beliefs, but it is a sin to ask a Christian to violate his or her conscious in terms of voting or abstaining.

 

[kyredneck]

I am not voting.

...i'd never would've guessed...

The Social Gospel? | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com) 16+ pages

 

[JonC]

Amish and Mennonites are Anabaptists.

I'd add to that list the Early Church. I don't agree with all of their positions but the Christian position until the Catholic Church was the Anabaptist position.

The pagan Romans (famously, Celcus) argued that Christians were dangerous to the Empire because they refused to participate in politics and to hold public office.

Ambrose (a prominent Christian) had Origen write an apologetic defending the Christian faith (Contra Celsum).

The Christian defence against those charges were an agreement that Christians do not participate in secular politics or hold public office with the explanation that Christians participate in the politics and offices of a different Kingdom.

This changed when Rome declared the Empire "Christian" and united Church with State.

 

[JonC]

...i'd never would've guessed...

The Social Gospel? | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com) 16+ pages

Yea....I kinda keep it a secret.

That thread, however, is more about being honest.

Too many people view their support for a political party as support against another party.

It isn't.

Sure, if party A gets power then party B does not. But our vote is in support of a platform.

I'd have no problem if they changed our election process so that we could give a negative vote. That'd be great.

But as it stands the only way vote is in support of a platform.

I like most of the GOP platform. But there are moral issues that I can't support.

I do like that Biden-Harris produced more oil in the US than the Trump-Pence Administration, and they did good for veterans. But they have even more moral problems.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC . Remember. The logical problem is this: "a" and "b" are both currently occurring and in full force. They are against God and causing harm. If, by supporting a party, I have a reasonable chance to reduce "a" is it not proper to do so, even though at this time I will not be able to reduce "b"?

I use "a" and "b" so that you could substitute "abortion", with the difference between "a" and "b" being the exact term or cause of a pregnancy, or like in slavery, if one could stop the importation or transport, or it's introduction into new states but don't have the ability to end it outright. Is it right in such cases to vote for such compromises.

This is why you need to read some Wilberforce, who talks about this in regards to slavery, and Bonhoeffer, who of course dealt with a monster and has a lot to say about the organized church in Germany. (Some of which I should add, in the case of Bonhoeffer, would tend to support some of what Jon says, in regards to compromise).

But Jon, you were pretty adamant that those of us who were taking the position that a Christians who would vote in this election were in league with the devil if we did. So I was wondering if this still applies if another moderator votes.

By the way, if it were possible to join a party or have an organized faction within a party, that was disciplined enough to bolt when the platforms were unacceptable, then I would be certainly willing to join. But, we already have that. The unions do it, the NRA does it, a lot of groups do it.

 

[JonC]

@JonC . Remember. The logical problem is this: "a" and "b" are both currently occurring and in full force. They are against God and causing harm. If, by supporting a party, I have a reasonable chance to reduce "a" is it not proper to do so, even though at this time I will not be able to reduce "b"?

I use "a" and "b" so that you could substitute "abortion", with the difference between "a" and "b" being the exact term or cause of a pregnancy, or like in slavery, if one could stop the importation or transport, or it's introduction into new states but don't have the ability to end it outright. Is it right in such cases to vote for such compromises.

This is why you need to read some Wilberforce, who talks about this in regards to slavery, and Bonhoeffer, who of course dealt with a monster and has a lot to say about the organized church in Germany. (Some of which I should add, in the case of Bonhoeffer, would tend to support some of what Jon says, in regards to compromise).

But Jon, you were pretty adamant that those of us who were taking the position that a Christians who would vote in this election were in league with the devil if we did. So I was wondering if this still applies if another moderator votes.

By the way, if it were possible to join a party or have an organized faction within a party, that was disciplined enough to bolt when the platforms were unacceptable, then I would be certainly willing to join. But, we already have that. The unions do it, the NRA does it, a lot of groups do it.

You are mixing up two issues.

1. I do believe that participating in worldly politics is participating with the World, something we are commanded not to do.

This is why I have decided to follow my convictions and abstain from voting. Each needs to follow their convictions.

2. The other issue is supporting a platform. This one has to do with honesty.

If you support A in order to defeat B, you are still supporting A.

Christians who support the GOP are supporting the GOP platform. Last Trump administration (one I supported) was to make abortion the choice of American citizens.

I agree with a lot of GOP policies. I do not agree with their decision to support abortion as choice, to oppose only late term abortion, to support same sex marriage, or to support the normalization of homosexuality.

I agree that those things were necessary for the GOP to have a chance. The GOP depends on the conservative gay community, on conservatives who are pro-choice, on the "Christian vote" (most "Chriatians" are pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage). I get that the GOP had to be more inclusive than it was decades ago.

But by supporting the GOP you ARE supporting the GOP agenda even if your support is only to defeat the DNC.

 

[JonC]

This is why you need to read some Wilberforce, who talks about this in regards to slavery, and Bonhoeffer, who of course dealt with a monster and has a lot to say about the organized church in Germany. (Some of which I should add, in the case of Bonhoeffer, would tend to support some of what Jon says, in regards to compromise).

One interesting fact - about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He remained apolitical in terms of world political parties and abstained from supporting a political party (even anti-Hitler parties).

Instead he focused on individual and humanitarian resistance to state injustice, the church’s service to victims of state injustice and the church’s indirectly political word to the state.

I do believe that Christians are to, like Bonhoeffer, influence the World by being salt and light. We are to focus on social issues, help victims of injustice.

And Bonhoeffer is an excellent example because of the evils he faced. And he did this not by joining a political movement or supporting a political party.

He recognized that one cannot support one evil to fight another. Like BoBonhoefferthat is a compromise Christians should never make.

 

[JonC]

Going off the OP, I think that it may help our understanding of why many do not vote and will offer a few articles.


"Many of you, like me, have watched the rhetoric of journalists, politicians and social-media users grow ever more divisive and have wondered where it is going and what it all means in the cosmic scale of things.

Unlike me, many of you will cast your vote for the leader of your choice. I have never voted in a U.S. election, and at this point I do not plan to. I grew up in the branch of Anabaptists that maintains a strong separation between church and state, including not voting.

I am personally convinced of the wisdom of this policy after watching, over and over again, the opinions of God’s people shaped by a particular media narrative.

One candidate becomes a hero, the other a demon. One will lead us on a road to prosperity and freedom, the other to chaos and a loss of civil liberties.

And while those beliefs in themselves may not be detrimental — everyone is entitled to an opinion — too often God’s people imbue one candidate with the authority of God’s Chosen, the one who will save the country from degeneration and place us in the golden years we’ve always imagined.

Instead of offering Christ as the solution to lawlessness, mental-health breakdown, broken families and racism, we offer a figurehead. . . .

Often when Christians take up politics we imbue our cause with all the sacredness of a holy war and forget the battle we are supposed to be fighting.

Paul made it clear who our enemies are: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,” he wrote. Not against homosexuals or homophobes, abortion activists or white supremacists or my political opponents. If we mistake those people for our enemies, our real enemies — the kings and kingdoms of the spiritual world — gain the advantage of staying undercover."

Why I’m not voting | Anabaptist World

 

[JonC]

"My choice not to vote, however, is more than choosing which tradition to follow—it’s fundamental to my faith. Let me explain.

I believe God is sovereign over everything. He doesn’t need me, specifically, to accomplish his will.

He doesn’t need you to accomplish his will. . .

God is sovereign over everything and he doesn’t need my measly vote in order to push forward his purposes on this earth.

However, God does invite us to participate in his work of reconciliation.

While God does not need us, God wants us to be a part of pushing forward his purposes. And although we commonly use this as an excuse for voting, it’s actually foundational for why I don’t vote. . .

If it is possible to help push forward God’s purposes through legislature, then it’s also possible to push for his enemy’s purposes through legislature. And I don’t want to be a part of that.

Now I have heard people try to argue that God allows us to be involved in politics. But I would submit that even there we are stretching to find biblical basis for it. Many of the verses used are not actually talking about pushing forward political ideas and influencing political structures as a means of advancing the Kingdom of God.
Why I Don’t Vote (and probably never will) - Unfeigned Christianity

 

[JonC]

This is from Viewpoints, explaining why Anabaptists don't vote:

Two Kingdoms

Jesus and the apostles clearly taught a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). He told His disciples, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:25, 26). The next two points expand on the differences between the two kingdoms.

Different missions

The two kingdoms have different missions. Jesus’ followers are to be salt and light in the world, inviting unbelievers to follow Jesus (Matthew 5:13, 14; 28:18–20). The state is “God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4).

Different methods

The two kingdoms use different methods to accomplish their mission. Jesus taught His followers, “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). The state uses force, and “he does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4). When Peter used a sword to defend Jesus, Jesus rebuked him saying, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Jesus told Pilate, “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight. . . but now, My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36).

Authorizing force

Voting is participation in governing the kingdoms of this world. By our vote, we are authorizing a politician to make laws and to enforce those laws on believers and unbelievers alike. A vote may not seem like an act of force, but it is an authorization of force. In contrast, followers of Jesus are in a spiritual battle against evil. Our “weapons” are not swords and guns. We put on the “armor” of truth, righteousness, peace, faith, and God’s Word. See Paul’s description in Ephesians 6:10–18 and 2 Corinthians 10:3–6.

Marred testimony

By voting, we confuse our witness to our neighbors. Our lifestyle testifies that we are not of this world. This shows in the way we do business, in our appearance, and in our refusal to retaliate against those who would harm us. Why would we want to step into the world’s political system to vote for others to do what we say would be wrong for us to do? How does that make sense to our neighbors?

God’s sovereignty

For followers of Jesus, voting is a departure from trust in God as the one who sets up rulers for His purposes. Daniel testified to King Nebuchadnezzar that God “changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings” (Daniel 2:21). But Nebuchadnezzar was a proud man, and so God made him insane for a time, causing him to live outdoors like an animal “till you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses” (Daniel 4:25). Conservative Anabaptists have been pressured to vote at times out of fear—for example, in the early years of our country when the Quakers were about to lose control of the government of Pennsylvania, or more recently when John F. Kennedy (a Catholic) was running for President. In both cases, the Anabaptist voters were not able to prevent what they feared. How much better it is to trust that God can raise up and put down rulers as He sees best!

Our clear responsibility

New Testament writers give instructions for how we are to relate to worldly governments and their leaders, but nowhere do they assume we are to participate in governing. We are to pray for rulers (1 Timothy 2:1, 2). We are to obey them unless they ask us to do what is morally wrong (Romans 13; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13–17; Acts 5:29). We are to pay taxes (Matthew 22:15–21; Romans 13:7). We are to respect them and not speak evil of them (Acts 23:5; Romans 13:1, 2).

Witness of the early church

Until the merging of church and state in the fourth century, early church leaders spoke against participation in politics. Tertullian (160 – 220 A.D.), recognizing the incongruence of a follower of Jesus attempting to enforce the laws of the state, wrote, “Shall he apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment—he who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?”1 Writing to civil leaders, he explained how church leaders viewed participation in politics: “In us, all ardor in the pursuit of glory and honor is dead. So we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings. Nor is there anything more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state.”

 

[DaveXR650]

You are mixing up two issues.

1. I do believe that participating in worldly politics is participating with the World, something we are commanded not to do.

This is why I have decided to follow my convictions and abstain from voting. Each needs to follow their convictions.

2. The other issue is supporting a platform. This one has to do with honesty.

If you support A in order to defeat B, you are still supporting A.

Yes. The two issues cause complications. But for you to act like a Christian who votes a certain way knowing that it factually will indeed lead to fewer abortions in the foreseeable future you have no right to judge them as being in league with evil. That is not to say that you do not have a right to come to a different conclusion about what is the best course of action.

Your complaints are hypothetical and theological. My strategy, which is the majority strategy of Baptists, Catholics and most other Christian groups is practical and will guarantee some benefit immediately. Criticize the strategy all you want, but the simple act of voting for a candidate in one election means exactly that. You have no right to make it mean a whole bunch more, regardless of how you feel.

Your hypothetical reasoning would have more merit if for instance I supported the GOP because I liked their economic platform and was willing to accept the abortion stance because of that. But to vote for them with the sole reason being to hopefully have fewer abortions (which is what the whole discussion is about), and to reduce the buildup of an abortion approving infrastructure, thus positioning yourself to do more in the future is not the evil you portray it as. It is the only strategy we have in the next 3 weeks and how we vote is going to matter.

 

[DaveXR650]

One interesting fact - about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He remained apolitical in terms of world political parties and abstained from supporting a political party (even anti-Hitler parties).

From what I have read he did a lot more against Hitler than join a political party. Chuck Colson had a lot to say about this and he also cautioned about being involved with political parties. But he clearly was on the page of Christians jumping in when and where needed.

 

[JonC]

From what I have read he did a lot more against Hitler than join a political party. Chuck Colson had a lot to say about this and he also cautioned about being involved with political parties. But he clearly was on the page of Christians jumping in when and where needed.

Exactly. His efforts were done from within Christianity, refusing to try to accomplish change through political means. He considered world politics beneath the Christian faith and involvement as a source of guilt.

Previously you called the efforts of Bonhoeffer as "doing nothing" because he abstained from politics.


You simply chose probably one of the worst examples you could have to justify supporting a political party.

You should have actually read Bonhoeffer's writings before using him as an example.

Do you know about the Confessing Church? They refused to offer resistance in the political sence. One of their primary concerns was to be seperate from the State.

 

[JonC]

Yes. The two issues cause complications. But for you to act like a Christian who votes a certain way knowing that it factually will indeed lead to fewer abortions in the foreseeable future you have no right to judge them as being in league with evil. That is not to say that you do not have a right to come to a different conclusion about what is the best course of action.

Your complaints are hypothetical and theological. My strategy, which is the majority strategy of Baptists, Catholics and most other Christian groups is practical and will guarantee some benefit immediately. Criticize the strategy all you want, but the simple act of voting for a candidate in one election means exactly that. You have no right to make it mean a whole bunch more, regardless of how you feel.

Your hypothetical reasoning would have more merit if for instance I supported the GOP because I liked their economic platform and was willing to accept the abortion stance because of that. But to vote for them with the sole reason being to hopefully have fewer abortions (which is what the whole discussion is about), and to reduce the buildup of an abortion approving infrastructure, thus positioning yourself to do more in the future is not the evil you portray it as. It is the only strategy we have in the next 3 weeks and how we vote is going to matter.

I am not saying you know what will happen in the future.

I am saying that you support an agenda when you support a political candidate for election.

Of the three evils I mentioned (really two - same sex marriage and the normalization of homosexuality goes together) there is no doubt that the GOP will be successful in maintaining those evils (abortion as choice and the normalization of homosexuality are population across political parties....it is normal to the World).

Even if the GOP was defeated, you would still have supported those things.

 

[DaveXR650]

Exactly. His efforts were done from within Christianity, refusing to try to accomplish change through political means.

Jon. If I am not mistaken, Bonhoeffer was directly linked to an attempt to assassinate Hitler and was a double agent. That's from the on-line Britannica site and I have read Metaxis's work on him which I don't know how accurate that is. If you have other information let me know but from what see you statement is ludicrous.

Previously you called the efforts of Bonhoeffer as "doing nothing" because he abstained from politics.

I don't think I said that. You tend to misquote because you take what someone says and combine it with something you already believe and then use it in that form. I am a huge fan of Bonhoeffer and have often said he tried to be a pacifist. My whole point was that he started out as a pacifist intellectual, above it all, so to speak but then ended up actually trying to kill Hitler. He went through phases, and developed and changed his opinion over time. There was a phase of his life, and his desire, was to live as you describe. But when faced with the reality of the situation he did what he could - even if it meant working with assassins. I remember reading about some of the guys working with him, who carried cyanide capsules because they knew they would talk if they were captured, who were discussing the fact that they believed that should they use the capsule they would go to Hell, as they believed suicide was a mortal sin.

Our dilemma is nothing in comparison, but involves a single vote, without any oath of loyalty or party affiliation, or danger. But it is a vote that will result in fewer abortions, unless enough people, who are "above it all" can't be a part of less than pristine politics. If we stop them now, nothing keeps us from putting all the pressure you want on the party to do more next time, on the threat of loosing our votes. They, and we, will then have to evaluate who can do without who and act accordingly. But one thing is for sure, if the Dems win this time, more abortions will be legalized, states who want to do something will be hindered as it is federalized, a couple of more liberal Supreme Court justices will be approved that will make sure nothing can be done judicially, either to protect anti-abortion activity, or the rights of medical students to not participate. To me, this is the clearest choice I have ever seen.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am saying that you support an agenda when you support a political candidate for election.

A vote is a vote. It helps put a candidate in office. The strategies and what they mean are for you to determine for yourself, not for someone like you to say what a vote means. If you could vote in the old days and say Caligula was running against Titus, and you figured that both were evil but Titus had organizational ability while Caligula would be so mentally ill as to just spend his time in debauchery rather that organize deadly persecution you would be fully justified in voting for Caligula, based on a cynical hope that at least he would be ineffective. A vote for a candidate does not mean you support everything they do. That is the fundamental flaw in your argument.

 

[JonC]

Jon. If I am not mistaken, Bonhoeffer was directly linked to an attempt to assassinate Hitler and was a double agent. That's from the on-line Britannica site and I have read Metaxis's work on him which I don't know how accurate that is. If you have other information let me know but from what see you statement is ludicrous.

I don't think I said that. You tend to misquote because you take what someone says and combine it with something you already believe and then use it in that form. I am a huge fan of Bonhoeffer and have often said he tried to be a pacifist. My whole point was that he started out as a pacifist intellectual, above it all, so to speak but then ended up actually trying to kill Hitler. He went through phases, and developed and changed his opinion over time. There was a phase of his life, and his desire, was to live as you describe. But when faced with the reality of the situation he did what he could - even if it meant working with assassins. I remember reading about some of the guys working with him, who carried cyanide capsules because they knew they would talk if they were captured, who were discussing the fact that they believed that should they use the capsule they would go to Hell, as they believed suicide was a mortal sin.

Our dilemma is nothing in comparison, but involves a single vote, without any oath of loyalty or party affiliation, or danger. But it is a vote that will result in fewer abortions, unless enough people, who are "above it all" can't be a part of less than pristine politics. If we stop them now, nothing keeps us from putting all the pressure you want on the party to do more next time, on the threat of loosing our votes. They, and we, will then have to evaluate who can do without who and act accordingly. But one thing is for sure, if the Dems win this time, more abortions will be legalized, states who want to do something will be hindered as it is federalized, a couple of more liberal Supreme Court justices will be approved that will make sure nothing can be done judicially, either to protect anti-abortion activity, or the rights of medical students to not participate. To me, this is the clearest choice I have ever seen.

He relayed information, which was used in attempted efforts. For his part, Bonhoffer said it was guilt that he had brought on himself due to circumstances and would plead with God for mercy.

 

[JonC]

A vote is a vote. It helps put a candidate in office.

Yes. A vote is support to help a political candidate into office. But the candidate is elected to do what the candidate says he or she will do.

People don't simply vote for a person. They vote to place that person in office.

Their vote is a support for that person to be elected so he or she can do what they said they would do.


Why do you not support Harris if you don't believe it would be supporting what she says she would do?

Christians who support Trump ARE supporting Trump to be elected as POTUS in order for Trump to do what he says he will do.

That is why the GOP vows not to ban abortion and supports the conservative homosexual agenda. The GOP wants pro-choice and gay conservative support.

BUT these are not reasons I do not vote. The articles I posted are why I don't vote.

I am just asking you to be a bit more honest about WHAT you support (I know why, but you are not being honest about what you are supporting).