Steve Deace of WHO Radio wrote a blog post today that got me thinking… he said:

One of the national bloggers I’ve been reading lately is Erick Erickson of RedState.  Unlike me, Erickson appears to still be a partisan Republican who views defeating Democrats as the primary goal. On the other hand, I think my mission is to live out my faith as consistently as I can by the grace of God and trust a sovereign God to work things out for His glory in response to my faithfulness. While I certainly don’t make it a habit to vote for Democrats because I believe most of their beliefs are contrary to a Christian worldview (not to mention the U.S. Constitution), I’m also voting for fewer Republicans these days for the same reasons.

Still, what I do like about Erickson’s “lesser of two evils” mindset, even though I don’t necessarily share it, is that he’s willing to at least hold Republicans accountable on some level and also isn’t bashful about taking sides in primaries. Erickson will still vote for RINOs as the lesser of two evils, but he’d prefer not to have to do that so he sees primaries as the means by which to separate the wheat from the tares. So in my opinion he’s at least a step in the right direction from the typical conservative media that has confused the G-O-P with the G-O-D.

A couple of questions came to mind when I read this.

Is it somehow more noble to let somebody else choose for you in a general election if you are faced with less ideal candidates?  I know sometimes there are third party candidates who people can vote for, but sometimes there is not.  Like it or not we are still a two party system in the United States and the likelihood of a third party candidate being elected is slim and none (unless you live in Minnesota – all bets are off there) so typically, in most cases, voting third party is letting somebody else choose for you.

Is that exercising proper Christian citizenship when we do this?

Then the statement about voting for somebody with a Christian worldview… what if the person who lines up the closest in worldview is less competent candidate?  Somebody also may line up in beliefs and “values,” but not necessarily character.  What to do then?  Sometimes their conduct and treatment of others is less than Christ-like even though they say all the right things.

I’m reminded of a quote often attributed to Martin Luther – “I would rather be governed by a wise turk (non-Christian) than a foolish Christian.”

Is that a correct position to have?  What say you?

**Though some would like to pigeonhole me, I’m not labeling any candidate as a “wise turk” or a “foolish Christian.”  So any inference to any candidate is your own, not mine.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. “Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.”

    This may be a little out of context, but it was the first verse that came to mind.

    And another:

    “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established… Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing… This is why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

    I’m not disagreeing with you Shane. But would you mind describing what you mean by “proper Christian citizenship?”

    1. @Todd, I was mainly projecting what Deace seems to infer what proper Christian citizenship… saying he wouldn’t choose between “the lesser of two evils.”

      A Christian citizen is one who I do believe votes their values, prays for their leaders, obeys the law, and is engaged and informed.

      In a nutshell, but more importantly they are being salt and light and participating in the Great Commission. They recognize that we need to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (exercising constitutional rights to vote and be engaged in the political process), but know that true transformation comes through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not Government.

  2. Look – You cannot trust Steve Deace for political analysis. His comments about Erick Erickson is wrong and insulting.

    Deace has a talk show – it’s ok for him to take a purist stance. Erickson is trying to move congress to the right. That means that in those parts of the country where a 100% conservative won’t get get elected, trying to elect a 75% conservative. Somehow in Deace’s world that means that ideals don’t matter.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Obama’s Health Care Address to Congress (Update: Replay the Liveblog)

President Barack Obama who has given 263 speeches in his first 231…

Ernst Joins Bipartisan Senate Coalition to End Earmarks

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) joined U.S. Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Pat Toomey (R-PA), John McCain (R-AZ), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rob Portman (R-OH), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Deb Fischer (R-NE) to introduce the Earmark Elimination Act.

Ron Paul’s Vote Against Paul Ryan’s Budget

On Friday Ron Paul was one of 4 Republicans to break from…

President Obama’s Russian Space Program

At the end of his meeting with outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev…