On Voting

Subsection

Order of Contents

Theses on Voting
Article 1
Quotes 3
Latin 4

Theses on the Ethics of Civil Voting,
with a Correction to the Booklet, Christ Centered Voting

Travis Fentiman, MDiv

Updated Sept., 2024

Outline

1-10. Foundational Principles
11-13. Unbelieving Magistrates
14-15. Not Complete Approval; Tolerated Consent
16-17. Effective Permission
18. Praying & Voting
19-20. God’s Example
21-22. Magistrates’ Nearest End
23-24. Ethical Principles
25-30. Lesser of Two Evils
31-34. Biblicism & Natural Law
33-34. Unbelieving Democracies
35-40. Highest Good Realistically Attainable
41-45. Impure Civil Laws
46-51. Political Expedience: Promoting Natural Good
52-55. “Christ Centered Voting”
56-61. Theology & Confessionalism
62-66. Towards Reformation

Foundational Principles

1. Scripture, God’s Word, is a rule of all moral actions (2 Tim. 3:16-17).¹ The rule of Scripture approves of and encompasses natural law. Hence Scripture and the glory of God is a rule of all civil society, so far as it is moral.

¹ Samuel Rutherford: “The Word of God being given to man as a moral agent, is a rule of all his moral actions, but not of actions of art, sciences, disciplines, yea, or of mere nature.” Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), ch. 1, question 2, pp. 101-2

2. As a primary subordinate end of civil society is the welfare and good of man, civil society ought to function for and be used for the highest good of man attainable by this means.

3. Persons, and persons collectively joined in society, where Christ is revealed and calls, ought to “seek… first the Kingdom of God” (Mt. 6:33), namely Christ’s spiritual kingdom through the gospel, inclusive of the visible Church’s good. As civil government flows out of society and the natural desire to profitably govern it, in concurrence with the ordinance of God,¹ governments ought to seek first, in a way proper to their jurisdiction,² the Kingdom of God (Ps. 2:10-12; Isa. 49:23), for the glory of God and Christ (Eph. 1:20-23) and as this all is a great good for civil society.

¹ Rutherford, Lex Rex (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), Questions 1-2, pp. 1-3

² Travis Fentiman & London Presbyterians, The Civil Government’s Authority about Religion & the Church, Circa Sacra: An Extended Introduction & a Section from the English Presbyterians’ Divine Right (1646; ReformedBooksOnline, 2021)

4. God’s natural law, by nature’s light, binds all people. It is the foundation of God’s moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, which “doth forever bind all… to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it.” Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 19.5.

5. As persons both individually and collectively ought to love God before all things, from which flows love and righteousness towards one’s neighbor (Mt. 22:36-40), so the First Table of the Ten Commandments (#1-4, relating chiefly to God), ought to take a societal priority¹ (including in civil policies)² over policies concerning the Second Table (#5-10, dealing with relations between man and man).

A root cause of sin and crime between people, and every evil work, is being unreconciled to God through the gospel of Christ. Godlessness is the mother of injustice (Rom. 1:21-32) and where laws directly relating to God are being publicly broken, one can hardly expect societal peace from the God of peace (1 Kings 16:1-4, 12-13, 25-26, 33; Rom. 15:33). Proliferated societal abominations (abortion, transgenderism, etc.) are often God’s judgments on a people for turning away from Him and breaking his laws (Rom. 1:21-32).

¹ James Durham: “2. The sins immediately against the First Table are greater than those against the Second, for this cause, Mt. 22:38, the First [Table] is called the First and Great Commandment. Therefore, 3. In morals (if they be things of the same nature) the duties of the Second Table cede and give place to the duties of the First Table when they cannot stand together, as in the case of love to God and the exercise of love to our father and neighbor, Lk. 14:26; Mt. 10:37; when obedience to God and obedience to our superiors cannot consist, we are to obey God rather than man, Acts 4:19, and we are to love the Lord and hate father and mother, Lk. 14: 6.” The Law Unsealed: or, A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments… (Glasgow: Sanders, 1676), Preface, p. 5

² For how the First Table of the Law may and may not be civilly applied to a non-Christian society (as there are very significant limitations), see Fentiman, Civil Government’s Authority about Religion, pp. 34-43 ff. & 76-80

6. Voting ought to have all the above principles, priorities and ends in view; yet voting for someone is not an approval of everything about the person or all of their policies, which would entail a standard of perfectionism reducing to absurdity, where nearly no one could be voted for, contrary to Scripture (as will be shown) and the highest good of the community.

7. Voting may have the above ends in view while taking incremental steps to attain these goals. An all or nothing approach often results in nothing and does not attain the highest good realistically achievable, showing that the all-or-nothing dichotomy is often not for the highest good.

8. Viewing and working for the long-term entails a greater good and is often more effective and sustainable than a purely short-term outlook.

9. At least two errors need to be avoided: (1) Not having the right standard and goal (described above), and (2), having such an inflexible, purist mindset and (erroneous) principles regarding voting, such as only being able to morally vote for candidates that openly profess the above standard (or one akin to it), that it is a hindrance to societal reformation unto God’s Word and an undue restriction upon Christian liberty in seeking to contribute to the civil good amidst a largely unbelieving nation.²

Correcting the second error will be the main subject of the following theses. Strategies to making reformation unto God’s Word will be given at the end.

² The author held some degree of the second error in the past, and has since, through more light, come away from it. The following theses give many of the reasons.

10. Given that voting is a practical action, heavily dependent on greatly varying circumstances (unlike timeless and universal doctrine), voting must remain a matter of the conscience according to the light of the Lord one has. Simplistic and undue strictures ought not to be placed upon it (Mt. 15:6-9).

Christian liberty to vote according to God’s revealed will and society and the Church’s highest good in the most diverse circumstances, across the world and in all time, as relevant, is necessary and ought to be defended (Gal. 5:1). What may be prudent or best in many or most situations ought not to be conflated with what is in all situations necessary.

Discussing and working through issues related to voting is encouraged.

Unbelieving Magistrates

11. Unbelievers and the unregenerate can be valid magistrates.

Many Scriptures show this: Gen. 10:8-10; 20:2, 9; 1 Sam. 8: 24:10; 1 Kings 10:15; 2 Kings 21:11; 2 Chron. 9:14; 20:35; Ezra 1:1-2; Esth. 1:1-2; 3:12; Jer. 27:5-8,12; Dan. 2:37-38; Hos. 7:3; Jn. 19:10-11; Rom. 13:1; Acts 26:30; Tit. 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13, 17; 2 Pet. 2:10; Rev. 1:5; 6:15; 17:18.† Thus WCF 23.4 says, “Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority…”

† Rutherford rightly took Rom. 13:1, ‘Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers,’ as descriptive of actual unbelieving, heathen magistrates: Lex Rex, pp. 1 (lt col bot), 3 (rt col top) with 20 (lt col top-mid), 24 (lt col top) & especially 149 (lt col bot – rt col top).

This is akin to how unregenerate unbelievers can hold ecclesiastical offices (1 Sam. 2:12-16; Jer. 23; Mt. 23:2-3; Mk. 14:53-64; Acts 6:12 with 7:51-52; 23:2-5), with and by the authority of Christ (Mt. 16:19; 2 Cor. 5:20), and exercise valid Church discipline.

12. The moral characteristics Scripture sets forth for civil magistrates (“able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness,” etc. Ex. 18:21; Dt. 1:13, 17; 2 Sam. 23:3-4; Ps. 101, etc.) are obligations upon magistrates, but are not of the essence of their office such that, in lacking one or all of these, the person cannot be a magistrate (2 Kings 8:18; 21:11; 2 Chron. 20:35; 21:6; Ps. 2:1-3; 82; Prov. 28:15-16; 29:12; Jer. 5:28; 24:1, 8; 32:32; 44:9, 17; Eze. 21:25; Dan. 3:2-3, 7; 6:7; Hos. 7:3; Mic. 3:9-12; 7:3; 9:15; Mt. 10:17-22; Lk. 18:2-6; Acts 16:19-24, 35-38; 1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor. 11:32; Eph. 6:12; Rev. 16:14; 17:2; 18:3, 9; 19:19; see the verses in thesis 11).

The positive prescriptions in Dt. 17:15-20 were peculiar to a nation with the true religion civilly established. These points are taught by Samuel Rutherford in The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), ch. 24, pp. 547-48.

It is acknowledged Ex. 18:21 and Dt. 1:13, 17 speak not only of moral obligations upon magistrates, but of choosing magistrates. Addressing this point will be deferred till more ground is covered.

13. Neither a credible profession of Christ or regeneracy is a necessary requirement in a candidate for morally voting for that candidate, as will be shortly demonstrated throughout these theses.

“Christ Centered Voting: A Practical Guide for Bible-Believing Christians”, a superbly written booklet with regards to style, by a committee of esteemed officers of the RPCNA (2019), claims (pt. 2):

“…any politician who lacks a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ as His Savior and Lord cannot be considered vote-worthy… When we vote for an unregenerate person, we are voting for an enemy of Jesus Christ…”

The booklet (pt. 4) acknowledges, “it is often difficult to find any political coalition or anyone on the ballot who meets the scriptural threshold of vote-worthiness outlined above [in the booklet].”

Voting: Not a Complete Approval,
may be a Tolerated Consent

14. A vote for someone may be a vote for the natural good in them and/or their policies, without endorsing that which is not good in them or not good in their policies.

15. A vote positively given may be regarded as consent for the candidate to be a civil officer. Giving consent may be a permission tolerating their governing rather than approving it.

The German, reformed orthodox theologian, Johann H. Alsted (d. 1638), in his discussion of voting, includes as a form and root of it the tacit or implicit consent of the people, even as manifested by silence, citing Neh. 8:7.¹ Such a consent can be permissive, allowing what is put forward, sealing the bond.

¹ Alsted, Lexicon Theologicum… (Prostat, 1612), ch. 15, ‘De suffragiis‘, p. 380

Other means of ascertaining consent are merely signs thereof for expedience (even when positively put forward), such as saying “yea” or “nay,” “amen,” raising hands, casting in one’s pebble or using ballots. Gillespie and Rutherford rightly taught that a permissive, implicit consent in elections, or otherwise, whether temporally concurrent or even possibly ex post facto, also seals agreements.²

² Gillespie, A Treatise of Miscellaneous Questions (1649), ch. 2, p. 4 in The Presbyterian’s Armoury (Edinburgh: Ogle, 1846), vol. 2; An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland... (Edinburgh: Bryson, 1641), pt. 2, ch. 1, p. 120; Rutherford, Lex Rex, pp. 2-3, 35, 37, 47, 188; The Due Right of Presbyteries… (London, 1644), pt. 1, ch. 8, p. 207; pt. 2, ch. 5, p. 272; A Survey of the Survey of that Sum of Church Discipline Penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker… (London, 1658), bk. 2, ch. 9, pp. 257, 259; bk. 3, ch. 3, p. 307.

Effective Permission

16. Positively expressing a permissive consent is a concept impossible to avoid or remove from common-life, is exampled in Scripture in numerous ways and is a staple of reformed theology, known, in one form of it, as “effective permission”.

God positively choosing (or electing) to ordain and allow what is wrong for a greater purpose is seen in 1 Sam. 16:14, regarding God’s sending a devil to afflict Saul: “an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.” A similar instance occurs in Job 1:12, “the Lord said unto Satan, ‘Behold, all that he [Job] hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went…” God gave positive leave for a devil to deceive Ahab (1 Kings 22:22-23):

“And he said, ‘I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And He [God] said, ‘Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.’ Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets…”

Remember Jeroboam, the first king of the ten northern tribes of Israel that had sinfully (1 Kings 12:16-19) rebelled against Solomon’s son, king Rehoboam, though the south had the promised, prescribed and approved royal line? Before God had elected Jerobaom to be king, through the means of this sinful rebellion, He told him:

“I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give ten tribes to you… I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand and give it to you–ten tribes… So I will take you, and you shall reign over all your heart desires, and you shall be king over Israel.” (1 Kings 11:31, 35, 37)

Afterward when Rehoboam mustered up a large army to retake the north, God told him to stand down: “for this thing is from Me.” (1 Kings 12:24)

Christ at the Last Supper told Judas, “That thou doest, do quickly.” (Jn. 13:27).

A purely human example is of a magistrate giving the nod to the executioner to execute the criminal in the name of God, knowing (and yet not approving) that this particular executioner will do this good government work with a malicious heart. It would not be wrong in all cases to vote for the executioner to be re-elected to his government post. Must only regenerate Christians be allowed to work for the government?

In 1 Kings 19:15-17, 2 Kings 8:7-15 and 2 Kings 9:1-13 God instructs the prophet Elijah (though it would be done through Elisha) to anoint Hazael, a liar and murderer (before he was king, 2 Kings 8:14-15), who the Lord knew would perform atrocities as a magistrate (2 Kings 8:12), to be king over Syria. God and the prophet’s calling, or electing, of Hazael to magistracy drew forth the very tears of Elisha (2 Kings 8:11-12).†

† Rutherford: “Elisha anointed, but did not constitute Hazael king; he foretold he should be king; and if he be a king of God’s making, who slew his sick prince and invaded the throne by innocent blood, judge you.” Lex Rex, p. 15 rt col mid

God through a prophet anointed Jehu (a ruthless political conservative that would zealously do the work of the Lord) to be king over Israel. The prophet charged him:

“‘thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel.’… And he [the prophet] opened the door, and fled.” (2 Kings 9:7-10)

How did the Lord recompense Jehu for his ruthless character (Hos. 1:4) and outward, public service? “The Lord said unto Jehu, ‘Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes… thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.’ (2 Kings 10:30)

As (1) these elections of God to the magistratical office were not by his secret, but his revealed will, (2) of men that likely were not of a greatly different character before they came into office versus after (2 Kings 9:11-12, especially given Jehu’s deceptive and ruthless atrocities nearly immediately after being crowned), and (3) it is intuitive and acceptable in common experience by nature’s light, in some circumstances and way, to use, allow or tolerate bad men for good purposes,º it is not persuasive to relegate these elections exclusively to the unique prophetic prerogative or wholly to their being positive commands of God (especially when these elections are of the same character as the other common elections of kings by God in that era). If one was there, could one have elected these persons, in their known character, to office, seeing as God had?‡

º Examples will be given in theses below.
‡ Rutherford: “Now the Lord did… by his immediately inspired prophet anoint the man, as he anointed David, Saul, Jehu, etc… and, therefore, the Lord first chose the man and then the people made him king.” Lex Rex, p. 13 rt col bot

But to clear the field from any doubt: Old Testament magistrates of Israel had to positively ordain, uphold and enforce, by effective permission, the sinful practices of no-fault divorce and polygamy. The grounding reason was not unique to the Theocracy, but due to the hardness of the people’s hearts (Mt. 19:8, lest the people and community should be destroyed in their resistance to removing these practices), a natural reason that continues relevant today.

Another clear example of effective permission is Samuel’s making Saul a king at the sinful request of Israel (1 Sam. 8:4-22; 10:17-25; 12:1). It is acknowledged that action was a fountain of ill to that nation, yet, even in light of this, it was not sinful of Samuel to elect and anoint Saul, actively and closely participate in his election before the people and to install him as king over Israel.

17. In giving consent for a person to govern one may still continue to vocalize all the God-required duties obliging the magistrate (as the Old Testament prophets did), critique their actions where appropriate and continue to protest and disown their corruptions.

Praying & Voting

18. Being able to lawfully pray for the blessing and temporal extension of a magistrate’s governance may warrant being able to vote for that magistrate, given sufficient justification.

While Christ Centered Voting encourages Christians to pray for the restraint and illumination of unbelieving magistrates (citing Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–2) and to honor their God-given authority, yet it stops short (likely deliberately) of calling on Christians to pray God’s blessing on those same magistrates.

But if God is good unto all (Ps. 136:25; 145:8-9; Rom. 2:4), all partake of good benefits from Him (Mk. 10:18; Acts 14:16-17) and God does bless unbelieving magistrates and nations (evident by nature’s light and Scripture, Gen. 12:3; 17:20; 27:29; 39:5), then may we not add our concurrence to God’s will materially blessing and supporting unbelieving magistrates and pray God’s blessing upon them (as Jacob did Pharoah, Gen. 47:7, 10), even unthankful and evil magistrates (Lk. 6:33-36; Ex. 12:30-32)? And is not the foregoing and praying God to bless their administration according to the ends of his ordinance (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Pet. 2:14) a means contributing to persons leading “a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty”? (1 Tim. 2:2)† If so, then blessing the administrations of unbelieving magistrates ought to be part of how we pray for them (1 Tim. 2:1–2), especially as the good of people, and that which relates to the good of people, is morally approved by God’s revealed will (Lk. 6:28; 1 Tim. 2:3), and is something we are to pray for (Lk. 6:28; 1 Tim. 2:1-3).

† The “we” in “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:2) is not only saints, but all persons. The result of people leading a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty is an end of magistracy by creation and nature’s light, though that end be not effected due to sin, yet the material actions of the ordinance of magistracy are designed to contribute to that end, and would accomplish it apart from sin.

To choose to will and support the extension of an unbelieving magistrate’s governance is something more than choosing to provide the means, in part, that the magistrate may reign.

Scripture does explicitly approve of godly men blessing the reign of unregenerate, non-Christian magistrates for its temporal extension in the following verses, which involves at least an approval, in some degree, of the fact of their reigning (as in voting for someone). These unregenerate, non-Christian magistrates also at times greatly bless and advance the welfare of God’s Kingdom.

Neh. 2:3-8 “And [Nehemiah] said unto the [gentile] king, ‘Let the king live for ever [הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ לְעוֹלָ֣ם יִחְיֶ֑ה]… If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah; and a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace…’ And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.”

Dan. 6:21-28 “Then said Daniel unto the king, ‘O king, live for ever…’ …Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth, ‘…I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for He is the living God…’ So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”

Concurring with God’s Example

19. While there is a distinction between honoring an unbelieving magistrate in office and “actively support[ing] their candidacy in an election” to enter that office, as Christ Centered Voting maintains, and while all magistrates are permitted by God to become magistrates insofar as they are bad,¹ yet insomuch as they have been given God’s authority, and hence God has positively conferred that authority upon them (or, one might say, elected and ordained them, in a relevant sense), so it is not morally impossible for a citizen, with sufficient justification, to also elect that person running as a candidate.

¹ Rutherford, Lex Rex, Question 3, ‘Whether Royal Power & Definite Forms of Government be of God’, p. 3

God’s positive, immediate and effectual bestowal of his authority making the person a God-ordained magistrate, which cannot be reduced to mere permission, is concurrent with the people’s election and installation of him through nature. Rutherford, in his puritan magnum opus on political theology, Lex Rex (1644), rightly and precisely brought these truths together, teaching over several pages:

“The kingly or royal office is from God by divine institution… The execution of their office is an act of the just Lord of heaven and earth, not only by permission, but according to God’s revealed will in his Word; their judgment is not the judgment of men, but of the Lord, 2 Chron. 19:6, and their throne is the throne of God, 1 Chron. 22:10…

The royal power is… in the people: …2. Collative vel communicative [combiningly or communicatively], by way of free donation, they giving it to this man, [and] not to this [other] man, that he may rule over them… God is the first Agent in all acts of the creature, where a people makes choice of a man to be their king… and we cannot here find two actions, one of God, another of the people; but in one and the same action God, by the people’s free suffrages and voices, creates such a man king…

…the heroic spirit [or gifts] of a royal faculty of governing, is, I grant, from God only, not from the people… I presuppose they have gifts to govern from God….

…Certainly God disposing the people to choose this man and not another man [makes one a king, yet], it cannot be said but God gives the kingly power immediately, and by Him kings reign [Prov. 8:15], that is true.” Lex Rex, ch. 3, p. 4; question 4, ‘Whether the King be Only & Immediately from God, & not from the People’, pp. 6-9

All this to say, if God positively, immediately gives unbelieving kings authority from Him in the people electing, ordaining and installing them, God also electing and installing them in this action,† not to mention the natural gifts He had given them for the purpose, it is not necessarily wrong in all circumstances to elect such magistrates (assuming sufficient, creaturely, ethical justification), if God does by his revealed actions and owns them as his magistrates. To quote Prov. 8:15-16 in full, regarding God the Son (as Creator): “By Me kings reign and princes decree justice. By Me princes rule and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.”

† “The king… is made by God and the people king…” “he is… made king by God…” Lex Rex, pp. 56 (lt col mid) & 57 (rt col top)

20. God’s having chosen to choose, or elect, kings by a hereditary line in Israel in the Old Testament (irrespective of regeneration), and the people’s consequent adding their consent unto and installation of them (1 Kings 1:33-40; 12:1, etc.), inevitably entailed electing ungodly persons to the throne (such as Abijam, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Ahaz, etc.) by God’s prescription.

Hos. 8:4 is sometimes objected and taken to apply to bad magistrates that don’t meet certain moral requisites mentioned in Scripture: “They have set up kings, but not by Me: they have made princes and I knew it not…”

This verse though does not speak to that, but only to certain usurpers of the throne of the ten Northern tribes of Israel, after their rebellion from under Rehoboam, there not being any approving prescription from God to set up any kings for Israel different from the royal line divinely sanctioned in Judah, as the puritan Matthew Poole (d. 1679) taught in his commentary on the verse:

“‘They;’ [Northern] Israel, the prevailing faction among them in Hosea’s time.

‘Have set up kings;’ Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea, who usurped the throne.

‘But not by Me;’ not by my direction, or with my approbation… And this may be applied to the very first founding of the kingdom of [Northern] Israel, divided from the house of David.”

The Magistrate’s Nearest End

21. Though an unbeliever be personally unregenerate and incipiently a spiritual enemy of Christ (Mt. 12:30; 22:44; Rom. 5:10; 1 Cor. 15:25) without a credible profession of faith, yet as being regenerate and a profession of Christ is not essential to the magistrate’s office, or one governing in it (Scripture is clear: theses 11-12), and a candidate may fulfill many of the good duties of the immediate, nearest end of magistracy (by common grace) in governing with prudence, justice and goodness and providing due peace, according to common natural equity, etc. (Gen. 20:4-16), so it may not be wrong in all circumstances to vote for him and the good that he may bring to the community and the Kingdom of God.

Gillespie rightly taught: “The immediate nearest end of civil power is that the good of the commonwealth may be provided for and procured, whether it be in time of peace, according to the rules of law and council of judges, or in time of war according to the rules of military prudence; and so the temporal safety of the subjects may be procured and that external peace and civil liberty may be preserved, and being lost may be again restored.”¹

¹ 111 Propositions concerning the Ministry & Government of the Church (Edinburgh: Tyler, 1647), proposition 66. Gillespie here and in thesis 22 closely resembles Theodore Beza, A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith (London, 1562), 42. ‘Of the Civil & Christian Magistrate & to what End his Office Tends’, pp. 124-25.

Rutherford essentially taught the same:

“…an official goodness, or a magistratical prudence, justice, and goodness; this is required of all magistrates, as such, to judge the people: so the acts of a heathen magistrate done according to common natural equity, by Nebuchadnezzar, Pilate, Caesar, Felix, Festus, are to be acknowledged as acts of a lawful magistrate, valid and no less essentially magistratical than if performed by King David; and of this goodness the Scriptures speak not as essential to a magistrate as a magistrate.¹

¹ [That is, a magistrate not doing these ennumerated things is still a valid magistrate.]

For kings as kings intend justice, peace, godliness, materially considered, both ex conditione operis [from the nature of the magisterial work], and operantium [from the nature of the persons working by the office].

But for justice and righteous judgment in a spiritual and an evangelic way, that belongs not to the essence of a magistrate, nec ex conditione seu ex intentione operis, nec ex conditione operantis [neither from the nature or the intention of the work of magistracy, nor from the nature of the magistrate working]…” Divine Right, ch. 24, pp. 547-48; see also Lex Rex, p. 6 (lt col top).

While magistracy is an ordinance of God, for numerous reasons given in these theses, it is also called an “ordinance of man” (1 Pet. 2:13-14), unlike Church government.

Contra Christ Centered Voting, an incipient personal antagonism to sincere spirituality and Christ as spiritually known (Christ is often acknowledged and accepted in a natural, civil way) does not necesitate a candidate’s public antagonism or being an avowed enemy to Christ and his Church in one’s public service (evidenced in Bible verses in thesis 18), especially if the candidate’s commited positions are clear and trustworthy.

While many abuse the distinction between private life and public service, the distinction cannot be erased, it being essential to natural, human society and because magistracy as given of God is not a person, or even the person in the office, but the ordained office with its ends (Rom. 13:1-5).† In voting one is voting for someone to fulfill the ordained ends of magistracy. The most immediate, nearest end, unbelievers can fulfill; and in voting for policies that fulfill that end, one is voting for the in-part-fulfilling and execution of God ordained magistracy.

† See Rutherford discuss the magistratical office as abstract, from Rom. 13: Lex Rex, q. 29, pp. 143-49

22. It is possible that a non-Christian, whether believing in God or not, may be more qualified to fulfill to a greater degree the immediate, nearest end of magistracy than a Christian candidate, and that one may be morally justified in voting for the non-Christian.

Most people would rather have a competent, non-Christian town treasurer or auditor elected than an incompetent Christian one (Lk. 16:8).

It is possible that such a non-Christian, in better fulfilling the immediate, nearest end of magistracy, may also (in whatever position they hold) by this means materially fulfill in some measure, whether self-consciously or not (in the words of Gillespie):

“the chiefest and last end of civil government… the glory of God the Creator, namely, that those which do evil being by a superiour power restrained or punished, and those which do good getting praise of the same, the subjects so much the more may shun impiety and injustice, and that virtue, justice and the moral law of God… may remain in strength and flourish.” 111 Propositions, prop. 67 (the whole quote mentions the 10 Commandments)

If the non-Christian magistrate intend not the glory of God (though some do in respects and have some fear of Him, Gen. 20:3-17; Ezra 1:2-3; 6:12), yet the exercise of his power, the most powerful in the land, may nonetheless in some measure be a material fulfilling through created power that chief end of government, and instill in the people, being humbled therewith, a due fear of the glory of God, especially due to the ordinance of God concurrent therewith.

A Few Ethical Principles

23. Principled pragmatism is a necessary and moral part of ethics.¹

¹ See William Perkins, The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience... (Cambridge: Legat, 1606), bk. 3, ch. 2, question 2, ‘Whether a man may lawfully and with good conscience use policy in the affairs of this life?’, pp. 485-88. For this principle being acted upon by both the moderates and protesters in the 1650’s Church of Scotland ad nauseum, often in shocking ways, including in choosing the lesser of evils, constantly, see ch. 1 in Kyle Holfelder, Factionalism in the Kirk during the Cromwellian Invasion & Occupation of Scotland, 1650 to 1660: The Protester-Resolutioner Controversy PhD diss. (Univ. of Edinburgh, 1998) and throughout.

24. (1) There is a material versus formal distinction, (2) circumstances and the larger context are taken into account in the ethical value of actions and (3) actions with different ends are formally different actions.

The same material action by unbelievers and believers, one having unrighteous reasons and the other righteous reasons, may accordingly be unrighteous or righteous respectively (Prov. 21:4; 1 Cor. 10:31). Snake venom and bugs normally considered malignant may be applied to cure persons of diseases.

Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils

25. Voting for the lesser of two material evils is not necessarily formally voting for evil. One may formally vote for the natural good in a candidate (or their policies) that is the lesser of two material evils, as this is not necessarily to approve their evil, and avoiding a greater evil is a relative form of good.

An example: An orphan being turned out of an orphanage, who cannot provide for herself, is being considered for adoption by (1) an evil, unbelieving man and (2) a decent, unbelieving man who has notable vices, yet will provide her a significantly better home and upbringing. There are no other prospects to adopt her. The choice is given to the Christian girl to whom she will go with.

May she consent to go with the lesser of the two evils for the natural good that will entail, though it all is not ideal?

26. “Evil” is an ambiguous term. It may stand for miserable evils or moral evils. One may morally choose to undergo and suffer certain miserable evils in necessity, other alternatives not being available, likely or reasonable. Electing to eat expired food rather than starve is not wrong. One ought never to do moral evil, though it be lesser in respect to another (1 Cor. 15:34; WLC 99.5).

In the example above, suppose both men will provide accommodations worse than the orphanage. May one pick one’s poison, so to speak? That is legitimately ethically allowable (2 Sam. 24:11-15). Making the best of a bad situation is prudent, and therein morally necessary (Prov. 22:3; Acts 27:9-44).

On a ship in upheaval in the ocean where an election is being held for the next pilot, and there is no realistic chance¹ a godly, Christian, righteous and skilled pilot will be chosen, while one of two ungodly and bad pilots are near surely to be chosen, it is not wrong to choose to throw one’s weight to the less bad pilot.

Does the nation gain spiritually for being allowed to choose the worst candidate? Frequency of having to choose one’s poison makes the decision(s) no less ethical, just as one ought to help the incompetent highjacker (if feasible) land the plane with people on board every time.

¹ The Scottish protesting minister, Robert MacWard (d. 1681), in a bit different context: “…there may be some cases wherein it is lawful for a people to yield subjection to a lawless tyrant, and wherein it may be unlawful for them to perpetrate or attempt their own liberation by external force (which abstractly from those circumstances might be both lawful, laudable and a necessary duty) viz. when the thing attempted is either altogether impracticable, the means or manner of effectuating it dubious or unwarantable, the timing of it inexpedient and unseasonable, or the necessary concomitants or consequents of the cure more hurtful or dangerous than the disease, or the like…” The Banders Disbanded… (Edinburgh, 1681), 3rd part, p. 48

27. Taking a forced step down in order to take upward steps is not wrong. This is a common strategy in soccer, chess and self-defense. Rolling with the punches will keep you from getting knocked out. Nor is allowing a forced step down to prevent taking numerous steps down wrong.

It will be objected that good attainments according to truth, especially in laws and constitutions should not be gone back on, this entailing backsliding. While this is a good principle in general in seeking reformation, yet it cannot be absolute in light of at least six things:

1. Richard Baxter (†1691), in the ecclesiastical sphere, demonstrated, through an extended parable of real events in the puritan era, that it may be moral and for the greater good to tolerate receding to a lesser state of past reformation for a time and in the circumstances while the previous and a greater reformation cannot be sustained or made without greater harm than good: Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684), section 5, ‘A Comparison of the Use of a Faulty Translation of the Scripture, & a Faulty Liturgy’, pp. 33-35.

2. ‘Vows, Oaths, Covenants & Constitutions can Never Bind Beyond God’s Law’ as ‘Natural Law, in Necessity, Over-Rules Positive Law when They Conflict’.

3. It is not wrong for the stronger to relinquish rights and privileges for the here and nowª to help the weaker, for the higher good (Mt. 5:38-48; Mk. 15:3-5; Jn. 10:15-17; 1 Cor. 6:4-8; 9:4-23; Eph. 5:25-26; 1 Pet. 2:19-25; WLC 99.5). Christ thought not the glory of being equal with God something to be heralded like spoil in war (ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο), but chose in the flesh to abide far from that perfect and pure Church fellowship in Heaven to help our most pitiful, weak, backsliding, sinful, impurely constituted and unorthodox Church here on earth, for her reformation according to his pure Word (Ps. 40:6-8). God exalted Him higher than anyone else for it, in the next life: Phil. 2:6-9.

ª With respect to an ecclesiastical context, see James Durham, The Dying Man’s Testament… (1659), pt. 4, ch. 14, ‘What is to be done in order to union about divisions concerning doctrinal determinations?’, pp. 381-88, esp. 385-88. See also Durham, Collected Sermons of James Durham… (Naphtali & RHB, 2017), vol. 1, 7. ‘A Sermon on Ephesians 4:11-12’, pp. 921-22.

4. The Scottish, covenanting Protesters in the 1650’s cooperated with the stronger, Oliver Cromwell’s de-reformed civil rule in Scotland. Rutherford wrote on the ocassion, A Treatise on the Nature of Obedience to a Usurped Power (not reprinted), arguing it was lawful to give limited and qualified, material, passive obedience to an usurped power, giving the analogy of a ship’s highjacking, and persons helping the highjacker to safely navigate the ship for the preservation of all. The Protesters through that time continued to openly and directly rebuke Cromwell while counseling him to govern by the will and unto the glory of God in Scotland.

5. When Philip Henry (†1696), the father of Matthew Henry, with around two thousand puritans, was barred from the ministry in the Anglican Church’s shameful, Great Ejection of 1662, he, along with “all the sober nonconformists generally in those parts,” chose to refrain from publicly preaching and to materially submit to the unjust discipline for the sake of public order and the persuasiveness of a meek and peaceable spirit till the unjust sentence could be removed (which it finally was) when persons at large would come to a better mind about it, citing four historic precedents.

6. Appeal is sometimes made to the principles of the renowned Scottish minister, Thomas M’Crie, Sr. (d. 1835), “The Defender of the Covenanters,” that one ought never to step down from truth, but only help others up to more of it, with respect to Church matters. Yet M’Crie is more qualified in his specific statements,¹ and in the proposed union between the Original Secession Church and the Free Church of Scotland (which actually took place in 1852):†

¹ M’Crie,Two Discourses on the Unity of the Church (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1821), pp. 55, 94, 97-98; note also p. 123.

† For more on this and how the majority of the Original Secession Church saw itself as working towards the ends of the covenanted Reformation, see Travis Fentiman, ‘A Defense of the Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting’, point 32.

His son, Thomas M’Crie Jr. (1875), was a leader of the majority Secession party advocating for union, who believed he was following the principles of his fatherº in morally working towards the ends of the covenanted Reformation. The most significant objection to the union was that:

“since acknowledging the obligation of the [1600’s national Scottish] covenants on posterity was a qualification for Church fellowship in the [Secession Church] unions of 1827 and 1842, it should continue to be a fundamental article in any union. The Church’s majority acknowledged the obligation of the covenants, but did not consider that the Scriptures warranted making such historical considerations an obstacle to Church fellowship.”‡

º David Scott, Annals & Statistics of the Original Secession Church: till its Disruption & Union with the Free Church of Scotland in 1852 (Edinburgh: Elliot, 1886), p. 184.

‡ Sherman Isbell, ‘Original Secession Church’ in ed. Nigel Cameron, Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology (IVP: 1993), p. 637

28. Allowing bad men for purposes resulting in good, as God and saints in Scripture have, may be ethical. For instance, if a bad candidate’s policies will allow the gospel and Church to better thrive in contrast to those of another candidate, it is not necessarily wrong to vote towards that end.

To have the authority to remove a bad person from office, and to not, but to enable, support and continue them in office is something more than voting for such a person. David, for many years, continued to toleratingly employ Joab, a known double murderer, and Abishai, both deceptive, sons of Zeruiah, for their necessary, politically conservative services and support for the sake of his righteous, God-given and blessed cause when he could not do without them, while he never approved of their actions and continued to protest to their scandalous sinfulness:

“And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me: the Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.” (2 Sam. 3:39; 16:10; 19:22)

Likewise, David, at the beginning of his journeyings, though he would say in Ps. 119:63, “I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts,” chose to allow and lead as a captain in his band of men “every one that was discontented.” (1 Sam. 22:2) Later, when “wicked men and men of Belial” in David’s band, fighting with him (1 Sam. 30:22), advised according to their jealousies, David gently directs them otherwise, maintaining their unity, calling them “my brethren” and speaking of what the Lord had given them all and how He had preserved them (1 Sam. 30:23-25). Later, after becoming king, and again fleeing, David chose to allow to come into his small camp six hundred pagans who were willing to support his side (2 Sam. 15:18). Why? Part of it was due, the chapter testifies, to David’s compassion and humanity.

29. It is only being argued here that the lesser of two evils can be voted for, not that in all cases it is necessary to vote for the lesser of the two evils (as Christ Centered Voting objects). It is acknowledged that voting for the lesser of two evils can take away from better candidates gaining ground: this natural factor ought to be taken into consideration.

30. There is an error of making exceptions when circumstances do not justify it, exceptions becoming the rule. If this is done, one will likely regret their vote due to the unintended and unforeseen greater ill effects it had, outweighing whatever ill was prevented or the good that came from it. If the good that came from it outweighed the ill effects that subsequently occured, it may have been justified.¹

While mistakes may and will be made (as in near all practical judgments), yet mistakes may be able to be recognized in hindsight. In acting upon erroneous principles though, that one is certain of and cannot be convinced otherwise about, one may likely never recognize they made mistakes.

¹ This is akin to the Principle of Double Effect, which had its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Aquinas (d. 1274). The principle is not without controversy in its formulation, qualifications and the contexts it is applied to, but its implicit recognition in moral practices of ordinary persons in common life is impossible to deny.

“Classical formulations of the principle… require that four conditions be met…: first, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result [Rom. 3:8]; and fourth, that the good result be ‘proportionate to’ the bad result.” William D. Solomon, “Double Effect” in ed. Lawrence C. Becker, The Encyclopedia of Ethics (NY: Garland, 1977)

Biblicism & Natural Law

31. To circle back to the manner of electing “magistrates” in Ex. 18:21 and Dt. 1:13, 17:

Ex. 18:21 with v. 25 speaks of Moses’s obligation to choose judges “such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness” to place over the people. In Dt. 1:13, 17, Moses tells Israel to “Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes” that he may make them judges over the people. Given that (1) Israel may have consisted of over a million people, (2) Moses must have been talking to the heads of the tribes, (3) modern popular elections were likely unknown to Israel’s practice, (4) Israel already had a structure of at least chiefs or elders of tribes, being some sort of representative or ruling class government: it is likely the method of this election was executed by the patriarchal aristocracy and that persons mostly from the aristocracy were chosen (or appointed, compare Dt. 16:18) and made judges.

In both passages the individuals and people as a whole (or the aristocracy) addressed, had the natural power to fulfill the obligation. What is not seen explicitly in the passages is every citizen voting, or an obligation lying on every citizen.

Ethically, a communal obligation does not necessarily bind every person in the same way in all circumstances. Working at the very level of public order in communities implies, of itself, for the higher good of order, some degree of tolerated consent by those who do not completely agree, even with those who are the only candidates put forward for election. Voting is not purely a private choice; it is a choice in the context of and for public order, taking into account the rest of the public’s decisions.

32. But a larger and more important point presents itself: Scripture examples some particular instances of choosing magistrates, but it by no means speaks to the subject and all circumstances exhaustively (nor was it intended to),‡ and inferences extending rules uniformly applied to different particular circumstances and contexts may not be by necessary consequence (WCF 1.6). Biblicism, such an elevating of the Bible so that (usually select) Scriptures are taken in a simplistic and isolated manner, without taking other necessary factors into account, is not a virtue, but a vice.

‡ For an accurate representation of the sufficiency of Scripture, see ‘Rutherford’s Distinctions & Conclusions on the Sufficiency of Scripture’. See also, ‘Does Scripture Regulate All of Life?’, ‘Taking Scripture’s Sufficiency Too Far’ and ‘On the Need & Validity of Natural Knowledge’.

The obligations on which judges to choose in Ex. 18:21 and Dt. 1:13, 17 can be known purely by nature’s light and law and the common ideals of nations, apart from special revelation or Scripture. Hence, given the natural, common life and Biblical distinction between natural and positive law,ª these electoral obligations were not positive laws above and beyond nature, binding by God’s special authority above nature unto all circumstances and times. Rather, they fundamentally derived from God’s natural law by creation, and were confirmed by special revelation from Moses. The general or natural equity that does extend beyond these particular Scriptural instances is precisely natural law, which can relate variably to differing circumstances, according to the circumstances.

ª See the Introduction on the Positive Law page.

The most basic natural law, foundational to even the Scriptures above, is to “eschew evil, and do good,” or to “seek good,” Aquinas taught, in accord with Scripture (Ps. 34:14; Amos 5:14; 1 Pet. 3:11). According to natural law, in lawfully seeking good in a bad situation, as seen in common life examples provided in theses above (and according to the Principle of Double Effect in the footnote to thesis 30), an individual in a community, when forces are past his control, may vote for a lesser good, bearing a greater impact and resulting in a greater good, rather than voting for a greater good with a lesser practical impact, accomplishing a total lesser good.

The perfect ought not to be an obstacle to the good, or saving from disaster, and Biblicism is not Scriptural and is unworkable, inconsistent and contrary to God’s laws.

Unbelieving Democracies

33. If the principal and/or accumulated arguments of Christ Centered Voting be valid, not only could Christians not vote for non-Christians, but neither could anyone. Hence, in unbelieving societies, democracies could not morally exist, or any voting in any form of government. This is not in accord with nature’s light and laws (otherwise known as common sense), but contrary to them, as will be demonstrated in the next thesis; therefore, Christ Centered Voting‘s conclusion, and many of their arguments, are invalid.

34. A material action which is in part sinful may yet be necessary to be done (and should be), such as unbelievers voting for unbelievers in a wholly unbelieving society.

Not everything sinful is inherently sinful, but some actions containing a natural and civil good are only sinful by their accidents (in the Aristotelian sense, as things not essential to the actions). The good in those actions may yet be required to be done though the sinful defect(s) remain. To give three examples:

1. An unbelieving mother taking care of her young children. She does this without faith and possibly poorly and with certain moral corruptions, yet she ought not for these reasons to abstain from taking care of her children.

2. An unbeliever farming and plowing his field. Without faith and a pure heart before the Lord, cleansed, renewed and empowered by Christ, this is sinful (Prov. 21:4; Rom. 14:23). Yet he must not abstain from this material action, though it may only have a relative necessity deriving from the degree of good it brings.

3. Unbelievers marrying each other. Marriage is a creational ordinance applying to all people; and unbelievers that have not the gifts for remaining single, should marry as able, despite that it is done in unbelief for less than godly purposes and sinful effects may predictably come from it.

The action of voting is not in itself sinful, but serves a natural and good design, considered in itself. Nor is voting for an unbeliever in itself sinful, as is demonstrated throughout these theses. The sinfulness of an unbeliever voting for an unbeliever may lie subjectively and uniquely in the unbelieving voter only, in not doing such with faith unto the Lord and for purposes that fall short of the glory of God. Yet such things are not of the essence of the material action of voting for an unbeliever, such as when a believer may uprightly vote for the same candidate.

The action itself of an unbeliever voting for an unbeliever in a wholly unbelieving society contains and promotes natural and civil goodness, and therein is a moral good of some degree which needs to be fulfilled, and done, in order that the society attain the natural and civil profit that derives from their citizens voting, relative to their form of government and the society’s governance in accord with the ascertained consent and lawful interests and welfare of its people.

Part of the reason such a category of actions (which are in part sinful but still ought to be done) is possible, is that, in a material action not inherently wrong, it is possible the formal end of the action, and the end of the person using the action may be, not the corruption itself, but what is good. While the degree of corruption is not morally obliging, but is a deficiency from the good end (or a falling short of it, Rom. 3:23), and is contrary to what is obliged, yet the good may still be necessary to be doneº though a certain corruption will inevitably entail.¹

º See Pierre Viret (d. 1571), a Swiss reformer, affirm the same principle in his discussion: ‘What good or hurt the work does that is outwardly done, and not with a good heart… and whether it be better that it be done or undone’ in A Christian Instruction… (London: Veale, 1573), The Exposition of the Preface of the Law, pp. 457-60. Also William Perkins: “If it be demanded how the worship of God should be a sin in any man, considering it is so commanded, I answer, sins be of two sorts: The first is when something is done that is flat contrary to the commandment of God; the second is when that is done which God commands, but not in that manner God commands.” “A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (d. 1602; London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 700

¹ This inevitableness, or a certain necessity, may be a necessity of the consequence rather than a necessity of the consequent; see Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 1st ed. (Baker, 1985), “necessitas consequentiae”, p. 200. See also, ‘One may Not Omit Necessary Duties for Foreseeing Passive Scandals or Knowing One may Sin through Infirmity’ on the page, ‘On Scandal & Offenses’.

Voting for the Highest Good Realistically Attainable

35. It is allowable, moral and right to vote for the good in the highest good realistically attainable in given circumstances, while maintaining the ultimate standard to be God’s Word and the goal to be his full glory.

36. There is an ethical difference between someone who cares not for God’s things or righteousness and votes accordingly, versus someone who votes for possibly the same candidate, yet would vote for a godly and wise candidate if one had a realistic chance of entering the office. The first sort of person is a hinderance to reformation, the second is not, but for it.

37. To vote for someone who will never realistically win, or not vote at all, when it is allowable to do so, despite one’s good intention, may not be the highest good and may entail not fulfilling one’s moral obligation in the circumstances, which is otherwise known as doing what is wrong.

38. While it is acknowledged in some circumstances one may legitimately not vote for any candidate due to the strength of their moral abhorrence and disapprobation in conscience for their corruptions, following a significant strand of nature’s light and call and reflecting God’s displeasure according to his revealed will for those corruptions, yet in other contexts, to forego what one can do (possibly hoping for a miracle, as it were, when none has been promised) may be an ignoring of God’s will revealed through creation and providence and a tempting of God.

39. The highest good realistically attainable ought to encompass both a short and longterm outlook, giving due weight as appropriate. A long term goal does not necessarily entail not voting for the highest short term, realistic good.

40. The principle of the RPCNA Testimony (23.29), quoted in Christ Centered Voting, as pious as it sounds, that “the Christian should support and vote only for such men as are publicly committed to scriptural principles of civil government,” is an unBiblical yoke of man.

If my small town with few Christians in it really needs its sewer and water system renovated (this directly affecting me), and a candidate for the town-board is planning to push that through, I can’t vote for him to enter the office of magistracy (ordained by God as Creator) to do this natural necessity, though it be according to God’s will revealed by nature’s light and law (upheld by Scripture), because he is not publicly committed to Scriptural principles of civil government?

Rather, voting ought to be in accord with nature’s light (including right reason),ª Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word (cf. WCF 1.6).

ª See ‘Scripture Upholds Nature’s Light & Law & Right Reason’.

Upholding Impure Standards of Civil Law

41. It is not inherently wrong to uphold the good, and enforce the toleration (or omit the civil penalizing) of what is not good, for the here and now, unto the highest good of what the community will bear, for its peace, order, health and good.

God upheld, enforced and civilly established no-fault divorce and polygamy in the Old Testament (contrary to the Scriptural precedent of Gen. 2:18-25) for the hardness of the people’s hearts, the strength of the influence of the dominant cultural sins of the day and for the people’s communal order, peace, civil heatlh and good in their circumstances.ª

ª See ‘On Permissive, Mosaic Laws of God’.

The Old Testament prophets did not even testify to no-fault divorce and polygamy being sins; these things were passed over in silence, allowing a previous precendent (Gen. 2:18-25) to testify, which was then appealed to later (by Jesus) when the time was ripe for reformation.

42. A certain (enforced) civil toleration may be a principled and gracious, limited accommodationº (for the sake of creatures’ benefit, conscience, etc.), especially unto the further reformation of society.ª This timeless principle of natural ethics (which can never be erased) and Scripture, naturally, was a standard item in reformed political ethics in the Post-Reformation.¹

º Accommodation was the solution of Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty (possibly written by Gillespie) during the Westminster era to finding unity in practice in Church matters where theoretical agreement could not be found. See the quote on the page, ‘On the Pressing Priority of Church Unity’.

ª See this principle expounded, defended and exampled in Church matters by the protestant reformers and puritans at ‘On Reforming Church Ordinances’.

¹ e.g. Gisbert Voet, Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663), vol. 2, pt. 1, bk. 4, Tract 1, chs. 2-10, pp. 379-580.

43. It is not inherently wrong for the time and circumstances to swear to materially uphold and enforce the United States’ constitution and Bill of Rights (and other laws)† despite impurities therein, such as the 1st Amendment prohibiting the full implementation of the natural and Biblical teaching of the magistrate’s power around (circa sacra, not in) sacred things: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”‡

† Christ Centered Voting (end of pt. 3), while it in the end leaves the question open whether a vow (and a vote for someone to vow) to the U.S. constitution is morally lawful, yet it gives some significant urges that an unqualified vow to the U.S. constitution is wrong, or may be wrong.

‡ This is not to mention that, by the light of nature, available to all at all times, all vows are and must be qualified by any words proceeding from God, which may always be appealed to as the highest authority. See ‘Vows, Oaths, Covenants & Constitutions can Never Bind Beyond God’s Law’.

44. Hence it is not necessarily wrong to vote for a candidate who is required to swear to and uphold the American constitution as a condition of their office.

45. The above is especially true in that swearing to the constitution is qualified by the constitution itself, which says in Article 5 that the constitution can be changed, and directs how to do it. To delay changing constitutional laws till it can be done in the approved, orderly and constitutional way, is good order (1 Cor. 14:26, 40).

Political Expedience Promoting Natural Good
is Not Necessarily Compromise

46. Especially in a divided and polarized country, choosing a leader towards the center, who may be able to gain as much unity from both sides as possible, may be expedient, so as to serve the legitimate creaturely needs and interests of all the people of the community, and as, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” (Mt. 12:25)

47. Likewise, given the fundamentally bottom-up structure of a government such as America, a chief leader of the nation fundamentally needs to represent, or at least accommodate to a significant degree the legitimate values and interests of as much of the country as possible, lest further alienation and greater division occur.

48. Voting to these ends is a natural good and is not necessarily a “compromise [to] the truth of Christ in an effort to advance the cause of Christ” or “to undermine His cause,” nor does it necessarily place persons “in opposition” to both Christ’s cause and truth (contra Christ Centered Voting, pt. 4). Subalternate truths and ends are not contradictory: they all have their place.

49. Christ Centered Voting states (pt. 4): “The dearth of qualified voteworthy options creates a strong temptation for Christians to compromise their principles for pragmatic reasons, and to support ungodly candidates.” Yet:

It is not necessarily wrong to materially support and cooperate with something or someone partially or directly in the wrong in a limited and qualified way, without approving that ill and even testifying against it, for a sufficiently higher good, lest you could not function in society (and Jesus said, “I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world.” Jn. 17:15). See the ‘Extended Introduction’ on the page, ‘On the Ethics of Material Cooperation with, & Associations with Evil’.

50. Explicitly Christian political parties in the minority in a diverse community, while they may be able to make beneficial contributions to politics and the political climate, which ought to be encouraged, yet there is no principle which necessitates them to be the exclusive voting options.

51. Not voting at all in given elections is also an option, faithful to the Lord, if one has greater reasons and priorities for this (even due to day to day tasks) in relation to the impact their vote may or may not make. Voting can be idolized, by Christians as well, by placing more weight on it than it bears.

“Christ Centered Voting”

52. Given the inherently diverse and manifold structure of the ordinances of civil government and the Church (not to mention their de facto material structures), in their varied subjects, authorities, objects, purposes, ends, means, adjuncts, effects, relations to each other and how they relate differently to God and Christ,† the phrases “God” and “Christ centered voting” are simplistic and unhelpful.

One can talk about “Christ centered mowing the lawn” or “plumbing,” as Christians ought to mow their lawn and do plumbing in faith to Christ and support his Church by it if possible, perhaps by mowing a church’s lawn or fixing some of their leaky pipes, but the nature, science and work of mowing the lawn and plumbing, or their immediate, nearest ends, do not center around Christ, but around mowing the lawn and plumbing. Likewise, “Christ centered voting,” or “politics,” is most directly centered around voting and politics, and “Christ centered chess” is difficult to appreciate.‡ On the other hand, trusting Christ to save us from our sins, growing in the knowledge of Christ and worshipping Him are Christ centered.

† See ed. Fentiman, All of George Gillespie’s Writings on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is the Church Only (RBO, 2014), pp. 9-10 & 18-27

‡ For an analysis and right splicing of Christian tennis, see ‘On Christian Tennis’ on the page, ‘The Extent of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom’.

53. Thesis 52 is not only true for mature Christians but even for more simple Christians: their moral intuitions, through their spiritual knowledge and prudence, nature’s light and with the promise of the Holy Spirit’s anointing (1 Jn. 2:27), given the state of affairs and their particular knowledge of it, may be more valid than what the phrases “God” or “Christ centered voting” and such reasoning suggests.

54. While God’s nature and his Word is a standard of righteousness to all our actions, it ought to be remembered that neither God nor Christ needs, or is benefited by our vote. Rather our fellow creatures are benefited by our voting, and our voting ought to bear a special relation to the saints in the earth:

“Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee; but to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.'” (Ps. 16:2-3; cf. Gal. 6:10)

55. Voting under the standard of God’s Word and the goals of God and Christ’s glory need not be at variance with the greatest realistic good of the community in the circumstances; the two may be regularly consistent.

56. Spiritual priorities and goals do not always override natural considerations and needs, as evidenced in Abraham being confederate with his neighboring, pagan tribes (Gen. 14:13) and other examples (e.g. 1 Kings 5:3-5, 12; 9:27; Ezra 8:36; Lk. 10:30-32).

There is a real danger, which many fall into, out of the pious, spiritual sounding desire to always choose the most spiritual action, or even in seeking to maintain a certain level of spiritual qualification, of binding oneself and others into an unscriptural, man-made legalism, contrary to the light of nature, Christian prudence, the general rules of the Word and Christian liberty. See ‘External Legalism’ & ‘Spiritual Legalism’ on the Cultic Characteristics page, as well as the page ‘On Hyper-Spirituality’.

Theology & Confessionalism

57. There is a real difference in theology in all these things, which comes to bear the most in practical voting in largely unbelieving countries.

Christ Centered Voting says, “A very real chain of command has been established by God, obliging every civil ruler to submit to Jesus as a superior civil officer.” A formative writer of the Reformed Presbyterians, William Symington, from the 1800’s, wrote in the same vein, that rulers of nations “are not the mere servants of men… but… the servants, the representatives, the vicegerents of the Prince of the kings of the earth,”¹ that is, of Christ as Mediator. This error, that civil magistracy is formally subordinate to Christ as Mediator in receiving its governing power from Him in heaven, and magistrates are thus vice-regents of Christ as Mediator, has been characteristic of the family of Reformed Presbyterian denominations.

¹ Symington, Messiah the Prince (London: Nelson, 1881), ch. 8, p. 216

Rather, as Gillespie, the mature Rutherford,† numerous Westminster divines‡ and many others taught, the civil power is founded on and proceeds from God as Creator, arising through nature for all men as creatures through the consent of the community of men in instituting their positive forms of government.² Christ in his ascension and sitting at the right hand of God, as Mediator, was exalted over all things in name, glory and power (Eph. 1:20-23), and directs all things by his divine providence unto his, and ultimately his Father’s, glory and the eternal good of his Church (Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 53:10; Mt. 28:18-20; Jn. 17:2; 1 Cor. 15:24-28).

† See Intro & on Rutherford at ‘The Westminster Divines on the Extent of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom’.

‡ ‘The Westminster Divines on the Extent of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom’

² Rutherford, Lex Rex, pp. 1-3. The preamble to the American Constitution, though it should have said more, is good in what it does say: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Yet magistracy does not therein become formally subordinate to now receive its power, and the character of its power, through Christ’s unique office as Mediator and Savior. Notice in Rom. 13:1-5, the most didactic, clear and full passage on the subject in the Bible, even after the ascension, magistracy still receives its power from and is formally accountable to God as God, with no mention of Christ. Civil government, in God’s stead, directly brings his righteous wrath upon criminal sinners, without a mediator. The Church ministry, on the other hand, in some sense mediates between our offended God and men in bringing the gospel to them and calling them to salvation through Christ.

Church government is formally subordinated to Christ as Mediator (Jn. 20:21-23; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4), is given keys of authority from Christ (Mt. 16:18-19) and officers from Christ in Heaven (Eph. 4:10-13), and they are commissioned (Mt. 28:18-20; Jn. 20:21-23, unlike magistrates) to act in Christ’s name as Mediator and Savior (2 Cor. 5:21), carrying out his spiritual purposes to save and sanctify sinners (Eph. 4:10-13; 1 Tim. 1:15). Yet Christ came not to judge the world (Jn. 3:17; 12:46-48) through civil magistrates (certainly not heathen magistrates and those never hearing of Christ)ª jailing and executing criminals in Christ’s official authority, waging war, imposing and collecting taxes from unbelievers, dividing inheritances (Lk. 12:13-14) or installing sewer systems for persons’ temporal, creaturely benefit, all enforced with fines, handcuffs, the sword, guns and tanks. “My kingdom is not of this world.” (Jn. 18:36)

ª Heathen magistrates across the world can be (fallible) vice-regents of God, and are, and rule by his laws as God and his natural and moral laws are known through nature’s light, which is universal in extent. Yet he can be no vice-regent of Christ who does not and cannot rule by Christ’s laws, not knowing them.

It is undue to take this declaration as only referring to the source of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom, which is Heaven, though the verse speaks of such: “but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (Jn. 18:36) Christ also gives as the reason his Mediatorial Kingdom is not of this world the matter and nature, or immediate, nearest end of his Mediatorial Kingdom: “if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews” (Jn. 18:36), as it is given magistracies to do with physical force, to defend and sustain their leaders’ and people’s existence.

It is true civil magistrates with the knowledge of Christ in their natural calling ought to direct their authority from God the Creator and the people to serve Christ and his glory and materially promote and advance his spiritual Kingdom, the Church (Ps. 2:10-12), and Christian magistrates ought to profess Christ generally in the administration of their office,¹ just as all people are to do in their natural callings (Col. 3:17, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus”), yet this does not make the profession of Christ inherent to the magistratical power, to derive formally from it, or that one should only vote for a professed Christian; nor do magistrates become the vice-regents of Christ any more than others under his mediatorial power, such as fathers (what keys to the Kingdom did Christ give them?), plumbers, artists, sailors, daycare workers, angels, unbelievers or demons.

¹ On these points, see Fentiman, Gillespie’s Writings on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom, pp. 19-22 & 70-72

If there were any doubt about this, regarding the nature of the power “given” to Christ as Mediator in the flesh at his ascension (Mt. 28:18), the divine dominion of God as Creator, by definition, cannot be given.

Being Christ-centered reflects much more the priorities of the Church in its ends,¹ yet given magistracy’s nearest, immediate end as the external good of the commonwealth, neither “Christ-centered,” nor “God-centered” (though this would be better) is a very accurate descriptor of what it should be.

¹ Gillespie: “The nearest and immediate end [of the ecclesiastical power] is the glory of Jesus Christ, as Mediator and King of the Church.” Aaron’s Rod Blossoming… (Edinburgh: Ogle, 1844), p. 87

It is not the purpose here to argue the Scriptural truth in detail or rightly explain every relevant Scripture,º but to note that if civil government receives its power from the Creator through nature and communal consent and delegation therefrom,¹ and its nearest, immediate end is that “the good of the commonwealth may be provided for and procured,”² citizens (including unbelievers) being considered primarily as creatures: in the context of competing natural and spiritual interests,³ this will significantly affect which of those interests are made to bear greater weight in the circumstances and on who one votes for, especially in nations largely composed of non-Christians, in contrast to the (often exclusive sounding) priorities and exclusive category of candidates Christ Centered Voting recommends. Where Christian candidates with Christian priorities governing their policies have a realistic chance of winning, or in established Christian nations, the practical gap between the two views as to which candidates might be voted for would be much closer.

º For an Intro to many of the relevant Scriptures and issues, see the Intro at ‘The Extent of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom’ and then the Introduction to ‘All the Scottish Confessions, National Covenants & Declarations from the Reformation, Puritan & Covenanting Eras on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is the Church Only’. For more indepth treatments, see ed. Fentiman, All of George Gillespie’s Writings on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is the Church Only and Rutherford’s works on the subject.

¹ Rutherford, Lex Rex, pp. 1-3

² Gillespie, 111 Propositions, prop. 66

³ It is possible for natural and spiritual principles and goals to consist with each other much of the time.

The matter is not about which view a reader resonates with or likes the most. The theologies behind the two views are different. If one is right, as the one affirmed here and briefly sketched, the framework and practice flowing out of it (allowing for a wide liberty therein) follows. Be it noted: the truth of most of these theses holds irrespective of whether one is persuaded of either of the two theological paradigms here described.

58. Christ Centered Voting makes a theological argument for their recommended particular practice (implicitly from Ps. 2, 45, 110) related to the continued existence of nations:

“Every vote cast brings a society one step closer to reformation or one step closer to destruction. Electing a candidate… who is indifferent toward the legal recognition of King Jesus is a step toward divine judgment… in the long run, it threatens the very existence of our nation.”

Whatever may be true in the general and longterm does not necessarily necessitate specific particulars. If so supporting (or tolerating) a candidate was wrong due to threatening the nation’s existence in the longterm, then, it would seem, so would be working for, exercising the authority of, or fighting for the nation or government (Mt. 8:8-13), for its continued existence, or even choosing to remain a citizen of the ungodly nation instead of expatriating (Acts 10:22) and choosing to use that legal right (Acts 22:25-29) and what is right in that ungodly nation’s legal system in defense and support of what is good, including the betterment of the Kingdom of God, even in that nation and other nations (Acts 23-28). In Paul’s case, God blessed these means, and the community of pagans for the Christians’ pragmatic cause, showing his care for natural life (Acts 27:23-24).

It also threatens the existence of the nation to neglect created principles and ends in voting, possibly both in the short and long term. To quote the booklet: “We are Christians and we demand consistent scriptural principles.”

59. It is true, as the booklet says, “when God’s people themselves, in reckless violation of His Word, seek a political ruler ‘like all the nations,’ no such restraint [of unconverted rulers] is promised (1 Sam. 8).” However, when God’s people do not act in reckless violation of God’s Word and act according to natural, spiritual and Scriptural principles, God does promise to bless this, and Christ is with them always unto the end of the age (Mt. 28:20), even in difficult political situations.

60. Christ Centered Voting constantly emphasizes and contraposes in politics “the Christian and the non-Christian, the believer and the unbeliever, the regenerate and the unregenerate.” These are false dichotomies representing a reductionist approach, not because the contrasting sides of the pairs do not encompass everyone or because the respective sides are not mutually exclusive, but because politics takes more into account, and is immediately concerned with more than these categories.

What is being left out is the natural, Scriptural and Christian view of God as Creator, persons as creatures and the legitimacy, even in a non-Christian context, of natural, creational factors. The booklet does not explicitly mention God as Creator once and only speaks of creatures as fallen or in relation to the obligation that the spiritual gospel be preached to them. Such a limited approach is not fully Christian.

Creaturely issues might be termed “policies”, which often, due to the greater public good issuing from them in the longterm (possibly including the good of the Church), may override the significance of the unregenerate person instituting them, especially as that person’s power is derived from the community of the people as creatures (and ultimately from God as Creator). One may be able to vote for (or make one’s permissive consent known for the governing of) a material candidate for the formal reason of the good creational policies from God. Those policies made into law, to the extent laws are permanent, are able to restrain other civil servants down the line (possibly unregenerate) from crossing them. Vote, bless God and rebuke his silly vassals.‡

‡ Andrew Melville (d. 1622), a Scottish reformer, was reported by his nephew James Melville (d. 1614) as calling King James VI “God’s silly vassal” in private before telling him: “There are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is Christ Jesus the King, and his Kingdom the Church, whose subect King James the Sixth is, and of whose Kingdom, not a king, nor a lord, nor a head but a member!” The Autobiography & Diary of James Melville, ed. Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842), vol. 1, 1596, p. 370

It might be objected to voting for policies, and these theses in general: “Every candidate has a policy which has some natural good in it; therefore you could vote for anyone running, even the worst candidates in history.” This is not the case as: (1) there are other factors which enter into who one would vote for, or not, (2) all the factors need to add up to sufficient moral justification, or one would not vote for that candidate, and (3) one ought to vote (or not) for the highest good, eliminating voting for other lesser goods, policies and candidates.

61. On being confessional:

Christ Centered Voting claims the view it expounds is the “scriptural, Confessional, and Christ-Centered” view, in contrast to others. By “confessional” it is apparently referring to the RPCNA Testimony of their own denomination, the product of modern revisions.

They do not reference any historic, reformed confession for their distinctive views on voting, and that for good reason, as, if you read through all the reformed confessions in James T. Dennison’s four volume, Reformed Confessions of the 16th & 17th Centuries (RHB), you will not find a single one espousing their distinctive electoral views, or addressing voting at all. This lack of confessional status on such an important topic¹ should be a lesson to us: the classical reformed era did not hold voting strictures to be so clear and universal as to be of confessional status. To go beyond the confessions in this can hardly be wise, but is more liable to be sectarian.

¹ There was voting in that era, and the same confessions go into detail on other minute topics, such as vows and oaths, and even lesser things.

Note that the Westminster Standards go no further in their positive assertions and proof-texts than the basic paradigm of the theological view affirmed and outlined above,† and that the traditional post-1800 Reformed Presbyterian theological paradigm, such as expounded by Symington, yet goes further and is more specific and narrow than the Westminster standards.

† Fentiman, Gillespie’s Writings on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom, pp. 3-4

Towards Reformation

62. Given the theology section above, while unbelieving magistracy is an offense unto God as it falls far short of his revealed will, even as it is not directed to the glory of God and Christ above all (where Christ is known, Eph. 1:20-23), it is not Christ’s intention or prerogative as Mediator to seek the glory, acquisition or service of unbelieving civil magistracy for Himself (Jn. 6:15; Phil. 2:6-7),º as so much Reformed Presbyterian literature assumes and portrays; rather, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” (1 Tim. 1:15)

º Zech. 14:17-19 is no exception to this: those remaining unbelieving nations in the passage have been passed over from salvation, through their own choosing, and reap the penalty of their works. Christ’s call to them is for their good, not his gain; cf. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ… (London: Stephens, 1648), bk. 1, ch. 2, ‘Of the nature of an end in general, and some distinctions about it’, pp. 5-8, esp. p. 7.

It is true Christ’s call, in the interests of his Kingdom, goes out to material nations and magistrates (Ps. 117:1; Isa. 11:12; 52:10, 15; 55:5; 66:18), but they are formally considered in this call as sinners being called to salvation (as taught by Rutherford),‡ which is why Ps. 2 says, unbelieving kings and judges are to “put their trust in Him” and worship Him, or “Kiss the Son.” (v. 12) Verse 11, “Serve the Lord with fear,” in its full implication, is a call to saving service and fear (so Josh. 24:14-15; 1 Sam. 7:3; 12:24; Ps. 22:30-31; 102:21-22; Isa. 52:15; 55:5; 56:6; Jer. 30:9; Zeph. 3:9; Zech. 2:11; Mt. 4:10; 11:29; Rom. 16:18; Col. 3:24). In accepting that call and trusting our most willing and gracious Savior for eternal deliverance and life, it is only natural and right that they should serve Him with all their natural power and calling (Mt. 6:33), including with their magisterial office (Ps. 2:10-12; 72:11; Isa. 60:12; Dan. 7:14).

‡ Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened (Edinburgh: Anderson, 1655), pt. 1, ch. 13, pp. 82-85; cf. “That the promises of the Gospel are holden forth to sinners, as sinners… As that they be sinners, and all in a sinful condition to whom the promises are holden forth. This is most true and sound.” Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself… (London, 1647), p. 258. In Covenant of Life Opened (especially in the end of the last chapter about Christ’s role in the eternal state), you will never find Rutherford speaking of Christ, through the Covenant of Redemption, inheriting God’s governance of creation. For Rutherford’s teaching against that, see Divine Right of Church Government (1646), p. 614.

Given this, while Christians as citizens, apart from Church government,† may seek the reform of a non-Christian civil government according to God’s natural and moral laws, yet as Christianity and the profession of it must not be imposed by the sword, they must not seek to impose distinctly Christian laws upon unbelievers.‡ That being the case, Christians ought to have no interest in distinctly Christianizing¹ a non-Christian civil government apart from or before the conversion of the people to Christ.ª

† This is because the ecclesiastical power is limited to the purpose Christ has commissioned it for, namely in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:18-20). The Church power’s addressing moral or spiritual issues, persons or governments outside its bounds is extraordinary rather than ordinary. See Gillespie on How Far the Church May Speak to Civil Issues.

‡ For a further detailed explanation of this, and why, see Fentiman, Civil Government’s Authority about Religion, pp. 34-43 & 76-80. See the next footnote also.

¹ Prohibiting abortion, euthanasia, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, cross-dressing, transgenderism, pornography and the selling or distribution of it, drug abuse, slander, false propaganda, etc. is not distinctly Christian as all this is taught by nature’s light and laws (though confirmed with greater clarity in Scripture). Similarly limited government, that government is to serve the people and other things that often go for “Christian principles,” including that government is accountable to God, is to serve God’s will and is to judicially rule in the place of God, are not distinctly Christian principles, as limited government, the government acknowledging God and many other such principles are taught by nature’s light and laws (and have been used and promoted by non-Christian societies by nature’s light). Things “distinctly Christian,” as the phrase is being used here, are things not taught by nature’s light and laws, but are positively revealed above nature, and are explicitly and uniquely Christian. Nor is this to say that Christian governors, or Christians through the government, can or should do nothing to promote the true religion (Christianity) amongst their people for their ultimate good and conversion, and the good of the community. For that, see Fentiman, Civil Government’s Authority about Religion, pp. 76-80. Implicit consent ought also to be distinguished from something being passed against the people’s consent. If distinctly Christian things can be passed with the people’s implicit consent or toleration, though many persons be non-Christians, this may be ethically acceptable.

ª That would be like seeking to impose (or reform) distinctly Christian family government upon families that have not converted to or professed Christianity, and that Christ as Mediator seeks the glory, acquisition or service of unbelieving family government as such.

Thus, the Christianizing of civil government must only follow the saving spread of the gospel, where Christians, by God’s Word, desire to reform their civil government to be in accord with Christian principles, for Christian people.

If that is not a realistic option, reform can still be sought to be made in civil government by Christians as citizens according to God’s natural and moral laws, unbelievers being held accountable to them by the light of nature (with Scripture adding its witness). That can happen at local, county, state or national levels, with specific policies and laws, gradually, before a full-scale overhaul.

63. Getting a God-fearing candidate with righteous goals and wise political leadership into the American presidency is of limited value, so far as, besides being a figurehead, his actual power for change is limited and nearly all the good change he accomplishes may be undone by the following president. This reality factors into voting at the presidential level.

64. Much more effective and lasting change, possibly of wide-extent, can occur through bottom-up means and making reformation through local, county, state and congressional levels, where one’s presence, influence and vote has a larger impact.

65. Only when large, growing and dominant swaths of the population and lower governmental levels are, by the Gospel and being discipled in God’s Word (Mt. 28:19-20), making significant societal reformation according to God’s Word, will it likely be realistic that God-fearing candidates, seeking reformation according to God’s Word, may become presidents and make lasting, significant changes, with the concurrence and support of a large share of the nation who desire this.

66. The sixteenth-century European Reformations may be a model to us: through the spread of the true protestant Gospel and the spiritual conversion of the people and magistrates, it was realistic for them to willingly and with rejoicing (Ps. 2:11; 110:3) civily profess, protect, establish and materially promote the true religion for their Christian people.

Those who trusted in the saving, spiritual arm of the Lord (Isa. 51:9; 53:1) before all things inherited those things which the gentiles seek after (Mt. 6:32-33).

Article

1600’s

Gurnall, William – pp. 22-38 of The Magistrate’s Portraiture, Drawn from the Word, and Preached in a Sermon… before the Election of Parliament-Men… (London, 1656)

Quotes

Order of

Rutherford
McCarthy
Heiple

1600’s

Samuel Rutherford

Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), p. 44

“2. Elections of governors would be performed as in the sight of God, and, in my weak apprehension, the person coming nearest to God’s judge, fearing God, hating covetousness, and to Moses’ king (Deut. 17), one who shall read in the book of the law; and it would seem now that gracious morals are to us instead of God’s immediate designation.

3. The genuine and intrinsical end of making kings is not simply governing, but governing the best way, in peace, honesty, and godliness (1 Tim. 2), therefore, these are to be made kings who may most expeditely procure this end. Neither is it my purpose to make him no king who is not a gracious man, only here I compare title with title.”

1900’s

John Canon McCarthy

Problems in Theology II: the Commandments (Dublin, 1959), sect. 2, 1st & 2nd Commandments, ‘The Morality of Voting for Non-Christians’, pp. 86-88 McCarthy was a Romanist professor of moral theology.

“It is an agreed principle of theological and sociological teaching that Catholic citizens should not vote for leaders who are inimical to Christianity…

It is, however, held to be lawful to vote for an unworthy candidate in certain circumstances—for instance, if this is necessary to exclude an even more unsuitable one, or if failure to vote for a particular candidate would involve disproportionate personal loss, or if there is good hope, all things considered, that the election of this candidate may ultimately conduce to the common good…

To sum up then: we agree that normally Catholics should not vote for non-Christian candidates. But if it is clear, when account is taken of the circumstances of person and place, that a particular non-Christian candidate is willing to act in accordance with Christian principles, we think that it is not unlawful to vote for him…”

2000’s

Ray E. Heiple Jr.

‘A Biblical Case for the Christian Principles of Voting: Everyone in authority is accountable to God to do what they can, according to their power and position, to uphold the moral law of God’ (2024) at The Aquila Report

“Wherever there is a choice between candidates, where one of those candidates, if elected, will clearly do more to uphold the moral law of God to protect the good and punish evil, you have a moral obligation before God to vote for that candidate. That is how you exercise your God-given authoritative position as voter, to protect the good and punish the evil…

Now no one exercises authority perfectly: no parent, police officer, professor, or president. But when you are in any of these or other positions of authority, you are obligated, in every instance, to do what is most good and least evil…. the raison d’être of all authorities: punishing the evil and protecting the good…”

Latin Articles

1600’s

Tytz, Johann & Johannes Altenstaig – ‘Suffragium’ in Theological Lexicon (Koln, 1619; NY: Verlag, 1974), pp. 882-85

This lexicon is Romanist and mainly surveys the Roman teachings regarding voting persons out of purgatory, etc.

Alsted, Johann Heinrich – ‘Of Votes’ in A Lexicon of Theology… (Prostat, 1612), ch. 15, Church, pp. 380-84

Alsted (d. 1638) was a German, reformed theologian.

Voet, Gisbert – Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Jansson, 1669), vol. 3, pt. 2, bk. 3, ‘Of the Calling of Ministers’, Tract 1

4. ‘Of Elections by Voting, or the Execution by Fortune’ 552-60

5. ‘Of a Five-fold Approbation: 1. by the People, 2. by the Neighboring Ministers, or Classis [Presbytery], 3. by the Magistrate, 4. by the Minister or the Ordinand, 5. by the Church from Where he is Called’ 560-73

Tabor, Joann – On the Works & Remuneration of Voters… (Strasbourg, Reppius, 1690) See especially pt. 1, ‘On Voting’.

This is a work of law by a doctor in law.

On Political Theology