Why I, As A Christian, Am Not Voting For A Presidential Candidate

I’m not voting  for the next President of the United States. There I said it.

I can hear the cries of now- “That’s just Un-American” “It’s our duty as Christians to vote.”

The fact is that I just don’t believe those sentiments to be true. They might be true for someone who chooses not to vote out of laziness or apathy. But after this campaign season, with the choices that are laid before me, I’ve come to the realization, that the strongest vote I can cast is the vote for neither candidate.

We used to have this idea that candidates had to earn our vote. That idea has long been exchanged for “I may not like X, but he’s better than Y,” and in the past, almost every time, I’ve voted with that mindset.

Please understand that it’s  not some misguided youthful idealism that stops me from voting. I’m not waiting for the perfect candidate. I’ll give some things up in order to have the greatest good. It’s just that I can no longer see where that great good is.

Right now one group of people is saying, but Shane, what about life issues? How can you not vote for protecting life?! I’ll get to the specifics on that in a second, but let me plainly respond by asking: Remember when we had a Republican President and abortion stopped for 8 years? Me neither.

On the other side you might be saying, but Shane, aren’t you tired of war and fear mongering, how can you not vote to end violence? I’ll get to that too, but let me ask: Remember when a Democrat was elected 4 years ago and our soldiers were brought home? Me neither.

So first, let me come out of the Life closet. I’m strongly pro-life, but not in the way it’s been politicized.  I’m pro-life in the most literal sense (or at least I’m striving to be). I’m with Brennan Manning who said “abortion and nuclear weapons are two sides of the same hot coin minted in hell.”

Even when speaking specifically of abortion, no candidate stands up for the unborn, either in prohibition, OR the social conditions (i.e. health care for starters) that make a person feel that it is a necessary option.

But life issues are bigger than that (not smaller, but bigger). We believe in a Jesus who deeply and passionately loves and gives value to the life of the soldier, the Iraqi and Afghan citizen, the poor, and the oppressed all over the world.

If one group believes life begins only on this side of the birthing canal, the other group believes that it ends there. 

Please understand that my decision to not vote for a Presidential candidate is not one that I’m calling on anyone else to make. There are some valid reasons to vote for each candidate, but what I reject completely is this idea that one party/candidate is the defender of what is good and righteous, and that he is the obvious choice for the serious Christian. If there is any obvious vote for the Christian, it might be to vote reluctantly.

This may seem like a pessimistic viewpoint, but I assure you that it is not! It reminds me “not [to] put [my] trust in princes, in human beings who cannot save (Psalm 146:3),”  that “unless the Lord watches over the city,the guards stand watch in vain (Psalm 127:1),” and our hope is in Christ alone, and this hope does not disappoint! And that is brighter than any candidate!



I don’t post this easily and I’m aware of it’s potential to offend and anger. I stand by what I say, but let me just ask for gentleness and civility. I’d really like to know where you are on this. Where has your journey taken you in regards to politics this season?

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

45 thoughts on “Why I, As A Christian, Am Not Voting For A Presidential Candidate

  1. I’m not an American, but I am watching your election closely as it does affect me as a Canadian. And I agree with your assessment. It is tough because I believe in the value of a vote but I also think that politics in general is just that : politics. Very little policy. Very little change. Very little integrity. I pray for the US and for Canada, that God would raise up bold, righteous leaders. (and by the way, I appreciate your honesty because clearly, some people will be negatively opposed in a mean kind of way and it takes a certain level of guts to say what many need to hear).

  2. This has been a thought that’s come up in my mind several times within the last few weeks. I know I probably should think and research deeper into candidates other than “How do they help the least of these?” but it always seems to come back to that for me. Also, I’m pretty sure I’ve never realized until this election that there are plenty of other things/people that your vote can support other than the presidential candidates. Regardless of which box I check for president (if a box is checked), I have to remind myself to turn the page. What about local measures? Congress? District Attourney? If I want to help the ‘least of these’ in my own community, maybe that’s where my vote should be.

    • @rachaellamy Great point! While I’m not voting for a Presidential candidate, I will be voting for everything else. Not only the elections but bonds to be passed/rejected that will make a difference to the least of these in my town.

    • @rachaellamy Great point! While I’m not voting for a Presidential candidate, I will be voting for everything else. Not only the elections but bonds to be passed/rejected that will make a difference to the least of these in my town.

  3. I recieved this facebook comment and asked the author to copy and paste it into the comment section. She responded and asked me to do it instead so here it is:
    Mary: Shane, am I missing something? Would we then need to write a blog on “Why I as a Christian am not joining a church?” Or “Why I as a Christian am not getting married?” Or my favorite might be, “Why I as a Christian am not having kids” So many areas of our lives fall to the place where we can no longer find the greater good. But that makes it so much about me. The result or outcome is all about me, all for me. But restoration comes when we say a kingdom yes to something that seems low, impossible, gross. Then I actually work to bring kingdom good (or join God as He is already at work doing that) so, for me, no process falls below the line. For me to walk away denies the possibility that God can use Obama or he can use Romney. I’m voting. And yes, I’m voting that God can use either candidate for kingdom purposes.

    • Mary, thanks for the insightful comment.
      Are you saying there is a Biblical imperative to vote on par with being a part of a local body of believers? Biblically, I think we’re called to engaged with the world around us, and it’s certainly permissible,  but to translate that to a command to vote is something I don’t see. 
      As for it being about “me”, I don’t know how abstaining from voting is inherently more about me than choosing to vote. I can vote or not vote out of the wrong motives.
      Am I to believe that you’re saying that God cannot work through my non-vote? As an evangelical the Democrat party has ignored our vote, while the Republican party has taken it for granted. I won’t be an obligatory vote for anyone. If a candidate wants my vote he’ll have to support Jesus values. 
      I’m in no saying that God can’t use Obama or Romney. Of course he can! But God either works in spite of us, or we have to allow him to use us. God doesn’t often pry our hands open and force us to be used in service to him, it’s most often a gentle invitation to join him in his work. I just do not see one candidate over another opening their hands and allow God to use them.

  4. I definitely think to vote or not vote is a matter of liberty. I don’t think a strong biblical case can be made either direction. There are good reasons to vote, and I also understand reasons to note vote—especially regarding this particular election where few things seem abundantly clear. My hope is that the church would deeply consider what action they are to take, which I believe you have done here.  I watched the first two debates and essentially boiled them down to, ” Oh yes you did!” “Oh no I didn’t!”
    A couple of thoughts that I’ve been thinking through and someone else may have mentioned these: 1) making any decision based on “pick your poison” is not a Christian ethic. You touched on that here: “That idea has long been exchanged for “I may not like X, but he’s better than Y,” and in the past, almost every time, I’ve voted with that mindset.”. 2) On the other hand, if we are waiting on a perfect candidate, then we wait in vain.
    Here is the last thing I will mention and it’s on a more practical level: Republican and Democrat are not your only two options. I hope in the future they will open up the debates to include others who have been campaigning— like Ron Paul, or for those who like to party… Gary Johnson. Some might say, “well whats the point? he’s not going to win.” Also, great point @rachaellamy on voting at other levels besides presidential.
    Thanks for this Shane. I enjoyed thinking through it.

    • @danielattaway  Good word Daniel! Someone on twitter asked me about 3rd party candidates. I think we should voting for any candidate that shares Jesus values, no matter what party OR viability as a winning candidate. As of right now there are not any 3rd party candidates I can support. In the primary I had my eye on a particular candidate that I thought most closely resembled “Jesus values.” Of course the republican base (ironically made up of many Evangelicals), didn’t let him get past the primaries. I hoped that he would run as a 3rd party candidate, and if he had, I would have been excited to vote for him.

  5. Thanks for this post Shane. Very well written.  Very thought provoking. Very gentle.  Honestly, I don’t know what I am going to do.  I haven’t thought about it all enough.  I have been questioning a lot of things but haven’t really prayed or sought out answers in the scriptures yet.  Better get on that though because time is running out to make a decision.  Many times the way that was paved for me by my family is the way I choose to go myself but I never want to just follow blindly, and this(politics, government,etc) is an area I feel Tristan and I have a lot of learning, growing, and deciphering to do.

    • @mylife4hisglory I don’t know how anyone can argue with a vote that is prayed through. I suspect that many believers skip that step and go straight to “Obviously, this is the person I should support.”

  6. Although I don’t like the relativistic nature of this ethical system, I believe there are times in which we are forced to make a choice between the “lesser of two evils.”  Unfortunatley, this ethical paradigm seems to be the foundation for our political system.  Every government action, every court decision, every trickle down effect on society is the result of some political reality.
    And, whether we choose to vote or not, we are all still complicit in the outcome — our vote or non-vote will help a candidate one way or the other.  
    Within certain theological belief systems, there is an understanding not only of individual sin but also of corporate sin — the sin that results from our group’s (in this case our country’s) erroneous and harmful actions.  They would say that we all have a responsibility and role in our group’s sinful actions, whether directly participating in or approving of that particular “sin,” or by indirectly contributing through our passivity and hesitation. 
    Thus, to me, non-participation seems akin to this passive role — we’re still responsible for the “bad” candidate and their “bad” policies, just in a different, more indirect way.  I’m not sure that is really a better solution.I think I would rather see people stand against the two candidates by writing-in someone who they believe best represents the ideal candidate, whatever that might look like, than to refuse participation.  At least, in this case, someone has to log our vote as we act on our displeasure.   So, I will participate, doing my best to help bring light into whatever political issue I am able, choosing the candidate who represents, to me, the lesser of two evils.  I will attempt to “better” the political platform of the party I vote for by participating in primaries and primary debates, something too many of us fail to recognize as vitally important — platform building time.  I will diligently and selflessly work in my community to help solve local problems.  And, perhaps most importantly, I will place my entire hope and trust for community transormation in the Lord, recognizing my “direct” role in expanding the Kingdom of God wherever I go, with whomever I meet. 
    And, lastly, I will refuse to denigrate my identity in Christ or to defame His character, by demonizing others or failiing to act, even politically, without His love and gentleness on display.

    • @jerrodfish I suppose the basic place we differ, is that I don’t see my non-vote as failing to act. Part of my non-vote is to say to the parties -I’m willing and able to vote, but it’s not automatic and you won’t win it by only paying lip service to the things I care about.
      I completely agree with you about being complicit in sin. I suppose what I’m saying is that either way I’ll be (and am) complicit in sin, and I don’t see any less sin on either side. 
      You couldn’t be more right about being involved in the process of candidate and policy selection. I think that makes it all the more frustrating when the candidates are all but officially chosen by the time we here in Texas get to have a say in the matter.

      • I understand where you’re coming from…I think we’re almost hair-splitting now.  From a purely practical standpoint, the issue with non-voting is that there isn’t anything tangible to distinguish your stance from those who are so lazy, uninformed, or apathetic that they would rather just sit at home and eat potato chips than care anything about our nation.  By writing-in a candidate that you think better represents the interests of the country, like maybe a primary candidate that you really wanted but who didn’t get the nomination, you would help distinguish and publicize your “action.” 
        Then, instead of allowing media and political pundits to “interpret” the ambiguous level of voter turnout, they could see the increased number of people who were motivated enough and cared enough to take the time out of their busy schedules, registered to vote, traveled to the polling location, picked up their “pencils,” and were so dissatisfied with the candidates on the ballots before them that they wrote in their own.  To me, this would send a clearer message, but, to be very honest and realistic, neither approach will probably matter — and like you said, that is frustrating! The real question is to figure out what can be done about it, if anything.

    • @jerrodfish 
      “And, whether we choose to vote or not, we are all still complicit in the outcome — our vote or non-vote will help a candidate one way or the other.”
      Here is how this plays out philosophically: if partial, unintentional causality through principled inaction results in moral culpability than all people are morally culpable in all action performed anywhere and at all times.  Everything is related causally, even if only in minute, often infinitesimal ways.  You get the last chocolate chip muffin from Starbucks.  Two hours later someone comes in who was living for that muffin.  Frustrated and hungry, he takes it out on his employee.  The employee has been struggling with ongoing depression for years and finally, after being belittled one time to many, she begins to drown her sorrows in liquor.  Twenty years too soon, she dies of liver disease.  Your logic makes you responsible for prolonging or foreshortening that woman’s life.  If you choose not to buy the muffin, does she owe you a debt of gratitude?
      Principled opposition to voting lacks both action and intention relative to the political outcome of the election.  In the absence of both, you will have a difficult time making a logically consistent, ethically compelling case for moral culpability in the outcome of the election, even if you can draw scientific lines of causality.

      • @The Itinerant Mind
        That is not true, which is often the case when the presuppositional approach is used.  This is not, as you presumed, “unintentional causality” — it is intentional.  When you know that the voting system selects a candidate based upon the “will” of the people, determined by their “vote,” and your choose not to vote, you are actively choosing to allow others to select for you, accepting what they feel is in the best interests of the country.  Shirking one’s civic responsibiliity to select the “best” candidate, for whatever reason, does not insulate one from culpability — the German church’s response, or lack thereof, to the political rise of Hitler and the Nazi party should tell us as much.  The better fitting analogy…
        You go into a bakery and see that there is only one chocolate chip muffin.  Two people desperately want that muffin and are standing there arguing, proclaiming why they should be the one to get it.  Some reasons are good; some are bad; some will help others; some will not.  There are hungry people outside the shop, peering in from outside, living for that muffin — waiting to see if their friend, who has promised to share, will get it.  The shop owner doesn’t want a full-fledged fight breaking out, so he institutes a civil way to determine who gets the muffin — all of the customers in the shop get to choose, majority wins.  You have just been given responsbility, whether you like it or not, and your decision will not only choose the winner but also who, of those waiting, hungry outside, gets fed.  Right away, 45% of the customers walk out the door; they just don’t care enough to participate.  You don’t really like either person.  After all, they’re acting like children!  A preliminary hand count shows the two people wanting that muffin have just about the same number of votes — you and one other customer seem to be the tie breaker.  But, you just can’t decide — you don’t like either candidate.  You think to yourself, “can’t those hungry folks outside find someone else to represent them!?!”  And, you move toward the door, just like the other 45% have done — you’re reason is different, but to those peering in through the window, your action appears the same.  You can’t help it anymore, and you proclaim loudly, “I don’t like either one of you,” as you point your long finger toward the two folks arguing over the muffin.  And then, you turn to the “other” customer, the last remaining one in the store, and say, “They’re you’re problem now; you deal with it,” as you walk out the door, all of the hungry folks outside looking on, watching as you walk down the street wearing your “Jesus loves you” t-shirt, eating a bagel and sipping on a coffee.  Moral culpability — yes.

        • When Jesus spoke of feeding the poor, he was not talking to the government.  He was talking to his followers.

        • @DonFawcett
          Don, I was given the analogy and tried to find an issue that best reflected a person who could legitimately be “living for that muffin,” a somewhat ambiguous concept presented in the example.  Yet, the reality is that there are people whose direct welfare will be affected directly by the President and administration chosen — you can pick any group you see fit and the point still seems valid (unborn babies, those on death row, those in war zones across the world, those suffering from mental disease, those unable to get a job, those who can’t marry who they want, those needing medical insurance, those serving in our military, etc.). <br/><br/>
          And, although I agree with you in theory, the reality is that the church is so incredibly weak that it will NEVER be able to comprehensively address issues as big as nationwide hunger.  We, as a church, do not have the unity, the resources, the commitment, or the determination to even make a dent in the current problem. It hurts to admit, but the Church has failed to meet many of its Biblical obligations — I think the best we can hope for now is a partnership with government social programs that hopefully helps people grow to the point where they can get out of the welfare system.  (We do a church under the bridge outreach here and can barely get enough church support to provide one hot breakfast each Saturday morning to the 120 people homeless and impoverished folks that live around there.)<br/><br/>
          Maybe I’m just jaded, but I’ve worked in and attended many ministries — there isn’t one that I think has had the heart, resources, and commitment to challenge hunger even in their own communities.  I wrote a note in Facebook about one such frustrating experience that I encountered recently, take a look if you like —

        • I agree with you in large part concerning church weakness, which is of course a spiritual problem.  I also think that a case can be made that the growth of the welfare state in this nation from the 1960’s to the present has done more to INCREASE dependancy and is arguably one of the cruelest policies developed under the guise of helping humanity.  The growth of welfare and food stamps is not an indicator, to me, that we have advanced as a society, but regressed.  I have tried to help, over the past 30 years, countless families in Texas move beyond long-term dependance.  Almost all of them have been impacted by multi-generation welfare dependance compounded by drug addiction and some form of substance abuse (this is true in the vast majority of cases which I have seen). 
          I cannot speak of the kingdom of God coming on this earth and do it apart from work, which is part of being created in God’s image.  If that is the case in Genesis, and I believe a strong case can be made, then welfare is fundamentally demeaning and runs counter to actuallizing the image of God in humans, except in the most serious situations where people are no longer able to do so. 
          Government has responsibility to develop economic policies that foster growth and employment opportunities.  I place significant amount of responsibility for the current economic problems in this nation squarely upon the US government and its hairbrain policies, and a lot of folks in Washington empower themselves by posing as saviors of the masses via long-term dependance. 
          It is heartbreaking to me.

    • @DonFawcett A few days before Shane posted this he,Kate, Tristan and I talked about not voting….a little bit…I am always afraid to talk to much about these things.  Anyway, I have been considering not voting as well but I am not sure how to communicate that choice to family when the subject of voting comes up(it always does,my Grandad use to be a state rep)……if you decide not to vote…want to write a dissertation on your reasoning I can share with my family who will be VERY worried about me if I tell them I am not voting???Just Kidding…..well..maybe not! ha!  I am just not good at communicating such things some times! But, I agree with Shane…it means a lot to me to hear you say that too!

  7. I too found myself in the same boat this season, and the more I pray about it, the more I find peace in what I learned @ Seminary about the book of Kings and how God never desired for a man to rule over His people, but rather God desires to rule us. I also had the priviledge of reading “City of God” by Augustine @ Seminary and learned from a great theologian about the perspective of such a thing, a city of God, and how EVEN Rome was never the city of God, but rather the Christians within Rome, but also Egypt, Ephesus, and even America as we as Christians belong to the GREAT City of God, Heaven. I agree we must fight for life, fight to end war, fight for the hungry, but I don’t believe that I have to vote for a non-Christian because he is the lesser of two evils. I’m not an Amillenialist, meaning that Christ’s reign is actually currently happening and all of the world will come under the conviction of Christ and the majority of world will be believers eventually, but rather becuase of passages in 1 Peter 1:1-5 we live in a world that is ever perishing, defiling itself, and fading away…. so until then, I will put my hope in an eternal city/nation and keep proclaiming boldly the claims that I find in Scripture to entice the world to turn from their ways and turn towards a real hope, not a president or a nation, but rather a Savior! Thanks for the blog. I believe that I will vote for local issues and other positions, but not presidency.

    • @Josh Ahmed Mensinger
      Ultimately Josh, the reality is that if we’re not voting, we’re NOT fighting the political fight for life, peace, or food for the hungry.  Our non-action is tacit approval of whichever candidate wins.  And, to me, choosing only to vote locally doesn’t really seem to work either.  Everything that we try to address at the local level is a result of something that has already been decided or will be decided at the federal level, trickling down to local governments and communities through taxes/grant funding, legislative policy, or binding legal decisions.  As a guy, I’m kind of afraid to mention that I’ve seen this movie, but the point seems valid.  It’s kind of like that scene in the movie “The Devil Wears Prada” when the evil fashion designer points out to her assistant that the blue sweater she chose out of a randon bargain bin and wears as an act of personal rebellion against the “self-righteous” and judgmental attitudes of the fashion industry, was, in fact, a fasion designer’s creation, part of a past fashion movement, which ran its course, and over time trickled down through the fashion and clothing markets, now only to be found in random bargain bins.  Though well-intentioned, her stance didn’t send the message or create the impact she really wanted.
      Direct involvement is important, and I think we must participate, even if the candidates are not ideal.  The key is staying active after the elections, continuing to pressure our leaders in office about issues that are important, platform pillars that we feel are flawed.  We need to choose the candidates or party we think will be most open to hear from us and respond accordingly (of course, it’s going to take A LOT of our friends to get their attention!).  If we tend to agree more with one party’s platform over the other one, then we need to get as involved as we can in that party and try to change the platform from the inside.  And, if they are both about the same level of flawed, then we just need to choose one and get to work on change.  To me, more action seems to be the answer, not less.

  8. I hear ya Jerrod, in fact would agree 100% from a non-Christian perspective and think you are right on when it comes to politics and how things change. I can’t however conform to the governmental standard of how leaders are chosen just based upon what our country desides as policy. While it might be our civil duty to vote, the problem I face is to many Christians claim that it is our “Christian” duty to vote. There is no where in Scripture that states we have to vote for the lesser of two evils, in fact I would say there are way to many other verses that push a dependancy upon God as being Sovereign in leaders appoitment based upon the condition of the people and what type of person He wants the people to be ruled by. From a Biblical perspective, I would rather hold that God doesn’t expect us to vote fore either of these guys in hope that we can gradually bring the change back towards Christian standards, but rather God would call His people to repent, like the people of Nineva in the book of Jonah, in hopes that HE would bring about mercy and relent from His anger He has towards this nation so that we might not perish. Jonah didn’t go in preaching “so many days till election you better pick a new guy”, he went preaching “40 days and Nineva will be destroyed becuase of the evil that has come up against God” Ninevites weren’t Israel, but yet the Scripture says the WHOLE nation repented and turned from their evil ways and fasted, wore sackcloth, “and called out mightly to God”. Until the people of this nation do such things, I believe we will have no change, no matter whether its republican ticket or democratic ticket. If every “christian” family across this nation pulled all their kids out of school tommorrow across this nation and homeschooled or private christian schooled their kids, I bet in 1 week prayer and bible would be instituted back into the schools. If every “christian” family across this nation would come together in the coming weeks and stand together against both parties and all governemental systems/parties and figure out way to institute Bible then things would change…. but like Jonah in the beginning when God called him to Arise and to go preach to the EVIL nation of Nineva, he was disobiedant and ran, and he was lacking in the faith that GOD, not man, but GOD could change a whole nation! can you tell I’m a preacher?

  9. I am going to use strong language here that is probably an overstatement so sequester the children.  I think a great deal of what I have heard from evangelicals during this election cycle is borderline idolatrous in that it deifies the state and the political system to a place reserved for God alone in Christ Jesus.  I am NOT saying that government is not important because it is. The more I travel in the world the more I see the important role of government (clean drinking water, infrastructure development, education). When governments fail to do these basic things they fail their people in epic fashion.  The result is suffering for the very people they are called to serve.
    Yet, on the other hand, as I wrote the other day, the spirit of a people, the basic moral and spiritual wellbeing of a people, the sense of community, the family unit and integrity of it- all of these have almost nothing to do with government and cannot be produced by government.  Americans and Christians, it seems to me, stand in a very dangerous position when they expect government to provide for them the things which no governmnet in history has provided or can provide for that matter. They also stand on a very slippery slope when they make an alliance with certain political parties so as to usher in, through government policies, the kingdom of God (the rule and reign of God) on the earth. That will never be done by government or Jesus would have employed government to do so, and in some sense that was part and parcell to the nature of the temptation by Satan in the wilderness (“bow down to me, and I will give you the kingdoms of the world”).  He was also being tempted to become a bread Messiah by providing food from rocks. 
    But the kingdom didn’t come through those means and none of them led to the cross, the true means and expression of the kingdom.  It is the gospel that is the power of God into salvation according to Paul.  I believe the New Testament writers would pronounce an anathema on what is happening in the church today with its politicalization of the gospel, which has almost always resulted in civil religion.  Following the path we are headed down will compromise both the church and the state.  
    That is why I probably won’t vote.  It is not so much a rejection of both candidates, but of the entire system itself and the direction it is going.  The church will regret the day it climbed into bed with the state, because she will wake up and look across the bed and see she has spent the night with a prostitute that has no love for her whatsoever. 
    Bought and paid for.
    Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we (God’s people) trust in the name of the Lord our God.”
    Psalm 20:7
    Don Fawcett

    • At this time in my life I resonate more with the anabaptist position, and if I am a Baptist I am more akin to a Baptist of the anabaptist position (not in all areas but in regard to the state I find myself more sympathetic to their overal and general stance).  Governor Wallace said late in his career- “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between a democrat and a republican.”  In so many ways he was correct.

      • @DonFawcett When are you going to start blogging. You kind of do it already with facebook as your platform. Ever thought about having a dedicated blog?

      • @DonFawcett When are you going to start blogging? You kind of do it already with facebook as your platform. Ever thought about having a dedicated blog?

        • I have thought about it.  1) I know I am abusing the spirit of facebook by blogging on it. This has been pointed out to me and the folks that did so are correct.  2) I am not good at one sentence answers and my reponse to questions are not meant to be blogs but I hope based on my actual thoughts about subjects and subsequent responses, which are impossible for me, at least, to put into soundbites.  3) I don’t think I can blog because I don’t really have time to respond.  I am on facebook early in the morning or in the evening for a few minutes.  (And now because I took today off).  I guess the committment part of it kind of scares me.  Perhaps you could help me.

        • @DonFawcett The only problem I have with you using facebook is that only your friends can read it. I don’t think you’d be obligated to blog a certain amount, just at your leisure like you do on facebook. I also don’t think you have to respond to all comments, or any if you don’t want. I probably over-respond on this blog actually. You can set up a wordpress.com blog in a few minutes, but for a more serious looking blog you should do a self-hosted. Here’s a great tutorial on how to do it quick and easy – http://michaelhyatt.com/ez-wordpress-setup.html

  10. America thanks you for staying out of it. There are enough dumb people voting about controlling women’s vagina’s. One less is just what I prayed for.

  11. This is completely how I feel about it. Thank you so much for posting this. You said it in words that I could not. I am voting third-party however. But I’m not amused with most of my choices. I’ve also been ridiculed and told that I was going to have to “stand before God and tell him why I voted for Obama”, even though I’m not. I don’t like this election one bit. I’ve even considered turning my Facebook off for a few months in hopes that things might die down.

  12. This is one of the more respectful and sensible defenses of this choice that I’ve heard.
    I wonder, though, if declining to vote in part because abortion wasn’t ended under a Republican and the war wasn’t ended under a Democrat is kind of like declining to care about who’s your next pastor because sin wasn’t eliminated under the last one.

    • @Jonathan Bell Thanks for the compliment and for disagreeing in love.
      You’re argument is a fair one. I would say a more apt metaphor for my position would be a prospective pastor declaring not just that he has sin, but that he is proud of it, and has no intention to change it, and my response would be not to not care (double negative?), but to say that I’m not going to support bringing that pastor to my church.

  13. Why don’t we wait for the antichirst to rise? Let’s vote for him, after all, he will do away with hunger, and war.  There will come the time where you wont’ be asked who you want governing over this earth, but you will be forced to obey.  I think we know from long ago, that we can not depend on government, but on God’s wise ruling over our lives. He is the one who puts the people to rule over us, and we are to pray for them and not question his infinite wisdom.  By not voting we are saying, I don’t trust God enough with my life, I don’ trust that he knows what is going on in the government.

    • @Tinopajon Every comic book superhero has a nemesis he cannot defeat you know why? Their usefulness would end. In Gods case it’s the devil. Sure God is all powerful but he won’t kill Satan. Thanks for reminding me why.

  14. I enjoyed the post, Shane, though I’m a bit late. I too had quite a wrestle during election season. I’ve consistently come out near the Anabaptist conclusions, like Mr. Fawcett. What is hard for me about where I am, is trying to maintain hope for government while being plain about my lack of hope in government. Kind of dualistic, which I’m not at all fond of. So I still have hang ups…oh joy. Thanks for sharing publicly your efforts to make a faithful choice.

  15. Much as I fight against it, I get really angry when someone does not vote.  When people do not vote we are in greater and greater danger of losing the privilege of voting.  I cannot help but think of all those who have gone before us who for one reason or another were prevented from or legally denied the privilege of voting.  Blood has been shed and lives have been lost in order that I may vote today.    I cannot help but think of all those who are being denied the right to vote in the U.S. presently because of laws recently passed which prevent that.  I cannot help but think of those who did not vote and found later that a person had been elected who did not have the best interests of the people at heart.  I pray that your mind will be changed before it is too late.

  16. I applaud your honesty with this post, and do tend to agree with you, as I struggled with the same idea in this election to not vote. I think you are speaking truth, and to an extent conveying what many of us believers are feeling.  Bottom line for me was that both candidates were a lesser of 2 evils.  At any rate, your post, reminds us that we need to look to Christ from whence comes our help, it is not from any government entity.  I wrote a post on my Facebook page on election day similar to what you stated by asking the question “who are we looking for?” We need to be careful of where we place our trust and allegiance as believers of Jesus Christ. Our trust, allegiance and our very peace solely lies with JESUS THE CHRIST because we know He is the “I Am”.  Anyhoo, I love your site! Just came across it today, very encouraging!

Comments are closed.