Why Christadelphians should not Vote

With the presidential election campaign building to a climax, many of us will face the need to explain why Christadelphians do not vote. Following is a summary of some of the Biblical reasons for our position.

1. Citizenship

One of the rights granted citizens in Canada and America is participation in the political process that determines the nation’s leadership. Some say that voting, the smallest form of such participation, is a duty rather than a privilege, but that is not, in fact, the case: there are no penalties for not voting, just as there are none for waiving the right to trial by jury. Voting is a right that is considered very precious by many, since historically few have enjoyed it. It is of such value that it is extended only to legal citizens, whereas other rights, like free speech, are granted to all residents whether citizen or alien.

Under the laws of man, we are legally citizens of some country, we have no control over that. But the Bible teaches that the Christian should consider himself to be an alien in this world and a citizen of a country that currently exists in exile from man’s point of view.

After lamenting over those whose minds are set on earthly things, the apostle Paul writes, “For our citizenship (POLITEUMA root of our word “politics”) is in heaven; from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:20 RV). With equal clarity, it is declared of the patriarchs:

“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country” (Heb. 11:13-14).

So we are told to consider our­selves citizens of another country, one whose king is presently in heaven, and we are given the precedent of people of faith who refused to regard themselves as citizens of any nation on earth.

Under the ordinances of men, aliens, very properly, have no right to vote or otherwise participate in the politics of their host country. One would expect them to act in the interests of the country of their citizenship, and these may well conflict with the interests of the nation in which they reside as aliens. Thus men acknowledge the truth of Jesus’  teaching that “no man can serve two masters.” Divided loyalty is of no use to anyone, and this is especially true of the believer.

2. Implications

Some contend that Christians have the moral obligation to participate in the political system to try to contribute to advancing the godly goals of justice, peace, caring for the unfortunate, etc. But if one does vote, one actively steps into the realm of working to influence events in this world. If this is morally right (as some claim), what are the implications?

1. When a person votes, he agrees to the principle of majority rule even if he ends up on the losing side. This leaves the Christian participant in the uncomfortable but inevitable posi­tion of either acting hypocritically, by refusing the will of the majority when it goes against him, or of com­promising his principles by accepting the people’s choice, even if evil. Ample Scripture could be cited that condemns both hypocrisy and com­promise of principle.
2. Accepting the right to vote involves an indirect (perhaps unintended) acceptance _{of all} the duties of citizenship. Christadelphians do not serve in the military. Therefore, if they voted a person into office, they would refuse to implement his policies when others resisted them or would not follow his call to arms in the face of an aggressive enemy.
   There is a glaring inconsistency in accepting one part of the system and rejecting other parts. If one votes, there is no logical ground for refusing to serve the system in other ways. Either this government is right and one should participate in it, or one should not.
3. When voting for a person, the Christian would presumably research to find candidates who also hold Christian principles. Otherwise one would be helping elect someone who openly denies Christian teaching. Now, what if neither candidate so qualifies? Voting for either would be deliberately supporting someone who publicly avows wrong moral standards or wrong doctrine. Since Christadelphians hold doctrinal positions that are shared by few, it seems unlikely that we would be able to vote for candidates who share our moral values and doctrinal teaching since no such candidate may exist.

These “philosophical” implications ought to be enough in themselves to convince a believer that there is no compatibility between faith and politics.

3. God’s Will

The foundation principle of democracy is the proposition that the people, in honest elections, choose their own leaders. But the Bible flatly refutes this notion:

“Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: and he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings” (Dan. 2:20-21).

“The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men” (Dan. 4:17).

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1).

It is thus clear scripture teaches that God alone decides who will rule, for how long, and over what. The apparent means of coming to power may be an inheritance, or a conquest, or a shrewd power play, or an election. But God’s providential hand can and does guide them all to His will.

Participating in a human effort to establish a government not only betrays a lack of trust in God’s ability to handle things, but it may put us in the position of opposing God. It is sometimes His will to put cruel and unjust men in power, which He will do regardless of our efforts. It would be awkward for the believer to find himself politically opposed to the One who can save him.

4. The Democratic System

Proponents of the democratic system of government argue that, despite its flaws, it is the best system of government yet devised.

Before arguing this premise, it should be noted that democracy is not the divine method of government. God’s method is consistently a monarchy: God refers to Himself as King

(I Sam. 8:7; Mal. 1:14); the government He chose for Israel was a monarchy (I Sam. 10:1; 16:1); the perfect age to come is called the Kingdom of God to be headed by Christ as King (Psa. 2:6). It is inconceivable that God would so endorse this type of government if a better one were available.

1. Democracy does not prevent abuse of power. It is asserted that, given the failings of human beings, investing one person with absolute power is an invitation to abuse, and a long list of bad examples could be produced.
   The other side of this coin is that no human government is free from corruption. Eventually, someone does have power, and abuse does happen in every system. Mexico, for instance, is a democracy but is notoriously corrupt. If it is argued that the greater power of an autocrat gives greater opportunity for abuse, the other side is that the greater complexity of a republic provides almost unlimited ability to conceal abuse, and the sharing of power by many only means many have the opportunity to abuse their positions.
2. The majority is not necessarily right. Why should it be thought that unrighteous people will act righteously in collective decision-making? The reality is that everyone fights for the things that they want, and the strongest faction wins. Democracy thus legitimizes selfish people imposing their self-interest on others, right or wrong.
3. The system is coming to an end: the Creator has declared that this and all other human means of government will be swept away by Christ and the saints (which hopefully will include ourselves). This can be so well known to a believer that perhaps the implication is never considered: it is the height of folly to be a part of something that the God of the universe intends to abolish very soon. Since all human political systems will so end, it behooves the the Christian to remain aloof from all political involvement.

5. Christian Duty

It is without dispute that part of being a child of God is that we love our neighbors. Like the Samaritan who helped the wounded man on the road, we should help those in need when we can; this applies to any need: physical, spiritual, emotional.

From this fact, it is sometimes argued that Christians have a duty to work through the established politi­cal structure to try to do the greatest good possible for those in need. On the surface, this appears to be a commendable posture, but there are some serious flaws.

Whatever people’s physical needs, their greatest need is spiritual. In the case of the government, this great need cannot be addressed at all. The only way the greatest need can be met is through individual effort, or through the programs of Christadel­phian congregations to preach and teach the Truth. These efforts are much smaller in scope, but they are serving the greatest need of people who live in darkness; therefore they can accomplish the greatest good.

Another serious flaw in the case of government providing for people’s needs is the fact that, unless there is a political motive for doing so, the poor or sick or homeless will not be helped. This is not cynically to imply that all politicians who advocate helping such people only say so to get votes. But in government, helping people means spending taxpayer dollars. Since the taxpayers are the voters, the matter must become a political issue, not a matter of Christian service.

The third flaw is the notion that programs, either governmental or private, are the best way to meet people’s needs. The popularity of social programs derives not from their great effectiveness, but from the release they grant from personal involvement. Everyone recognizes that programs consume much of their resources in administration. Persona effort, on the other hand, puts all of the money and work directly to benefiting people who need help. Every believer has ample opportunity personally to help people in need, especially people who have spiritual needs. Such personal effort can be carried out without political overtones, without wasting time and money on administration, offering assistance just where and when it is needed. And more im­portantly, personal effort, like that of the Samaritan’s, is a genuine act of love.

Summary

There are at least five arguments against the believer participating in democratic politics, including voting:

1. Citizens of another order have no business being involved in the government of the nation in which they live as aliens.
2. Political involvement implies commitment to the existing system of government, which leads to conflict with the principles of God.
3. It is God who determines who rules, and political involvement at any level betrays a lack of trust in His providence.
4. The democratic system does not, in fact, work as it claims to and God has consigned it and all other human systems to destruction.
5. Fulfilling the command to love those around us is far better accomplished by personal rather than political involvement.

Some of these arguments carry more weight than others, but taken together they form a sound basis to conclude that it does matter whether or not believers are politically active. Such activity both reflects and effects the believer’s spiritual state, and in the end may have a bearing on whether or not an individual is swept away with this present world or remains to experience the joys of the world to come “wherein dwelleth righteousness.”