the lesser of two evils

The female character above portrayed, is the "White Witch" in the famous movie, "The Chronicles of Narnia".  Everyone knows, of course, that a white witch is always to be preferred over a black witch; that is, if you happen to be one who may be subject to the evil designs and powers of one or the other of those witches.  The side-by-side comparison of black-witch versus white-witch, is a classic case illustrating that well known euphemism, "the lesser of two evils".  But even the "lesser"--of two evils--is still evil.  In the case of the "White Witch of Narnia", that character is oftentimes listed amongst the most evil movie villains of all time.

It's that time again, in America, when a handful of honest, civic-minded individuals, who are willing to sacrifice all personal ambition in order to serve their fellow citizens and the higher good of the Commonwealth, step forward and offer themselves to be scrupulously examined and then judged, by the American people, for their fitness to become the next President of the United States.

Who am I kidding?  It's not "honest, civic-minded, self-sacrificing" individuals who appear every four years, with umpteen-million dollars, clamoring and fighting for what is hands-down the most powerful political Office in the world, the Presidency of the United States.  Does anyone, really, suppose that the cartel of international bankers, for example, is willing to leave the outcome of that Election, to mere chance--that is to say, to the will of the American public?  Or, how about the principal stakeholders of trans-national mega-corporations: might they have a vital (money) interest in the outcome of that Election?  Or, what about (the leaders of) foreign governments?  Has it never occurred to any of them that "investing" a few million to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. Election, would cost much less than their annual defense expenditures, while it could potentially return far better results?

Or, perhaps, someone like George Soros, or Bill Gates, or some other, lesser-known kazillionaire, might just have a personal interest in who may be given an opportunity to run for President of the United States.  Who seriously believes, for instance, that the man who currently holds that Office got there by virtue of his own abilities, or experience--much less by his own wealth?  Someone--very, very rich and powerful, no doubt, "bought" the White House.  And that has happened not once, nor twice, nor even thrice . . . .

Everyone knows (don't they, really?) that politics in America is shot-through with corruption.  It didn't come to be that way, lately, either.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then you have your "Republicans vs Democrats" argument.  Or, at least, you used to, decades ago.  Not too many folks still believe there is any meaningful difference between those two camps of infidels.  "But Democrats support abortion and homosexuality, and Republicans don't!"  Oh, really?  During the Bush Administration, Republicans controlled every branch of the federal government--but the abortion mills kept right on killing babies, and the homosexual agenda expanded by leaps and bounds.  Far too many other antichrist policies and practices were implemented during that Administration, to mention them all.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
"Oh, but (so-and-so) is a Christian!  He will make a good President!"  Uh, who are you talking about?  That's what they said about Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, and--believe it or not, Barak Obama.  Every one of those (evil) men claimed--and still do, to this day--to be a "Christian".  And Americans bought it.  Given the apostate condition of America's churches and churchgoers, it's an easy sell.

You tell me: Who ever heard of a genuine, Bible-believing, Holy Ghost-filled Christian that was able to garner enough POPULAR SUPPORT--in the midst of a godless culture! to rise steadily through the ranks, year after year, until that he or she had convinced enough rich and powerful people to gamble tens of millions of dollars, hoping that such a "Christian" might actually win enough votes--across America--to win the Oval Office?  Every REAL Christian I have ever known, has been hated even by most professing Christians--and much more by unbelievers.  No one gets to run for President of the U.S., who has faithfully put Christ above all, all along the way.  All of their words delivered for public consumption notwithstanding.  Why, even the Devil talks like a baptized Christian--when it is to his advantage.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"O.K., O.K..  At least, they were the lesser of two evils."  I can't argue with that.  But who knows for sure?  I mean, ever since Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), every single President (with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan) has done unspeakable harm to American society, not to mention to America's foreign interests.  It must have been the case--throughout the past 60 years or so, that multitudes of professing Christians voted for "the lesser of two evils".  And look what they got.  How did America get from where we were in 1960, to where we are today?  Apostasy in the churches?  Yes, to be sure.  But that Apostasy has had real consequences for American society--especially, for American government.  Accordingly as Christianity in America has declined, so has the moral character of government in America declined.  There is a direct and inexorable relationship between those two--preeminently significant--social institutions.

How, then, did voting for a succession of "the lesser of two evils" nevertheless result in a rapidly increasing rate of moral and cultural decline?  The principle, as such, evidently provides no remedy.  All that can be said in its favor, is that--in theory, it entails a tactic which potentially could result in a slower rate of moral and cultural decay.  However, it doesn't appear to have worked out that way, in fact.

Nor could it.  For, the above-mentioned "theory" involving the so-called "principle" of voting for "the lesser of two evils," completely ignores the fact that God rules over the kingdom of men (Daniel 5:21).

There is no way that men can mitigate the righteous judgment of God against them, by choosing to themselves "the lesser of two evils".

The very idea, that they might do so, is an affront to God!  Only in their own sinful minds do men suppose they can outwit God.  Yet, what saith Scripture?  "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong" (Job 5:13).

How is it, then, that professing Christians are willing to engage in such conduct; hoping--what? to withstand the will of wicked men? or, to withstand the righteous judgment of God?  Which is it?  No Christian would think to withstand God.  Then, is casting a vote, to empower one of their own to rule over us, any way to withstand the will of wicked men?  What are those same Christians doing at all other times, "to withstand" against evil in society and in culture?

• Do they boldly witness of Christ, and warn the ungodly?
• Then, why do I almost NEVER have anyone witness of Christ to me?  And why am I almost NEVER aware of anyone warning the ungodly?
• Are they valiant for the truth, in the Church as well as in the world?
• Then, why are the churches apostate? and why is there practically no VOICE of truth in the public arena?
• Do they boycott businesses and products which promote evil?
• Then, why do most Christians' lifestyles appear so little different from the world?
• Do they contend--in any substantial way--against pornography, abortion, sexual immortality, antichrist schools, substance abuse, child abuse, and a plethora of other social plagues?
• Then, how are those same sins so prevalent amongst the churches?

No, voting for "the lesser of two evils" is not, in most cases, a sincere effort to resist evil.  It rather appears, to me, to resemble those who want to "have their cake (their pleasure-seeking), and eat it, too (escape judgment)".

Consider the meaning of the following passage from Psalm 125:1-3:

"They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever.  As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever.  For the rod [sceptre] of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity."

What does it mean, to "put forth their hands unto iniquity"?  Is it not iniquitous to cast one's vote in favor of "the lesser of two evils"?  On this hand is Antichrist; and, on the other hand is the False Prophet.  Which will you choose?  Most will actually vote for the False Prophet--(who is supposed to be "the lesser of two evils").  Yet--according to Scripture, the False Prophet is the very one who will create and implement and enforce . . . the mark of the beast.

Whereas, the godly have refused all of that mess.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Perhaps, my arguments thus far haven't changed many minds.  Much of what I've written, admittedly, has relied upon my own reason and experience.  So, maybe you'll bear with me a little, while we consider the life and teachings of Jesus.

In Jesus's time, the whole land of Israel was under Roman rule.  Yet, Rome allowed a limited, Jewish administration to govern most local affairs; which consisted, in part, of the Jewish religious leaders.  Both the Jewish leadership as well as Rome's political agents, however, were complicit in the corruption of government.  We see just how corrupt was that government, in fact, in multiple instances recorded in Scripture, involving every imaginable kind of evil-doings.

Yet, we never once read where Jesus made any political speeches aimed at subverting the government.  Neither is there any suggestion that Jesus aspired to political office.  In fact, just the opposite was true.  When the Jews attempted to take Jesus by force and make him their king, he adamantly refused.  The only crown which Jesus (symbolically) was willing to wear, is the one (pictured below) which--as a matter of fact, he is actually wearing one very much like it right now in heaven:

That is the High Priest's "crown".  The Hebrew inscription along the front reads: "HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD".  That inscription is infinitely more significant than merely a reverential acknowledgement of Christ's nature.  But his nature, which is "HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD", is the very basis of his Authority over the Household of God.  Being inscribed upon the "crown", moreover, signifies (as I believe,) that "HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD" is the singular, most important ideal in Christ's own mind.  It must be so.

Then we have this injunction given by God in Scripture:

"The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God."  (2 Samuel 23:3)

That law of God has been in force ever since the days of the prophet Samuel (and before, though it was not yet codified).  The phrase, "ruleth over men," obviously means the injunction pertains to this present world.  And the qualification for every civil ruler, is, that rulers "must be just, ruling in the fear of God".  That qualification is singularly important: for, it characterizes and thus identifies as USURPERS and REBELS, all those who presume to rule over men, but who are neither "just" nor do they "rule in the fear of God".

How, then, can any Christian give his hand to vote for anyone who--in the most cautious and well considered judgment of the Christian voter, such and such a candidate--though he or she may appear to be "the lesser of two evils," nevertheless, that candidate does not satisfy the requirements of God's Law?  Shall a Christian go ahead and endorse and, thus, support an unqualified and unworthy political candidate--contrary to the express will of God?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here is yet another extremely important and relevant question: Do you attend a tax-exempt church?  Almost certainly you do; for, the practice, of incorporating churches as tax-exempt entities, is practically universal, in America.

In that case, you really have no legal or moral right whatsoever to participate in any political activity--including voting.  I do know very well what I'm talking about.

When your tax-exempt church (including your tax-exempt pastor) renounces every constraint and agreement imposed--willingly--by reason of your church's acceptance of tax-exempt status: then, and only then, may you have anything to say one way or the other, concerning any political and/or legislative activity or process.

Otherwise, you are in violation of the spirit--if not strictly of the law--of the tax-exemption statutes.

Remember?  I asked how is it that--"at all other times"--you are striving to "withstand against evil in society and in culture".  If you do not resist tax-exemption in your own church, then you are complicit in your church's lawfully binding AGREEMENT; which prohibits your church from acting--as a church--in any way either to support or to oppose any political candidate for office, and/or from acting in any way to influence the outcome of any political process involving legislation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
This essay has not been composed or set forth in a contentious spirit.  We have had enough of that.  Someone said to me, today, that "America is already at war with itself".  I think that is both profound as it is true.  But once again, I have labored considerably to carefully think about these ideas, and then to communicate the same in such a way as may be reasonably well understood by most (given the constraints of space and time, in this blog).

I do of course understand that many well-meaning Christians feel very strongly about Christians' duty (as they suppose) to vote.  Yet, may I remind all such persons, that Christians in Great Britain, for example, have not once voted for their monarch (king or queen)--at any time in the past several hundred years?

I conclude, therefore, that it is not a "Christian duty" to vote in political contests.

I do not for one moment mean to suggest, however, that Christians ought not to be involved in politics!  On the contrary: as I intimated, above, I believe that every church in America ought to throw off the shackles of tax-exemption and promptly put forward their very best (godly) members, as candidates; and then rally as a united body to get them elected!

Whensoever that may happen, count me in.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I added the following video about 2 weeks or so after first publishing this essay.   I want to preserve the following video, and to do so in the context of this blog: