In his book Imagine! A God-blessed America, Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC, dedicates a portion of chapter 8 to a discussion of the areas of disagreement that often separate people and cause dissension between them. Land indicates three areas of disagreement---
-
Primary Disagreement Areas of faith and practice where there can be no compromise.
- Secondary Disagreement Those beliefs and practices where some compromise is possible.
3. Tertiary Disagreement Stances that you hold but will not try to impress on others.
Examples of these may include, among many others---
-
The resurrection of Jesus A core doctrinal truth that cannot be compromised
- The Practice of Baptism A strongly held Biblical position not essential to salvation
3. Calvinism versus Armenianism Strongly held beliefs open to interpretation
Now, this kind of doctrinal differentiation may prove helpful as we encounter the clash of systems apparent in a highly pluralistic culture. Many theologians have devised similar assessment tools to assist us in guarding the good deposit entrusted to us and holding sound doctrinal positions in the face of competing systems. Still, there may be even a more practical and timely use of this process.
In praying for the 2008 election it occurred to me that such a system may prove useful in selecting the candidates worthy of my vote. So, I have gathered the voter guides that so many organizations have produced, and ranked the politician's stance on the issues as either primary, secondary, or tertiary positions. Although I resist being a single-issue voter, this exercise offers a tangible way to evaluate where they stand on the issues that are most important to me. I will vote for the one who scores highest in the primary position---that is, the candidate who reflects my views on issues that are unarguable to me.
OK, there is a flaw here! The word "me" is used a lot. This is not objective decision making, but is subject to my understanding, prejudices and biases included. That is why I include a disclaimer of sorts in this exercise. To whit, these decisions are based on the truth of Scripture and the character of the Lord Jesus Christ as best as I can determine them.
Voting our values means having core beliefs that are not driven by the culture, the whims of a very fickle population, or the leanings of talking heads. Furthermore, voting values moves beyond the mere clarification of what we believe---although that is crucial---to knowing how to apply that system of belief to something as significant as choosing a candidate.
OK, so what are the primary issues, those that are the most significant to me? They are:
-
The Sanctity of Human Life
- Marriage as Defined in the Bible, Male and Female
- The Family as God's Redemptive Institution
- Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States as written by the framers
- Appointment of Supreme Court Justices who are pro-life
There are many campaign issues. These, however, will decide this man's personal vote. These will be the five predominate themes that have informed my choice of candidates in the 2008 election.
How will you decide? Sound bites? Flip a coin? Use a Ouija Board? Jump on the bandwagon? Follow the crowd? Commercials? Endorsements? Eeenie meenie minie moe?
Please go deeper!