This coming Tuesday, 7 November, is election day. I have had countless people ask me how they should vote for national candidates--President, Vice President, for the House, the Senate, etc., as well as local candidates and issues. I prefer not to answer that question specifically. It is imperative that we as Christians vote but I will not tell you how to vote. What I would like to do is suggest some principles to guide our decision-making on how we will vote. These principles are rooted in God's revelation and hence are critical as we make our respective decisions. So, let's think about some guiding principles:

The preeminence of religious liberty. Any candidate or legislation that restricts the practice of religious faith should be resisted.

The protection of life is sacred. Candidates or legislation that treat life frivolously or that seek to destroy it (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, etc.) should be resisted and defeated.

The provision of justice for all. Candidates and legislation must reflect God's concern for justice and equity. Reading the book of Amos is convincing evidence that God desires government to promote laws that protect the poor and disadvantaged from exploitation and oppression.

The preservation of the traditional family. One of the clear teachings of the Bible is that the family is a critical institution to God. Legislation that negatively impacts the family should be rejected. For example, tax legislation that promotes single parent families or penalizes a father for living with his family is counterproductive. The promotion of same- sex marriages runs counter to God's revelation and should be rejected.

The promotion of Judeo-Christian values in education and legislation. For example, values of honesty, integrity, personal responsibility, and accountability can be easily undermined by a leader who wantonly lies and shows disrespect for the law. Fraud, bribery, and corruption undermine the public trust and confidence and are extremely destructive. Education must reinforce the values of parents and not undermine their authority (see Deut. 6:1-10). Finally, a proper biblical view of the state is necessary as we vote. In Mark 12:13-17, Jesus makes it clear that we have two spheres of authority in our daily lives, in addition to the family the state and the church. Each has a different responsibility before God. The state is not to bring in God's kingdom, nor is the church to legislate. According to Romans 13:1-7, the state has two major responsibilities: promote justice and thwart evil. We must therefore examine critically politicians who seek to expand government beyond these limits. Huge entitlement programs and huge pork barrel projects seem to extend way beyond God's declared role for the state.

In a democratic-republic like the United States, we have the privilege of calling our elected officials to accountability on all of these issues. May we do so with prudence, with prayer and with confidence as we vote next Tuesday.

See James P. Eckman, Christian Ethics in a Postmodern World (chapter 8).

Back to top

HOW SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT NEBRASKA'S INITIATIVE 416"

This amendment is necessary because Vermont's legitimizing of same-sex unions as a legal entity with all benefits comparable to heterosexual marriages raises the issue of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution, which stipulates that the states must recognize one another's laws and ordinances. Presumably, this would mean that all other 49 states must give some kind of legal recognition to same-sex ceremonies performed in Vermont. This kind of amendment (416) is absolutely necessary to protect states that do not desire to recognize such unions. It reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

Also, why does giving legal status to same-sex unions pose a threat to marriage as an institution? Mary C. Nelson, family-life educator at UNO, wrote an article in the Omaha World Herald, which presents several salient reasons for supporting 416:

1. "Marriage" has historically and legally been defined as between a male and a female. Obviously, marriage is for procreation and for training the next generation of men and women. Every child has a mother and a father and knows it. It is biologically impossible for two of the same sex to procreate. That is why the Bible calls such a union "unnatural."

2. Men and women bring different strengths to the family and create a broader range of emotions, perspectives, skills and interests than do same-sex unions.

3. Heterosexual unions are far more stable that homosexual ones, particularly in males.

4. Homosexual behavior is condemned in all major world religions. Americans consistently have rejected for religious and ethical reasons same-sex unions.

5. This initiative will have no effect on homosexuals legally. They will still be able to live together, leave property to one another, assign each other power of attorney and raise children together if they wish. But it will not give legal recognition to their same-sex union.

6. The state has the obligation to define the legal parameters for marriage, including age, bigamy, polygamy, incest and mental capacity. These definitions are rooted in law, ethics and religious tradition.

7. Finally, in Genesis 2, God creates the institution of the family and marriage. It is between a man and a woman. That is why every reference to an aberration from this standard incest, bestiality, adultery, fornication and homosexuality are deemed "unnatural." They do not meet God's standard definition of family or marriage.

Initiative 416 is desperately needed to preserve that which God calls sacred and foundational to a civilized and orderly society.

Back to top