Third Parties and Political Presumption by Gary DeMar
I'm posting the below article (from American Vision) because I'm still torn regarding the upcoming pres. election. Alan Keyes spoke at our national conference in Kokomo a few weeks ago and his arguments were extremely compelling. He said that every day he arises in morning to what he believes is the death of the republic. Choice (or a lack thereof) is a one of the main symptoms. Go to "Third Parties and Political Presumption" if you'd like to challenge or agree with DeMar. Blessings, Chuck
________________________________________
I wonder if people can read. I don’t mean read the words on a page. I mean read to understand. Last week’s articles on third parties are a case in point. Two of the articles, one published by me and the other by Eric Rauch, are critical of those pushing the third-party option. These two articles were designed to get Christians to deal with political realities as they now exist. Let me be clear: As things now exist, a vote for a third-party candidate won’t change anything. It might make third-party advocates feel good, but we are still going to get either Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin. Third-party voters will say that since they didn’t vote for either one, they won’t be to blame for what happens. We’ll all be to blame, because we have not done what needed to be done a long time ago. Today’s third-party candidates are an attempt to avoid a much larger issue: the requirement of hard work!
My article made two points: (1) The third-party candidates running in 2008 have no business running, and (2) most third-party advocates are not willing to do what is necessary to affect significant political change in our nation. I want to use this article to deal with the first point. Tomorrow I’ll tackle point two.
The majority of the third-party candidates have not won a single election. You can check out my article for evidence of this claim. Most of those critical of my article did not comment on these facts. In 1 Timothy 3:4–5 we read that rulers being considered to rule in the church must have had some success ruling elsewhere. This principle surely applies to politics, especially for someone as powerful as the president. Please show me that a candidate can do the job beside. Telling me he can do it is not enough. James tells us that “faith without works is dead” (2:14–26). Is it asking too much from a candidate who is seeking to be president of the United States to have had some political experience? I don’t think so. It amazes me that some Christians throw their own experience and reason out the window when assessing an issue like politics. Experience and reason are also gifts from God, and He expects us to use them. Would you get in an airplane with a pilot who never had flown a plane? What if he was a righteous Christian and scored well on his pilot’s test? Sorry. I’m not getting on board.
We must be wary of the claim made by some that a good number of the third-party candidates are “righteous.” They may be, but they are still sinners. David was God’s choice to be king, and David turned out to be an adulterer and an accomplice to murder. There are no political messiahs. “Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation” (Ps. 146:3). This even includes third-party candidates. While it’s not said, there is an underlying current of political messiahship among many third-party advocates. It strikes me a little odd that the third-party candidates being suggested are running for president. This is contrary to the biblical model of bottom-upism rather than top-downism. I believe that more people would be inclined to vote for a third-party candidate who was running as a state senator. Why won’t this present crop of third- party candidates do this? Are they afraid of losing? It’s understandable to everyone that someone running for president has no chance of winning, but it’s harder to explain if he can’t win in his own neighborhood.
When I was in seminary, many bright young men would supply small church pulpits on Sundays. They knew their theology. They preached exacting sermons, but they did not know how to minister. They thought that being a minister meant “preaching the truth by the book.” The people needed a healthy dose of this and a healthy dose of that. It didn’t take long before these guys were staying home on Sundays and sitting in the pew of a local church. It’s not that these young men were wrong doctrinally. They were wrong governmentally. They did not understand that there is more to the church than right doctrine.
I spent 15 months as a student intern at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Asheville, North Carolina, in 1975–76 as partial fulfillment of my studies at Reformed Theological Seminary. G. Aiken Taylor was the senior pastor as well as the editor of the Presbyterian Journal. His big complaint was that many young seminary graduates took churches and believed that their main duty was to preach. I learned quickly that this was not the case, and I was determined to make sure that I understood this principle fully. An internship was generally two three-month periods during the summer. I spent an extra year for the governmental experience. Those 15 months, and three months the next year, taught me about church government. I had more experience than most graduates, but I never got ordained because my experience during those 18 months showed me that being a minister was not my calling. Should we require less of someone who is in the civil realm?
Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church is looking for a new pastor. Do you think the pulpit committee is going to call someone who has had no experience even though he’s right on all the doctrinal points and can pass his presbytery exams? I don’t think so.
The apostle Paul certainly had the credentials. He met Jesus on the Damascus Road in a personal encounter like no other. In today’s churches, Paul would immediately be put on the preaching circuit. Paul waited three years after his conversion before he met Peter (Gal. 1:18). He then spent time in the “regions of Syria and Cilicia” (1:21). It was fourteen years before he went back to Jerusalem (2:1). Take note of this next comment by Paul: “And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain” (2:2). Notice the complete lack of presumption, even after his Damascus Road experience and the “revelation” he had received. He needed real-life confirmation. Paul followed his own later admonition to Timothy of not choosing a “new convert” (1 Tim. 3:6) for leadership positions.
My first point is a simple one: The third-party candidates who are running in 2008 have no business running no matter how poor our choices are. If you are going to comment on this article, stay on topic!
________________________________________
I wonder if people can read. I don’t mean read the words on a page. I mean read to understand. Last week’s articles on third parties are a case in point. Two of the articles, one published by me and the other by Eric Rauch, are critical of those pushing the third-party option. These two articles were designed to get Christians to deal with political realities as they now exist. Let me be clear: As things now exist, a vote for a third-party candidate won’t change anything. It might make third-party advocates feel good, but we are still going to get either Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin. Third-party voters will say that since they didn’t vote for either one, they won’t be to blame for what happens. We’ll all be to blame, because we have not done what needed to be done a long time ago. Today’s third-party candidates are an attempt to avoid a much larger issue: the requirement of hard work!
My article made two points: (1) The third-party candidates running in 2008 have no business running, and (2) most third-party advocates are not willing to do what is necessary to affect significant political change in our nation. I want to use this article to deal with the first point. Tomorrow I’ll tackle point two.
The majority of the third-party candidates have not won a single election. You can check out my article for evidence of this claim. Most of those critical of my article did not comment on these facts. In 1 Timothy 3:4–5 we read that rulers being considered to rule in the church must have had some success ruling elsewhere. This principle surely applies to politics, especially for someone as powerful as the president. Please show me that a candidate can do the job beside. Telling me he can do it is not enough. James tells us that “faith without works is dead” (2:14–26). Is it asking too much from a candidate who is seeking to be president of the United States to have had some political experience? I don’t think so. It amazes me that some Christians throw their own experience and reason out the window when assessing an issue like politics. Experience and reason are also gifts from God, and He expects us to use them. Would you get in an airplane with a pilot who never had flown a plane? What if he was a righteous Christian and scored well on his pilot’s test? Sorry. I’m not getting on board.
We must be wary of the claim made by some that a good number of the third-party candidates are “righteous.” They may be, but they are still sinners. David was God’s choice to be king, and David turned out to be an adulterer and an accomplice to murder. There are no political messiahs. “Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation” (Ps. 146:3). This even includes third-party candidates. While it’s not said, there is an underlying current of political messiahship among many third-party advocates. It strikes me a little odd that the third-party candidates being suggested are running for president. This is contrary to the biblical model of bottom-upism rather than top-downism. I believe that more people would be inclined to vote for a third-party candidate who was running as a state senator. Why won’t this present crop of third- party candidates do this? Are they afraid of losing? It’s understandable to everyone that someone running for president has no chance of winning, but it’s harder to explain if he can’t win in his own neighborhood.
When I was in seminary, many bright young men would supply small church pulpits on Sundays. They knew their theology. They preached exacting sermons, but they did not know how to minister. They thought that being a minister meant “preaching the truth by the book.” The people needed a healthy dose of this and a healthy dose of that. It didn’t take long before these guys were staying home on Sundays and sitting in the pew of a local church. It’s not that these young men were wrong doctrinally. They were wrong governmentally. They did not understand that there is more to the church than right doctrine.
I spent 15 months as a student intern at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Asheville, North Carolina, in 1975–76 as partial fulfillment of my studies at Reformed Theological Seminary. G. Aiken Taylor was the senior pastor as well as the editor of the Presbyterian Journal. His big complaint was that many young seminary graduates took churches and believed that their main duty was to preach. I learned quickly that this was not the case, and I was determined to make sure that I understood this principle fully. An internship was generally two three-month periods during the summer. I spent an extra year for the governmental experience. Those 15 months, and three months the next year, taught me about church government. I had more experience than most graduates, but I never got ordained because my experience during those 18 months showed me that being a minister was not my calling. Should we require less of someone who is in the civil realm?
Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church is looking for a new pastor. Do you think the pulpit committee is going to call someone who has had no experience even though he’s right on all the doctrinal points and can pass his presbytery exams? I don’t think so.
The apostle Paul certainly had the credentials. He met Jesus on the Damascus Road in a personal encounter like no other. In today’s churches, Paul would immediately be put on the preaching circuit. Paul waited three years after his conversion before he met Peter (Gal. 1:18). He then spent time in the “regions of Syria and Cilicia” (1:21). It was fourteen years before he went back to Jerusalem (2:1). Take note of this next comment by Paul: “And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain” (2:2). Notice the complete lack of presumption, even after his Damascus Road experience and the “revelation” he had received. He needed real-life confirmation. Paul followed his own later admonition to Timothy of not choosing a “new convert” (1 Tim. 3:6) for leadership positions.
My first point is a simple one: The third-party candidates who are running in 2008 have no business running no matter how poor our choices are. If you are going to comment on this article, stay on topic!
Tags: baldwin, barr, election, keyes, mccain, obama, paul, politics, president
Add a Comment
21 Comments
-
Comment by Chuck on October 17, 2008 at 9:16am -
Good comments William. Pulling out the race card is so shallow especially when too many that claim support for Obama do so on purely racist grounds. Amen to Keyes, Watts and Blackwell. It should be all about qualifications. It's just sad that the first African American candidate with this kind of opportunity is an outright socialist. As Joe Plummer knows, you've got to "spread the wealth around". Can you say "redistribution of wealth" boys and girls?
Is the following atypical? Maybe far less than we think. I'm certainly not a Stern supporter but this is rather enlightening.
BTW, I think the following program DeMar did regarding third parties and the next election (2012) is rather exciting. It's worth a listen. Facilitating Political Change
I have high hopes for this newly created conservative website. I just signed up. www.reagan.org My hope is that by the next election we actually have a viable choice. Hopefully our country won't be totally destroyed by then...
-
Comment by Chuck on October 16, 2008 at 11:17pm
- Pretty sad indeed. Never in my wildest dreams did I believe we could ever have a candidate like Obama make it this far. I agree with you Bill.
-
Comment by BillyG on October 16, 2008 at 8:30pm - So now I must acquiese and cast a vote for John McCain. You see, I live in what is called a "battleground" state-Nevada. There is currently about a 1% difference between the candidates in the race and my vote will definatley make a difference. Yes, I will vote for Senator McCain-we need to drag him across the finish line and prevent Obama from attaining the White House. 300million people in this counrty and these two guys are the best we could do?
-
Comment by Chuck on October 12, 2008 at 10:15am
-
Sharon, if the serious conservative 3rd party candidates could have united to create a formidable coalition it might have been different. There is far too much fracturing. Paul was the only strong voice. Heck, Alan Keyes got into a big flap at the Constitution Party convention. They tried to shout him down at a 20 minute post split up talk to his supporters.
There have been times where I've thought an Obama presidency might be the medicine this country needs since McCain is much the same and offers no real hope for reform. I no longer think that way. Obama is no Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton and he's as far from JFK as one could get.
You may have already seen this chilling video. Lest we think Obama and McCain are interchangable parts of the constitution destroying machine...My conscience will no longer allow "The Messiah" to waltz into the White House unimpeded . We may not have a republic to rescue 4 years from now once "The Messiah" (and I don't mean our Savior and Lord) gets through.
-
Comment by Sharon Nichols on October 12, 2008 at 8:58am -
Hey Chuck,
Thanks for pointing out DeMar is only refering to the office of president because if we took his philosophy all the way down the ladder, any third party would have not have a chance. I should have realized DeMar is a bit sharper than to make a blunder like that. :o))
You wrote: Makes sense to me and that's what I've been advocating until I began to look at the meager results. If this is going to happen we can't have these third party guys fractured into a million pieces (there should be as much effort as possible to gain one consistent voice) and they must begin the process far earlier.
Speaking of being more effecttive if the third parties joined hands, you might be interested in this blog entry Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President The introduction reads:
In this important message to his supporters, Ron Paul explains the new alliance that is forming among freedom-loving third party supporters, expresses his regret for Bob Barr’s refusal to join the alliance, and endorses Chuck Baldwin for President.
I realize these things take time to make a much of an impact but maybe the times are getting closer for a third party to make some headway. Hopefully this effort to join forces will get the ball rolling a little faster.
BTW, I am torn between voting the lesser of two evils and a third party candidate. DeMar is correct about the lack of experience. I don't care for Obama because he doesn't have much experience (among other reasons!) so wouldn't it be rather hypocrital of me to vote for a third party with a lack of experience too?
Yikes... its just plain frustrating!
-
Comment by Chuck on October 12, 2008 at 12:38am
-
Sharon you wrote: "If, as DeMar is suggesting, they need more political experience, then how in the world are they ever going to be voted into any position if we follow his advice and keep voting for the 'knowns'?"
DeMar is talking about the presidency and is only asking that for one to attempt to run that they at least have a track record of winning something at a lower level.
Sharon you also wrote: "The more votes they can secure, the louder voice they have in the future"
Makes sense to me and that's what I've been advocating until I began to look at the meager results. If this is going to happen we can't have these third party guys fractured into a million pieces (there should be as much effort as possible to gain one consistent voice) and they must begin the process far earlier.
So far I don't see any significant results of 3rd party success going back quite a long time. Perot was an anomaly that didn't have a lasting effect. Sharon, I'm sick to death of the poor choices we are left with. Both candidates will destroy our freedom...one a little faster than the other.
Initially I was really put off by Gary's thoughts but after they had some time to grow on me I at least saw his point. I wish it were different. If guys like Paul and Keyes have a chance to build a lasting 3rd party coalition they must start early. The Constitution Party didn't even pick Baldwin until it was far too late. I asked them 2 years ago why they didn't make an earlier run but was never given a straight answer. It's almost like they don't have any plans for the kind of success you long for Sharon. Once the dust settles from this ill-faded election they ought to crank up an internet campaign. They can first begin to assail all the idiotic ideas propagated by the mainline parties while offering viable solutions.
I'm as frustrated as anyone.
-
Comment by Sharon Nichols on October 10, 2008 at 11:10am
-
Fact is, any third party has a hard row to hoe. They are the underdog and it takes time to get elected to any political position because they are up against the 'knowns'.
So part of the process is getting the word out and running for president is one way to do that, even though they know they don't have a chance. Its a step in the right direction. The more votes they can secure, the louder voice they have in the future. And, the better chance they have to be voted in at lower levels of government. If, as DeMar is suggesting, they need more political experience, then how in the world are they ever going to be voted into any position if we follow his advice and keep voting for the 'knowns'?
The effort has to start somewhere. If people continue voting the lesser of two evils, simply because they are the 'knowns' and a third party has 'no chance', then it slows down the process for the underdog to gain any footing.
Because the two candidates hold to many of the same beliefs, now might be exactly the right time to vote for a third party. The more votes a third party receives will speak louder to the two major parties dominating the scene and just might encourage others to at least take a serious look at another party.
-
Comment by BillyG on October 8, 2008 at 10:08pm
-
Now, I'd vote for Alan Keyes in a heartbeat! Great picture Chuck.
Hey, maybe the Bohemian Grove folks have it all sorted out for us anyway and we needn't waste our time! :O)
-
Comment by Dru Snyder on October 8, 2008 at 5:26pm - Ha, definitely not you. I know what you have stood for. I was talking in general. We've had this debate before and if you ask me you and I are are extremely close to the same beliefs here. I guess I just have a tad less confidence in either party. I view them as the two sides to the same coin and no matter what side the coin lands on, we got the same coin regardless. My frustration is with Gary when he basically says that we are wasting our time voting for and helping 3rd party candidates if they aren't as experienced as the Republicans or Democrats. It will take a long time to ever get anyone with that much experience. And like Jason said, just because they have experience crashing planes, doesn't mean that they are qualified to be the pilot. David didn't have a smaller kingdom to rule before God made him King over Israel. I don't think that experience = qualified. There are a lot more things that go into being qualified than that.
-
Comment by Chuck on October 8, 2008 at 3:28pm
-
No difference? Dru, who is the "you will see what I mean" directed toward? Maybe you did not read my blog article, "Is McCain Able?". I voted for Keyes in the primary after joining the Constitution Party back in early '06. If serious candidates don't begin right now in preparation for 2012, we will be having the same discussion 4 years from now.
So what's your solution? Idealism can be just as insidious as pragmatism. It appears we need a heavy dose of both.
About
© 2009 Created by Michael Bennett on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
You need to be a member of Sovereign Grace Preterism to add comments!
Join this social network