Why Christians Cannot in Good Conscience Vote for McCain

The Irish surname prefix “Mc” translates to “son of.” In the same way that the name “Johnson” means “Son of John,” McDuffy means “Son of Duffy.”

And McCain means “Son of Cain.”

Now Cain, as you may remember, is the Bible’s first recorded murderer, having killed his brother Abel after offering a less-than-faithful sacrifice to the Lord.  God, of course, proclaims Cain to be under a curse.  Several verses later, we see that murder runs in Cain’s line, as his great-great-great grandson Lamech murders a man “for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.”

As Christians, this is something that we should be aware of.  Do we really want the man who runs our country to be of the line of a man cursed by God?

But, then again, Barack Obama is a Muslim.

God gave us brains.  He gave us reasoning abilities, and he wants for us to be faithful with those abilities.  It is a good thing and glorifying to Him when we take our time, use our minds, and discern for ourselves who we should vote for.  For some reason, the Church seems to have been tricked into believing that thought and reason are inherently satanic, that we should rely entirely on our guts when it comes to making big decisions.  And so we don’t look into anything, we trust what shows up in our inbox, and we form false opinions (opinions based on deception, based on flat-out lies; based on evil, you might say) because it sure beats the trickery of thought.

But our guts — and our hearts — are not always right.  They’re just as touched by the Fall as our minds.  And our politics.

Will reason and rationality save us?  Absolutely not.  We should always examine our line of thinking and our presuppositions, and attempt to align our thoughts and hearts to God’s.  But He has given us heads, and hearts, and hands, and He gave them to us to be used, and to be grown, and to glorify Him.  Not to be buried.

Am I saying that everyone should vote for Obama?  No.  What I am encouraging is that you seriously and genuinely look in to the ways that these campaigns are being run, that you look in to what the Bible truly means for this world and the way we treat it, and the way that we treat our neighbors, and the way that we run our businesses, and the way that we do all things, and make a decision based on that.  If you still believe that Obama or McCain is the choice for you, then great.  But don’t believe that there will be a “perfect” “Christian” candidate, because you are not perfect.  Expecting that from John McCain or Barack Obama is simply unfair.

We are not a lock-step minority.  We do not fall under party lines.  We are God’s agents of renewal in this world, the beloved who are chosen to help usher in the Kingdom of God.  Let’s take a long, hard look at what that Kingdom looks like before we go into the election booth.

*edit: I also need to say, in the name of being honest, that this entire process is something that I have ignored.  I’ve towed my own party line, and while it is not the one typically associated with American Christianity, I’ve not arrived there as a result of my own thoughts and prayers.  I’m as guilty as acting on my guts alone as anyone else; I just tend to do so from the opposite end of the political strip.

8 Responses to “Why Christians Cannot in Good Conscience Vote for McCain”
  1. Clark Bunch says:

    Unfortunately, the next president will either be McCain or Obama. In a nation of 300 million, there are some really bright, honest, hard working leaders out there. How come every 4 years, we come up with such poor choices? Do these 2 guys really represent the best each party can come up with? In 1996, I voted for Bob Dole. Did I think Bob Dole was the best person in the nation to serve as president? No, I was voting against Bill Clinton. I will vote for McCain in November partly because I think he’s the lesser of two evils, and partly because there’s a good chance Sara Palin will end up taking his place anyway. But come on, America: give us two really good candidates in 2012 that will makes us wish we could have both. Make it tough for us to choose FOR the right candidate, and not have to decide which we want the least.

  2. Cute analysis. Thanks.
    Yeah, he’s betraying Americans too.

    I guess the view is pretty good when you wife is a billionaire heiress.
    You and your husband would then, obviously consider the economy “strong” and you can tell all the common folk to go “eat cake!”

    I dunno – I think McCain is really Bush, only older, and Palin is Cheney with a bra. They chant the “change” mantra, but it’s the same old lies.

    Fool me once and shame . . . Uh, How does that go again??!!

  3. Gustavo says:

    “there’s a good chance Sara Palin will end up taking his place anyway.”

    You’re going to vote for McCain because you think he will die and leave the country to Palin?

    You may want to reexamine your ideology.

  4. Scott says:

    I think if Christians and others were really informing themselves, then they would take a look at all the candidates out there. Not just Obama and McCain. Keep voting for the big two and there will likely never be a chance of having a “good” choice, such as the person above believes. If you have looked them all over and truly believe that McCain or Obama is the answer for you, then you should for them. But “defensive voting” – voting for what you feel is the lesser of two evils – I don’t think is ever the answer.

  5. mrrrty says:


    I appreciate your comments and you’re certainly correct in saying that we should be open to a non-major party candidate. But your argument relies on a belief that there will be a “perfect” candidate, one whose beliefs will fall in line with your own in each and ever situation. This is something of a denial of the uniqueness of each human being, as it implies that two people (i.e., voter and candidate) are the exact same.
    If you are being honest with yourself, you will always have to make concessions when voting, as the perfect candidate does not exist. Essentially, there are two ways of looking at the same situation — you either vote for the lesser of two evils (which is a mildly arrogant way of putting it and assumes that your personal views are immaculate), or you vote for the line of best fit. But assuming that a Ralph Nader or a Ron Paul is going to be perfect in every way, or even perfectly in line with your beliefs or your praxis of those beliefs, is unfair to your candidate (because he or she cannot live up to the calling to be somebody else) and it’s unfair to you (because you’ll never be able to truly be satisfied with a candidate).

  6. Scott says:

    mrrrty, I don’t think that my argument has anything to do with their being a “perfect” candidate or with my beliefs being “immaculate”. I am more than well aware that there will never be a perfect candidate. I don’t agree with everything that comes out of a 3rd-party candidates mouth. But do I believe that I agree more with someone such as Bob Barr than I do with McCain or Obama? Yes. I simply encourage voters to do the research they should and then vote for the candidate they feel is best in line with their values and beliefs. If voters actually did this, then maybe, just maybe, the political landscape would look a bit different. But I appreciate the condescending words and letting me know how I am supposed to feel if I am being honest with myself, lol.

  7. mrrrty says:

    Hey Scott,

    I don’t mean my words to be condescending, by any means, and for the sake of clarification, I should say that when I say “assumes your personal views are immaculate,” I am using a “royal,” all-encompassing you, not you specifically. As such I’m not trying to tell you how you should feel; my point is simply that we all have to make concessions when voting and that we can either call that voting for the lesser of two evils (which I think both of us reject) or we can call it voting for the person who best fits our POV.

    Now that I look at my comment, though, in context of your original comment, I can see that I either misinterpreted or manipulated your words to prove my own (slightly irrelevant) point, and for that I am sorry. You are right — your original argument has nothing to do with the presuppositions I suggested, and I apologize if you took that to be condescending.

  8. Scott says:

    No problem or hard feelings mrrrty(sorry, don’t know your real name). I do agree that concessions are always going to have to be made. That is indeed part of politics and voting. I just wish people understood that they don’t have to make concessions based on only two candidates 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: