Not sure if I would call it a sin. There is an interesting argument that when you vote, you are imposing your will on other people through the government. I myself consider that argument but also consider that when I vote, I’m mitigating the desire of liberals to really put the screws to the American people.
I’ll vote myself in my state’s primary, but I don’t think you can deliver a “Thus saith the Lord on it.”

First, I’m not really clear that not voting gives me no right to complain about an government official – that forfeiture of that right is not delineated in the constitution. Nor does it require that every citizen vote. In the civil domain, your initial statement does not appear to be valid.
As to the sin, that’s interesting. An action or lack of action does not by itself constitute a sin, but when my will contravenes God’s will in that action, then that would be a sin. Obviously, we are called to participate as citizens in our nation. That act of participation is not delineated constitutionally nor in civil statute. Hence, I am not in disobedience to the ordained authority in my voting or lack of voting.
Do I feel that you should vote: yes! Do I understand that democracy is strengthened by informed voting: yes! Neither is sufficient to make it a sin. In our approach to democracy (or republic), we assert that every “x years,” we will overturn our government through the ballot box. But it doesn’t circumscribe my choice in voting. To the extent that this is the form of government ordained by God for the United States now, then it is not a violation of the 4th commandment to not vote.
I have plenty of other ways to sin and readily exercise that possibility as Paul so vividly makes clear in Romans 7 without asserting my feelings or intellect for God’s will.
In Christ,
Gleason
PS Thanks for the topic. You are an excellent teacher.

Didn’t vote, because unlike the state of my youth, the great state of Montana, caucuses in Colorado are closed. I’m disfranchised because I am an independent.
Is it a sin not to vote? Not willing to give a thus sayeth the Lord on it.
Here’s sending the question back at ya… is it a sin for the State of Colorado to disfranchise me because I refuse to choose a party? I’d be willing to give a hesitant answer of “Yes” to that one.

Whoa!!!
No one has the right to complain whether he voted or not. Stick that in your pipe . . .
But there is a place for recognizing stupidity and waste and wanting it changed, for seeing a better way of doing things and speaking up, etc. So if I drive through Missouri, a state in which I do not vote, and I cannot turn right on red but must wait for the light to turn green in all circumstances, I am going to complain. Likewise if I go to Deutschland and am told I must turn off my rental car at the train track, that it is illegal to keep it running, even though I didn’t vote there: I am going to complain. Because it annoys me that the Germans over-legislate and democratic socialism is only a hair’s breath away from national socialism, and I hate it. Etc. And maybe my complaining will actually do some good. Maybe some naive German or Missourian who has never considered the consequences of his government’s legislation will hear me and realize there is a a better way to life and use his vote (if he has one) to work toward that end.
In other words: commenting on, critiquing, and analyzing governments and legislation is not limited to voters. I even encourage my children to do it. And if a man really sees no candidate for which he can vote, or if he feels that the system is so broken there is no hope, I can fully understand why he would skip the futile process of going out in the rain, pretending he was patriotic, when in fact he was just following tradition mindlessly. And I certainly wouldn’t say such a man should therefore stop analyzing and critiquing the government under which he lives.
The Bible certainly does not tell us the exact way we are to be good citizens any more than it tells mothers what to fix for dinner. We are not legally bound to vote. We are free (for the time being) to not vote, even as we are free (for the time being) to leave our cars running at train tracks and read Mein Kampf, etc. Thus no Lutheran can say that not voting is a sin anymore than you could say it is sin for a mother to serve her children TV dinners for dinner. It is a sin to break the civil law (assuming it does not require the person to break the moral law,) but it is not a sin to live within the law and to choose not to vote.
That being said, I feel myself an obligation to vote even when I think it is futile, even in primaries. I don’t know why. It is often a waste of gas and time and effort. But I feel obligated to do it and do.
Dave
McCain response: Because you voted (and, duh, we are talking about Americans who don’t vote complaining about American politicians for whom they didn’t even bother to vote for, or against)….you are thereby entitled to complain. If you had not voted, no, you forfeit your right to whine and complain.

I think you’re wrong. Well, maybe you’re only half right. Meet me half way on this:
I will accept that not voting is a sin if you will concede that people who are uninformed and ignorant should not vote. (Yes, they should do something to fix their ignorance, but if they don’t know what the issues are or who the candidates are, they’ve got no business being at the polling place.)
To Charles, it’s not up to the state of Colorado. You have a problem with your state’s parties. Parties are the reason we have primaries (at least in partisan elections), so you have to take that up with them, not with the state. And if you’re not in the party, why should you, an outsider, have a voice in their party? That’s like letting Illinois citizens vote in Missouri’s elections.

The right to complain about the government is not conditional on our action; it is part of our right to free speech. Are complainers who don’t vote annoying, or missing the point? Perhaps. But they have as much right as anyone to complain. And we have just as much right to ignore them.
Should people vote? Yes, but that is not the only question. Should people keep abreast of what is happening in their nation, state, city, and neighborhood so as to be able to cast an informed vote? Also yes. You, however, only seem to insist on the former. This will certainly not benefit the country, nor does it benefit the voter to merely go through the motions of democracy, only to ignorantly make a choice on election day.
But to equate not voting with sin is to go too far. If it were compulsory to vote (as it is in some countries), then I suppose not doing so would be a sin, as it would be rejecting the government’s authority. But it is merely a right here in America, not a legal obligation. There are plenty of other rights delineated in our laws — I doubt you would similarly label a failure to exercise one’s right to an attorney as sinful (though it might be foolish).
And for what it’s worth, I have voted in every election possible save one — a local-only ballot I was woefully underinformed on.

Also, I always find it strange when Christians talk of “Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep you free and to preserve your right to vote.” First of all, why do I never hear of the government officials who served to enact, execute, or rule on laws that preserve freedom? Is their service less worthy because it did not involve bodily threat (usually)? Secondly, isn’t it God who gives us these rights, and all other blessings? While many people who serve in the military do so for selfless reasons, I doubt that they are any more selfless than the population at large. The picture with people being muddled as it is, I prefer to focus on Jesus’ sacrifice for our freedom.

Not voting a sin? I guess I don’t see how that is dishonoring despising our parents and other authorities. The right to vote does not make not voting a sin. That is like saying, “I have the right to get a license and drive. If I don’t exercise that right, I am sinning.” Or, I have the right to enlist in the military, but if I don’t exercise that right, I am sinning. I don’t think you can make such a sweeping statement. I think that as long as voting is not required by law, then it is not breaking any civil (or moral) law not to vote. Don’t we also have the right not to vote? Isn’t that also every citizens right? Isn’t that also a way of voicing our opinion–by abstaining? What about a voters meeting–is it a sin for me to abstain? Pushing the envelope too far on this one Rev. McCain.

Let’s put this in other terms.
There is often on the ballot, minor offices where there are two or more people competing. County commissioner, judges, and the like. I often know nothing about the candidates. It would be irresponsible for me to cast a ballot in those races, so I leave them blank.
Is it a sin that I didn’t do the research on those candidates to make an informed choice? Is it so bad that I choose to leave it up to other people?

My state, Minnesota, is a caucus state. This places a difficulty in my way, because I suffer from Avoidant Personality Disorder, and working with large numbers of strangers takes a lot of energy out of me. I chose not to attend the caucuses last night because I didn’t have a strong preference on a candidate. As it happened, the results in my state reflected my leanings well enough. I’m not saying I did right, but it’s what I did.

It’s only like sin. It’s akin to sin. It’s not sin.
Or, put another way, it’s only mostly sin.
What’s a sin is this current roster of candidates.

It’s my duty to be informed and to vote, provided there is at least one honest candidate. If there isn’t, no crook is getting my backing. Not even the lesser of two evils is going to be able to claim any “mandate” with any help from me.
I’m still waiting to see if, by time my turn to vote comes around, there will be anybody left my conscience can endorse.

I agree with Paul Beisel. Not voting cannot constitute a violation of the fourth commandment because voting is a “right” not a “law”. We are not disobedient to our authorities when we fail to exercise rights. Thanks for the question, though. I will use it in class tomorrow since we are discussing Luther and the fourth commandment!
As for the complaining part, I agree. I will confess though that my particaption in the primary yesterday was the most unenthusiastic I’ve ever been in this process. But, that is for another topic.

Is it a sin not to vote?
First ask: Why does a Christians vote?
A Christian doesn’t vote for the same reason an unbeliever votes.
A Christian doesn’t vote because it is his right. That’s why the unbeliever votes. For the Christian, rights have nothing to do with it.
A Christian doesn’t vote to get his way. That’s also why the unbeliever votes. For the Christian, getting his way has nothing to do with it.
A Christian doesn’t vote to keep the other side from winning, or to protect his own interests. That, again, is why the unbeliever votes.
A Christian votes to serve his neighbor –period.
This means that a Christian will sometimes vote against his own self-interest, but in favor of his neighbor’s interests. At the ballot box, the neighbor comes first.
A Christian votes because he is called to do so (vocation) by the needs of his neighbor.
So, is it a sin not to vote? The answer seems clear.
James 4:17, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

As for not complaining if you don’t vote: Where do you draw the line?
Do I have to vote in every possible election –ward, city, county, state, federal– to qualify for complaining rights?
I have a simple and draconian solution. If you don’t vote, complain all you want. But if you don’t vote, you have to pay $1 to whatever the candidate or ballot issue wins in that election.
Call it the “complaining tax.”

I disagree that NOT voting is sinful. Methinks that in light of Romans 13 — voting, as it is now, is adiaphora (neither commanded nor forbidden).
Voting in the US is not considered a “civic duty” since it is not mandated as law as in some countries. If it were law, then yes, it would be a sin to not vote, as Romans 13 commands respect for the elected governments, as whoever is in authority is there because God wills it so.
As a confessional Lutheram, I’m having a difficult time with picking a candidate. Yes, Luther did say something along the lines of “better to be governed by a smart Turk than a stupid Christian”, but I tend to take things a bit further. I try and not cooperate with evil. After all, Saint Paul warns us to walk circumspectly.
Therefore, as Christians, we cannot and should not vote for anyone who:
- Supports abortion or is in any way opposed to the sanctity of life
- Supports homosexual unions
- Supports harming others for profit
- List could go on and on…
Now, we can argue separation of church and state and all that ballyhoo, but as Christians, we cannot separate our actions from our faith. We cannot walk circumspectly if we do so.
In light of Biblical teachings, I come to the conclusion that NOT voting is fine in God’s eyes. Can we complain about the aftermath if we do NOT vote? I would say we shouldn’t complain even if we do vote. After all, Romans 13 is God’s message to us Christians concerning how we should see and act towards elected governments, whether we chose to vote or not vote.
I also think the fourth commandment has nothing to do with voting whatsoever. To try and wrangle it that way is legalisticly grasping at straws. Law and gospel and all that…
If one cannot fathom voting for any current candidate, one will not be responsible if one chooses to abstain. Since voting is NOT law, Romans 13 does not apply. Romans 13:2 mentions rebellion against government. Since voting is not law, abstination is not rebellion. Verse 5 talks about submission to authorities. One can only submit to law or commands, not an absence thereof. A civic duty is law. As it currently stands, it is conscience alone.
Patriotism is fine and dandy, but foisting the need to vote becauase of past lives lost is putting people on a guilt trip. Yes, it’s nice to vote, but if there is no one candidate one feels “confortable” voting for, then abstination is OK in light of the scriptures. Adiaphora is the watchword here. No more, no less.
An argument to this might be: “if you don’t vote, you vote for the winner since that’s one less vote against them”. OK, and your point? Again, we appeal to the only thing that matters — Holy scriptures… Romans 13:1
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
So no matter the outcome, our response as Christians must be the same towards elected officials. Unless — they break God’s laws. Then, and only then, can we refuse — should refuse — to cooperate. God will deal with people who pass or support the passing of laws to murder babies, commit genocide, harm the elderly or oppress the poor and downtrodden for gain or profit. We as Christians cannot and should never support such actions. God knows what is in our hearts and that is how we will be judged.

Stan,
I guess that your note has confused me. You seem to require perfect obedience to God’s law in order that I vote for and support a candidate; however, all Christians break God’s law, none left out. Never vote? I believe that Luther would have picked a magistrate who would administer justice honestly (knowing that all men will fall short of perfect justice – he would even have supported a Muslim) and recognized that God rules over all kingdoms, but in this kingdom, he has ordained offices to rule. Our offices arise from our constitution and there is only a legal test not a theological test for the office. This mixing of kingdoms does not appear to be an accurate analysis.
I’ll think about what you wrote some more – must be misinterpreting you somewhere. Maybe, I gave you enough to correct my conceptions.
In Christ,
Gleason

In an individual, admittedly cynical vein I would have to alter Dr. Luther’s comment somewhat. “Better not to vote for a stupid Muslim or a stupid Christian.” I will vote in my local elections because I have some hope of real civic leadership. I almost certainly will not vote in the upcoming presidential election because I have no faith whatsoever in any of the candidates.
Can I complain? I’d rather not. Really, I’d rather the government follow the Constitution and operate within limits. But, disagreeing openly with an elected official (if you didn’t vote) isn’t necessarily complaining. It might be deserved criticism.

The question regarding complaing… we do have freedom of expression in America, and universal citizen franchise is really a recent development. Did women have the *right* to complain about the state of affairs before they were given the franchise? But I don’t want to take up your blogspace and elaborate on my views on who should vote.
Primaries and the like are, in my opinion, a chance for party activists to express their views on who their candidate should be. If you’re not a party activist and not informed regarding the party platform and party strategy, then perhaps primaries and caucuses are not the place for you to vote until you do get involved. However, I believe in general elections, the general public should vote, even if the vote is “no confidence.”
As an aside, my husband attended caucus, but I did not. We had women’s Bible Study… but small children are welcome so their fathers could go and caucus.

Not voting is a way of complaining about the crappy choices.

Josh, in the great state of Montana, whose ideal political system all states would do well to emulate, the parties value all of the citizenry so much that they do not require you to declare yourself to be a member of them in order to participate in their primaries.
You ask for the ballot of your choice at the primary, and you vote. Colorado is afraid of freedom. Shame on them.

Sorry to double post. Not voting actually does send a message and is as important a part of the political process as voting. When a large number of registered members of, for example, the Merengue Party don’t vote, and thus the Party loses the election by some margin, it sends the message to the Party that they’ve strayed too far from their base and need to change course. If all the Party members get out and vote (and they will largely vote for the Party), it doesn’t induce any kind of change.

Or one could argue that voting is a sin if both candidates are pro-choice. When candidates are clearly and openly speaking against God’s will, one must consider not voting for either candidate as a Christian option.
Also while the typically American spends many hours watching the tube (O.K, maybe flat screen LCDs or plasmas), closely monitoring poitics over often trival matters, some people have little time and interest in such discussions. Time spent staying in tune with politics may be time better spent in local service to those in need. It’s easy, fun, and engaging to stay on top of issues and be ready for a war of words, but maybe at times it would be better to show His love through our actions than with our lip service.
Not judging anyone (except maybe myself). You got to love forgiveness in Christ! Amazing Grace!

Let’s try a different analogy: open political primaries are like letting ELCA members vote in the LCMS Convention. If you want to affect my party, you need to belong to it.

Pr. Lehmann, I regret to inform you that The GOP did not value the citizenry so much this time around! They opted for a caucus where (if I remember correctly) just over 1,000 party officials and Republican politicians decided on my behalf! I am not neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, so I didn’t get to take advantage of the old system. :0
On to My main point.
As I explained above, I was not able to participate in the primary. I was unable to place my vote for one of four Republican contenders.
I don’t have much of a “choice” anyway. My “choice” is between a narrow handful of smiling, slogan touting, celebrity politicians. The media chose my pool of choices for me.
When I do get to choose, it will be between a pro-war Republican and a pro-choice Democrat.
In either case, I betray my conscience, which is “neither right nor safe.” I too cringe at playing God and picking a “lesser of two evils.”
Some choice.
I refuse to fall for the two pary dichotemy.
So if I can’t whine, can I still pray?
I don’t put much hope in political solutions to cultural problems.
But I am not a pessimist either.
What do I do instead of voting?
Like I said, I pray. I pray for the end to the War in Iraq. I pray for the end of, limitation to, and healing for all hurt by abortion. I pray “Kyrie Eleison,” and “Come Lord Jesus, Come quickly!”
And I also plan on having LOTS of children and teaching them the Ten Commandments, Creed, and Lord’s Prayer. I plan on teaching them about their rich heritage as Christians and members of Western Civilization. I will teach them to think, to read, and to otherwise enjoy the world that God created as forgiven sinners. I will give them culture, rather than point them to the false gods: the Republicans and the Democrats.
Trying to rebuild Christendom seems so much more palatable, not to mention effective than voting to me.
Even if we don’t succeed in restoring Christendom, and if Western Civilization is doomed, at least I have planted some seeds for what comes next.
If there is ever a candidate runing for any office who has the same mindset, and I am able to vote for him, I will.
Respectfully,
Benjamin J. Ulledalen

Benjamin:
Do I understand your post correctly?
You would only vote for someone who wants to rebuild or restore Christendom? What do you mean by Christendom? The Church or the State?
Aren’t “Western Civilization” and “Christendom” false gods too –just as false as Republican or Democrat?
When is voting not a choice between the lesser of two evils?
I don’t see how we can serve our neighbor in any capacity without regularly having to choose between the lesser of two evils. We can’t serve our neighbor in this world without getting our hands dirty.
TW

Pr. Wilken-
That last part of my post was worded incorrectly. I should have left out the talk of Western Civilization because I am ignorant on the topic. I should have said that I would vote for some one if I agreed with a large part of their platform. Thank you for calling me on that. By Christendom I meant the Church. I probably should have been more clear on that. I certainly don’t want any politicians to attempt to rebuild the Chruch!
As things stand for the 2008 election, I don’t think I can serve my neighbor by voting. Once someone is in office, I don’t think there is much they can or are willing to accomplish. How many Republicans have we had in the Presidency since Roe v. Wade? What did the Democrat Congress do about the War? Like I said, I don’t put much trust in political solutions to anything. (My Christendom- Western Civ comment should have been left out- I didn’t think through them much and they don’t square with what I just wrote in the previous sentence.)
I think that a much more effective way of serving my neighbor is through my numerous other vocations. These ways of serving are much more concrete and the effects are much more visable. I used the example of raising children in my initial post. Idealy, they would in turn go into their own vocations, serving their neighbors as Christians. This seems to be a more effective change to me than voting. Yes I will get my hands dirty, but hopefully not bloody. If bloody, then certainly not as bloody as the War in Iraq or Abortion.
If voting is a lesser of evils, I see it as a lesser of THREE evils: Republican (John McCain, pro-war), Democrat ((fill in the blank), pro-Choice), or not voting at all.
The blood of American soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and unborn children is getting my hands too dirty for me to pick a lesser of evils in good conscience.
Respectfully,
Benjamin J. Ulledalen

Benjamin:
Do you see a moral equivalence between the 5 years of war in Afghanistan/Iraq, and 35 years of abortion in the US? I don’t.
Christians can disagree about the war. We have no particular “thus says the Lord” on it. We do on abortion.
With due respect to your conscience regarding the war, why would you refuse to vote when the choice is between a pro-abortion and a pro-life candidate?
In this case, doesn’t a failure to vote for the life candidate amount to a vote for the abortion candidate?
How is your neighbor (the unborn, in this case) served by your refusal to vote?
Obama or Clinton is elected, pro-life legislation is halted or reversed, a pro-Roe majority is maintained on the Court. How does this calm your uneasy conscience as a voter?
TW

5 years in Iraq saw between 47,668 to 600,000 civilian casualties (depending on who’s counting)
50,000,000 abortions over 35 years and 47,000(as a conservative estimate) civilian deaths over 5 years are both mind boggling numbers of individuals killed. At any rate, John McCain has promised “more wars” in the future, which would with little doubt yeild more casualties.
Even if Christians don’t have a “thus says the Lord” on Iraq, 47,000 civilian deaths, and over 3000 US deaths should give reason to pause.
Obama/Clinton situation could happen. But so could a McCain or attack on Iran any other “hot spot” in the world while we are still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. My conscience is calmed because I would not have supported either scenario.

Benjamin:
So, you are willing to forego the probability of pro-life appointment(s) to the Court, more pro-life legislation signed, the ban on partial birth abortion maintained, etc. because McCain might find it necessary to engage in more military actions?
More than that, you are willing to live with the inevitable setbacks for the unborn a Obama/Clinton presidency would mean (pro-life legislation halted or reversed; a pro-Roe majority maintained on the Court, etc.) because McCain might find it necessary to engage in more military actions?
More war in not inevitable with any candidate. But more abortions are inevitable with the pro-choice candidates.
TW

Of course, Todd (Wilken), you are also making the assumption that McCain would actually have an impact on the number of abortions in the United States or take significant action against abortion. From what I have seen of the Republican party, it does a much better job talking about pro-life issues than it does in acting on them. Its rhetoric on war is much more often backed up with action, sadly.
But your assumptions vis-a-vis Republican and Democratic presidents aren’t really born out by facts. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the President under whom the abortion rate was highest since Roe v. Wade was Reagan, and the rate remained constant during his 8-year presidency. After him, the number of abortions has continued to drop at a more-or-less constant rate, about 100,000 fewer per year. And the steepest drop can be seen during President Clinton’s tenure.

Todd (not Wilken):
If you think that voting for another Clinton will reduce the number of abortions, then do so. I don’t see it the sense in it. But perhaps you do. But vote nonetheless.
TW

Todd (not Wilken):
If you think that voting for another Clinton will reduce the number of abortions, then do so. I don’t see it the sense in it. But perhaps you do. But vote nonetheless.
TW