Please join Vision Forum Ministries today for a friendly debate on the issue of biblical voting ethics. Because a vote is an ethical act for which the individual will be held to account before his Lord, it is our goal to help our readers to develop a distinctively biblical worldview from which they can take “every [vote] captive” to the obedience of Christ. Today’s debate is sparked by our good friend Dr. Ken Gentry who makes the case for a pragmatic and incrementalist approach to voting ethics. Dr. Gentry who worked for nearly two years for Michael Peroutka (who now stands as the Constitution Party’s candidiate for president) in the establishment of a Christian college, makes the case for George Bush and against third party candidiates for President. William Einwechter strongly disagrees. He offers his own scriptural insights and responds directly to Ken’s paper. Other authors chime in with their thoughts and sentiments. Enjoy.

Third Party 2004?
By Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.
Even excellent third party candidates for President must not be supported because they have zero chance of success and promote the appearance of backwater Christianity, among other reasons.
Third Party 2004?: A Response
By William Einwechter
The Bible alone, not the speculations, fears and rationalisms of man, must drive our voting ethics. By setting aside a biblical (meaning a presupositional and theonomic) approach to voting ethics, Ken Gentry has unintentionally reached conclusions inconsistent with a biblical worldview.