The 2004 election seems far too complex and controversial within the Christian community. Given that all right-believing Christians profess the same savior, believe the same fundamentals, worship the same God, and read from the same scripture, it stands to reason that Christians should also agree on the same political candidate, especially during an election where a candidate's religious beliefs and moral values are attracting such wide attention.

While the "Religious Right" may find itself squarely on the side of George W. Bush, there are still many Christians who will largely vote for John F. Kerry. Polls consistently show African Americans to favor Kerry even though they are also the racial group most adamantly opposed to gay marriage due to religions convictions (allegedly up to 70%). American Catholics too are split over whether Kerry's pro-choice views are begrudgingly acceptable or whether he should be denied the sacrament of communion. There must certainly be a great deal of disagreement if Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's public relations representative in Europe, found it necessary to officially state that it is not a sin to vote for Kerry (or any other pro-choice politician) as long as that candidate's other views "outweigh" his pro-abortion stance .

As with all disputes, Christians must approach political controversy from a purely scriptural perspective. While the rest of the world may "vote with its pocketbook," follow along with the crowd, or listen to media spin, believers have the responsibility of seeking out righteousness. It is not important which candidate exhibits the best image during debates; it is not important which candidate has the most positive attitude. As God chose David not because of his physical attributes but due to his pure heart, Christians must hold politicians to the standard of the Bible. First and foremost, which candidate convincingly professes Christianity and clearly lives out biblical principles? Secondly, which candidate will "remove the high places" from within our society? Which candidate does worldly wisdom favor? Taking into consideration the answers from the three previous questions, which candidate (or candidates) fail even a basic faith test and do not warrant a vote?

Sin is never something to be ignored or underestimated and anyone who has read a Frank Peretti novel will recall the vivid detail with which he portrayed spiritual warfare. Images of grotesque demonic figures crouching atop his characters and interacting with them grip the reader's imagination with a much darker intensity than does Lewis' Screwtape Letters. The seriousness and intensity of spiritual warfare is an undeniable Biblical fundamental, and Christians are called to resist Satan as though engaged in battle against him.

Righteous Values Before Economics:
Before a Christian can justify a vote for a political candidate, he must first approach the election and the issues at stake from the proper spiritual perspective. The Bible has little to say on the subject of taxation or good fiscal management, but infinitely more about the consequences of tolerating sin. How can a Christian, a member of God's army, choose to support a candidate whose policies fight on behalf of the enemy? It is absolutely imperative that Christians demand righteousness from politicians, concerned first and foremost with a candidate's character, spirituality, and opinions on potentially sinful issues. No preferred economic policy or intelligence quota can outweigh unrighteous values.

Seeking righteous leaders, however, does not imply demanding perfection. No one, not even a president, is to be held to an impossible standard. The candidate himself should be allowed to make and have made mistakes. Far more important is the manner in which that candidate has dealt with the sins in his own life. A brief look into President Bush's life reveals a sordid past of drug and alcohol abuse, which he himself has never once denied. If judged only on past morality, Senator Kerry would be the obvious choice, apparently having a much less offensive youth than President Bush.

However, the Christian is called to be merciful and forgiving of past offences because of the mercy Christ also showed to us (Mt. 6: 14-15). Forgiveness alone, however, does not warrant placing a repentant candidate into a position of leadership. Just as the apostle Paul transformed his life from a murderer into an apostle, the candidate needs to have proven himself trustworthy despite the sins he may have indulged in his youth. President Bush, led by Tony Evans of Oakcliff Baptist Church in Dallas either converted or rededicated his life to Jesus several years ago, simultaneously eliminating the substance abuse in his life. Looking back at his life, one clearly sees a dramatic turn around. Although he has been somewhat private about the precise details surrounding that change in his life, he occasionally reveals aspects of it. He felt inspired to alter his sinful lifestyle by the powerful preaching of several very godly pastors. He then drastically altered his lifestyle, turning away from alcoholism, etc. He has openly confessed to reading the Bible daily in study along with Oswald Chambers' My Utmost for His Highest, an excellent book for Christians of any spiritual maturity. He continues to seek counsel from Christian leaders (Billy and Franklin Graham, Tony Evans, and James Dobson) concerning his decisions as president (Tony Evans was a key influence in Bush's "faith-based charities" initiative). Lastly, President Bush is, undeniably, a man who believes in his principles and does not alter them based on the latest opinion polls. All of these points are true though none of them actually proves President Bush's faith. On a final but very important note, Bush has admitted to personally being anti-abortion. He has encouraged and signed legislation attacking abortion and has professed his support for an anti-gay marriage amendment.

Senator John Kerry's religious past is far more difficult to ascertain. He has made it clear that his religious practices are an intensely personal issue and do not influence his decisions as a politician. He is allegedly a devout Catholic, and yet remains pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. In answer to an abortion related question during the most recent presidential debate Kerry tried to "have it both ways," answering simply that he "is Catholic" but does not allow his religious opinion to sway his political opinions. He did not directly answer the question, and therefore one can only assume that being Catholic implies he is against abortion. This, however, is even less certain since Kerry attends an offshoot church which neither agrees with nor supports the Vatican's moral aversion to abortion and homosexuality. Not wishing to be unfair to Senator Kerry by mentioning so little, there simply is not much else to say about his spiritual life. To the best of this author's knowledge, he has never alluded to a conversion experience of any kind. He speaks seldom of his religious convictions, and has on more than one occasion mentioned that this election should not revolve around religion. His campaign and the Democratic Party have repeatedly attacked Bush for continuing to specifically reference God and Christianity in his speeches. Considering that Kerry's public references to faith revolve entirely around broad terminology like "values" and "character," one must question how deep Kerry's Christianity truly runs. A few bishops have even publicly declared that they would deny Kerry the holy sacrament of communion for his support of issues in such strong opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Is that not by definition some form of excommunication?

Moral Issues of Abortion and Gay Marriage:
Returning momentarily to the seriousness of spiritual warfare, believing Christians must consider the importance of the spiritual issues in the 2004 election. Sin is not something to be glossed over, ignored, or outweighed. Consider for a moment the entire books of First and Second Kings, in which the nation of Israel endures the penalties of its monarchy. Each and every king who once led the chosen people of God was measured by only one standard: whether or not he allowed the people to continue in idolatry. Not once did The Lord allow a king to prosper because of his ability to create jobs or because of his military prowess. If a king neglected to remove the "high places" then the nation was punished. Apply this standard to today. A president who publicly professes his intention to support sin (legalizing gay marriage and defending the legality of abortion) will not receive God's blessing of protection or prosperity for his leadership.

Moving on to another Biblical fundamental, "has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world (1 Co. 1:20)?" The Lord delights in mocking the wisdom of mankind, but how often do Christians today truly dwell upon this absolute? Simplified for clarity, the greatest geniuses of mankind, assuming they also rejected Jesus Christ, were imbeciles. The greatest philosophers, intellectuals, and scientists, if they were not saved, were nothing more than fools. This is certainly a hard concept to imbibe. Many individuals, even founders of this nation, revered today by Christian and non-Christian alike, were, according to the fundamentals of the Bible, too blind to recognize God as their creator. The world in its entire intellectual prowess is wrong and will never comprehend God's Truth. In fact, since this world sits firmly in the grip of Satan, Christians can usually just listen to the world's opinion and then confidently do the opposite.

The world hates George W. Bush. The Guinness Book of World Records attributes the largest demonstration/anti-war rally as having taken place in Rome in 2003 to protest the Iraq invasion. It further credits several rallies in England and France as having been additional finalists. Summarily, no issue in all of modern history has ever upset the world as much as the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Jewish holocaust was not so bitterly protested. The countless Muslim inspired genocides in Africa have not inspired so much outrage. The world has never objected so strongly to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children. Even Saddam's butchery of 300,000 Kurds with weapons of mass destruction was practically ignored. Yet, the simple execution of a U.N. Resolution following the failure of over a decade of negotiations, economic sanctions, weapons inspectors, and one oil for food program to remove a tortuous megalomaniac from power inspired more worldwide protest and outrage than ever before.

Some have responded that the protests were in opposition to war, not to Bush. If that were true, then someone somewhere would be able to show a few photographs of protestors holding signs in Rome, England, or France which called upon Saddam to obey the U.N. Of course, one can readily find thousands of photographs of countless protestors wielding signs comparing Bush to Satan and Hitler, or slandering the United States. The world is wrong, incapable of seeing truth or choosing right. Intellectual comedian Bill Maher looks at Europe and admires the way it "shed the skin of religion. " Despite what it may say, the world does not hate murder, war, or even genocide; the world hates righteousness. At this moment, the world hates George W. Bush. Are Christians today being swept along with the protests of this world?

The Dangers of an Unrighteous Ruler:
The third and final biblical fundamental flows directly from the previous two: sin equates spiritual death, and those not yet redeemed by the blood of Christ, well-intentioned thought they may seem, are nothing more than slaves to unrighteousness. Paul practically beats a dead horse in Romans chapter six expounding on the profound differences between those saved by faith and those still held captive by the law. Christ himself in describing the Pharisees compared them to expensive tombs which, although beautiful on the outside, contained dead men's bones within (Mt. 23:27).

Consider also Israel's selection of a monarch. Considering first the appearance rather than the heart, Israel chose Saul, because he was tall, handsome, and a mighty warrior. He looked good, was intelligent, and spoke with eloquence. David, the youngest, smallest, and simplest of Jesse's sons, lacked all of Saul's outstanding characteristics but was nonetheless a man after God's own heart. Do not assume that the differences between Saul and David reflect the differences between John Kerry and George W. Bush, but rather focus on the lesson the Bible wishes to teach. When choosing a leader, Christians must look at the heart. A non-Christian cannot lead with righteousness, because, as Paul explained it, he is nothing more than a spiritual corpse.

One who is spiritually dead can never do the right thing for the right reason. Indeed, God may ultimately choose to bring about something good through his sinfulness. However, while The Lord may allow wicked men to prosper for awhile, a sinful leader can never inherit God's blessing for himself and those he leads. Therefore, when presented with a choice between a Christian and a non-Christian, one can never choose the non-Christian regardless of the circumstances. At the very least, one can abstain; but what Christian would honestly choose to follow someone still in bondage to sin? Which one of Christ's sheep would elect to be led astray by a goat outside the Shepherd's protection?

Conclusion:
Unfortunately, this article cannot prove which of the two candidates is America's "David." With politics and parties in the state they are today, a David-like candidate would probably never even survive the primaries. Determining an individual's spirituality, particularly without knowing him personally, is extremely difficult. With the modern media constantly prepared to smear and falsify, it can be difficult to ascertain the truth of a candidate's life. Consider the aforementioned fundamentals and match them against each candidate's words and beliefs, ignoring instinctual preferences for outward appearance, political ideologies, and public opinion. Consider first the heart.

If both candidates were to meet the standards of Christianity, then the choice of president would be dependent upon other less vital factors. However, that is not the case this November. While one cannot prove that George W. Bush is a Christian, one can say with sufficient certainty that John Kerry is not. Religion and spirituality are not personal matters which should be kept silent. As every true Christian knows, the grace of God is the most important and influential aspect in an individual's life. No saved believer could ever say that his faith in Jesus Christ does not influence his leadership decisions or his political ideologies. Senator Kerry's support of gay marriage and abortion are troubling to say the least. It is bad enough when a candidate is apathetic towards sin, but far worse when, as a professed Christian, he then intends to further it. If unconvinced by Bush's claims of Christianity, one must abstain from the voting booths this November. Although this article may be unable to prove that there is a right choice, John Kerry is undoubtedly the wrong choice. No political ideology or voting record can ever outweigh the fundamentals of the Bible.