In the shifting tides of our culture, the question of the definition of marriage is front and center. When given the chance to choose, voters have overwhelmingly stated they are in favor of protecting the traditional view of marriage as one-man, one woman. Traditional marriage matters to the general populace. It should matter even more to Christians!

Here’s the rub—politicians, judges, representatives at the 2012 Democratic Convention, and the current president disagree. Strongly. This should make a difference for believers as we cannot underestimate the realities that a particular worldview brings to those who govern and lead our nation.
Let’s look at a few of these intersections and why they matter in our voting choices:

—Marriage has a particular design: One man. One woman. Together for life. It’s not a slogan. It’s the truth of Scripture. While our society may want to change the marriage status to reflect the general category of love—the heart wants what it wants as many claim—Scripture does not agree. Marriage is designed for a man and a woman to covenant together for the purposes of honoring God, enjoying one another, encouraging one another and serving one another. It shapes us and causes us to grow and mature as individuals and becomes the foundation for the family. (Genesis 2:24) God created marriage for our pleasure and for our good. A re-definition of God’s design for marriage rejects what is best for ourselves and our society.

—Marriage is the foundational building block for society: The church has always contended that marriage is the best foundation for society. Marriage builds families. Families form communities. Healthy families and communities create healthy and affluent societies. Marriage provides the essential, fertile context for growing individuals. Sociological studies prove that children in homes with a healthy marriage are more successful and have a greater potential for the future.1 Every vote we cast makes a statement about what we believe will create a better today and tomorrow. Building a better tomorrow through stronger families and stronger marriages will provide the stability needed no matter what economic realities our country faces.

—Marriage has a permanent design: For Christians who uphold the realities of Scripture, this is a non-negotiable. From the creation of humanity in the Garden of Eden, God crafted beautifully and wonderfully. God designed both male and female to glorify him through an intimate “one flesh” bond. Jesus talked about the importance of marriage and the unique bond between husband and wife. In the eyes of Christ, that bond contains such significance, it is never to be severed (Matthew 5:32, 19:3-10; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:2-12).

—Marriage still matters: One of the criticisms against traditional marriage is that the institution as expressed in our society is broken. Should the broken state of marriage negate the God-centered design? No matter how broken the institution of marriage may become in society as a whole, it doesn’t change the reality that God designed it for our good. Our rejection of God’s design erodes the foundation that he created for it. We have deluded ourselves to think pre-marital sex, extra-marital affairs and pornography are somehow “normal.” It isn’t to God. He designed what he knew would be best for us. Marriage is worth fighting for!

—Marriage under attack: Because marriage matters to God, it should matter to us and, consequently, to our candidates. You see, when we vote for a candidate, he or she will become an advocate for the positions he or she espouses. If a candidate denies the biblical foundation for traditional marriage, that same candidate will tend to put pressure on the same institution. Do not expect neutrality. The pressure is high in our day to re-negotiate what marriage means. We are forgetting that the price is too high! Not taking a stand on this issue today may even lead to religious persecution later as we teach the biblical standards on marriage and sexual relationships.

In the end, candidates may not always line up directly with our biblical worldview. It may even feel as if we are left to choose between a “lesser of two evils.” With our God-given freedoms that we enjoy here in America, we are responsible as believers to vote our conscience. Do your research and find the right candidates. Make sure you vote. This election makes a difference!

1. Jeanne M. Hilton, Esther L. Devall, “Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families,” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage Vol. 29, Iss. 3-4, 1998

—John Mark Yeats is the pastor of Normandale Baptist Church in Fort Worth and is an adjunct professor of church history at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

As an American Baptist Christian (in that order) I experience the power of corporate bodies at every turn. My work is governed by over 2,300 churches, themselves congregationally governed, that send messengers to approve my budget and appoint my more direct authority structure, a board of trustees. The Grapevine police officer sitting in front of our building with a radar gun and a fast car is there at the behest of the thousands who live in his town. Endless, unavoidable road construction that surrounds every destination is provided by taxes paid by nearly everyone I know. Deliberations, debates, compromises, votes—world without end. Flawed as the process might be, no one has suggested a better idea. Many have tried far worse ideas. I try to be a fan of the best answer available to the various groups I reside within.

Maybe my headline is deceptive; there really isn’t a “but” to this. My enthusiasm for democratic processes does assume a few things about those processes, though.

Democracy depends on a vigorous congregation. In my church or in my nation, our deliberation is only sane if the deliberators are willing to do more than express uninformed opinions. A remarkable amount of source material is available to help those opinions be more informed. That means that you can actually ask or hear or read what a person said apart from the filter of another’s evaluation. You can read the Republican or Democrat platform or hear a presidential speech or ask the chairman of your church personnel committee for yourself so that you know not only the relevant questions but also an authoritative response. Perhaps the second part of that sanity is that those who are constitutionally qualified to vote and adequately informed should actually do so. I’m stunned at the number of my fellow citizen Christians who aren’t even registered to vote—that’s a sin. I’m also a bit disappointed at how few of my fellow church members participate in the significant decisions made in their names at church. Maybe that is a sin also.

Democracy depends on available information. Most conspiracy theories are silly. Sure, people can be evil enough to assassinate a famous person or blow up a skyscraper, but it is not reasonable to assume that thousands or even scores of conspirators will go to their graves without leaking the dirty truth. Come on, for most of us a secret known by two people is not safe. Famous conspiracies about the assassination of President Kennedy or the faking of the moon landing are absurd if only for the number of people required to keep secrets. It is also challenging to keep something under wraps when there are ambitious reporters sorting through your garbage. On the national political scene, we mostly do have access to information that tells the story. A bigger challenge is the volume of sometimes irrelevant information under which the story is buried.

But in our churches and in our denomination, those ambitious ferrets are not so much in evidence. Without making this the point of the column, I emphatically believe religious leaders of good will (employed and appointed) must be more open than is often the case, as their counterparts in the non-religious world are legally forced to be. It is natural to want to maintain the good reputation of an institution or church but that reputation needs to be the truth. No leader or plan is godly enough if its progress depends on no one finding out something that would result in a firing or ending of the project. Have an unassailable reason that you’re willing to explain for keeping secrets about work done in the name of the deliberative body you serve.

For God’s people, democracy depends on a population that walks with God. Have you ever been in a meeting where someone suggested that you take a couple of weeks to pray about something fairly mundane like carpet or yard work? I find that manipulative in many cases. It’s wrong for God’s people to show up at a meeting or voting booth if they have not been in fellowship with God. The result of that fellowship is that we will most often recognize the difference between better and worse solutions to most issues that arise within our body. Democracy for us depends on a relationship that gives us discernment beyond common sense. If we don’t have that resource, we’re just a political body like any other.

Democracy depends on God. That’s true of any variety of government applied to any body. Leaders are not independent of God even when they think they are. No advocacy group can do what prayer can do for a deliberative body. In every election we must ask for guidance and mercy from the only one who has perfect knowledge and power over human events. We should not spend more time watching debates or listening to news shows or reading voters’ guides than we do in prayer. The intervention of God is the only way that our church or nation will do the right things.

In a couple of weeks we’ll have a very important general election in America. Most elections are more important than we think but this one is a biggie. In a month or so your church will approve a ministry budget for 2013. Listen to the facts, listen to God, then show up and obey him. If God’s people will do that, it will affect our nation in a way beyond the four-year tenure of any president.

On May 16, 1920, George W. Truett, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, stood on the East Steps of the Capitol at Washington, D.C., to preach of the Baptists’ role in the shaping of America. Before him stood a large crowd of people, eager to hear his planned address. As J.B. Gambrell shared, “The shadow of the Capitol of the greatest and freest nation on earth, largely made so by the infiltration of Baptist ideas through the masses, fell on the vast assembly, composed of Cabinet members, Senators and members of the Lower House, Foreign Ambassadors, intellectuals in all callings, with peoples of every religious order and of all classes.” Truett’s historic words addressed a diverse society clearly on a roll! The thriving stock market was still years away from “Black Tuesday” and the period between the two world wars was vibrant with frivolity, progress and hope. Respect for clergy and religious convictions were running high. Politicians may well have been no more religious than they are today, but they were wise enough to realize a need for the mainstream Christian vote. This attitude would change in just two generations.

In less than 100 years, the political landscape in America has been vastly transformed. No longer does a political candidate in America need Christian values to be elected. Society’s warm embrace of recent candidates espousing a plethora of anti-Christian ideals and rhetoric has decisively proven this to be true. The decline is so monumental that many Christians are finding themselves on the horns of a dilemma as to what to do come November.

This became apparent after a Sunday morning sermon when an older gentleman. He shared that for the first time he was unable to vote for either candidate for president because he could never cast a ballot for someone he believed was not a Christian. Therefore, as neither candidate professes a true belief in Christ that is borne out by moral decisions upholding Christian values, he would protest by opting out of the American political system and refuse to vote. While I appreciate my friend’s desire to honor God with his vote, if all conservative Christians employ the same strategy we have little or no hope for any restorative change in the moral climate of America.

So, what is a Christian to do and how should a candidate’s religious belief (or lack thereof) inform and shape the evangelical community’s vote? On the one hand, President Barack Obama professes Christianity and yet does not espouse what many would recognize as a biblical ethic. On the other hand, Gov. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Regardless of the liberal media’s errant definition of true Christianity, Mormonism remains un-Christian in doctrine as well as practice. The average Christian in America, therefore, is faced with an unpalatable choice.

In a recent discussion with Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He told me, “Christians voting in a secular arena often face a circumstance in which they do not have a candidate that they feel good about supporting. In such cases, a believer is obligated to vote against the candidate most likely to do harm to his most cherished biblical principles. When one candidate threatens religious liberty, declares war on preborns in the wombs of their mothers, and attempts to redefine marriage, a true believer has no choice but to endorse the lesser of two evils, thus prolonging the hegemony of righteousness as long as possible.” Clearly, the Christian community faces a choice like this in 2012.

Scripture shows that God used even the most evil authorities to enact his plans and purposes in the world. When in disobedience Israel acted independently of God, he regularly utilized unbelieving nations as instruments of reproof and correction. Numerous pagan kings appear in the Bible as unknowing servants of a powerful God. Whether Artaxerxes, Nebuchadnezzar, Ahasuerus or some other unbelieving authority, the pages of Scripture prove God can use that which is evil to carry out his purposes.

Proverbs 21:1 sheds light on the authority of God over every earthly leader: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will.” When I read this verse it reminds me of when my son was a 4-year-old. His height was perfect for me to simply place my hand on the back of his head and gently guide him to whatever path I desired us to take. One time we were in a crowd of people and without realizing it, I placed my hand on the head of another child my son’s size and began guiding him. Very quickly I learned the error of my ways and apologized to the young boy’s father. The difference is that God sovereignly directs the course of his world with perfect precision. He can use any person he chooses and never places his hand of guidance incorrectly upon any world leader regardless of appearance. He can always be trusted, even when no ideal choice is offered.

Do the religious beliefs of a candidate impact how we should vote? Absolutely they do. But staying home on Nov. 6 must not be an option. Christians must vote for the candidate who most aligns with what the Bible teaches, even if it means voting for the lesser of two evils.

—Byron McWilliams is a past SBTC president who serves as pastor of First Baptist Church of Odessa

Religious liberty: There is no more important issue facing voters in this presidential election. Considering the options, that statement is significant. Sanctity of life is the most important moral issue of the past half-century. The foundational institution of civil society, marriage, is at most a step and a half from being completely devoid of meaning. Racial prejudice has already divided and may yet end up felling the nation. The free market is mocked by the crowds and shackled by the government to which it brought unprecedented prosperity and power.

What makes religious liberty the most important among so many profoundly significant issues? All of the others find their only real resolution in religious conviction. There are non-religious arguments to be made regarding all of the topics mentioned above. But those arguments invariably either build on a deep-seated religious conviction, or at least reveal one. When the individual’s freedom to believe or to practice his faith is undermined, then the ability to influence every morally significant issue in the culture is undermined.

“But surely there is no real threat to religious freedom in America.” Surely there is. In fact, when authorities declare commencement addresses about Jesus offensive, crosses at memorials inappropriate, or cheerleading placards with Scripture references illicit, religious liberty is threatened. When hate-crime legislation protects some groups but not others, religious liberty is endangered. When religious organizations are forced to pay directly for contraceptives and abortifacients in direct violation of their religious conviction, religious liberty is violated.

The first words in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights (the first amendments to the U.S. Constitution) are: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Before freedom of speech, before freedom of the press, and before the right to assemble there is freedom of religion.

In the face of criticism that it is impinging on the freedom of religion, the current administration including the president himself and the secretary of state have fallen back on the nation’s respect for the freedom to worship. But freedom to worship “as one sees fit” is only a meager shard of genuine religious liberty. The words of the first amendment protect not simply the contained worship of a congregation within a building’s walls one day of the week, but the free exercise of religion. Since religion sincerely practiced affects the whole of a person’s life, the free exercise of religion extends to every part of that person’s life: at church, home, work, school, the marketplace, and the voting booth.

Religion is the ultimate expression of value, and faith the ultimate expression of commitment. In a land teetering on the brink of what almost half the nation sees as a bright new horizon, the only hope of protecting and even fostering values as fundamental and diverse as life and family, or equality and opportunity, is for persons with religious conviction to exercise their faith in practice—privately, publicly, socially, and politically.

Unfortunately, even a disconcerting number of believers are beginning to claim that a persecuted church might be a stronger church—that an end of religious liberty might not be a bad thing. That line of thinking needs correction. It is true that suffering can bring purity. But it is false to think that only suffering can bring purity. Similarly, it is true that God has no problem overcoming any kind of opposition—even when it comes from a powerful and tyrannical state. But thinking that an oppressive state is acceptable because God can overcome it through the faithfulness of his suffering people is tantamount to thinking that sin is acceptable because God can overcome it through the suffering of his Son. Paul told the Romans that line of thinking is wrong.

No government should ever violate the free consciences of its citizens. It may be too late to hope this one never will. But it is not too late for this state’s citizens to use the power still in their possession to fill the government with leaders who will ensure not just that Sunday worship is unrestrained, but that Sunday through Saturday the free exercise of religion is unrestrained.

—Barry Creamer is vice president of academic affairs and professor of humanities at Criswell College in Dallas.