Skip to main content

2012 Elections: Why I've decided to dissent

By Angela Wittman

Disagreement, non-conformity, and opposition to our present government and the current two-party system is not a bad thing for a Christian to do and this is why I've decided to dissent and not vote in the 2012 elections.  And while there may be some worthy third party candidates, I just can't find one to vote for at this time - sorry. Perhaps if I were more ignorant about the current candidates and political parties, I would have a clear conscience and could vote for either the lesser of the two evils (Romney/Obama) or a candidate running on a third party platform that looks great on paper, but lacks in actual practice by the party leaders and their candidates.

Some critics might charge that I am seeking perfection in a candidate, but those who know me realize that I have a pragmatic streak which can sometimes serve as a thorn in my flesh; I am continually looking for practical ways to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and often have to put a halt to my activities because they just don't line up with Scripture, which is the Christian's standard for life.

Plus, as a modern woman I struggle with independence and Biblical submission to the authorities God has placed over me, including my husband.  Some Christian ladies might find this quite shocking, but I think the head of the household should represent their families in the voting booth. So, instead of rolling up my sleeves and doing the "man's job," I've decided to keep my sleeves unrolled and encourage him to do his job. This doesn't mean I've become politically idle and culturally irrelevant, but instead I've taken on a more supportive role and declined those roles requiring male leadership.

So, dear reader, let's take a look at political wisdom passed on to our generation from the Scottish Covenanters, who historically dissented from voting in the united States until the 1970's.

Bill Edgar has written The History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America from 1528 to 2004 and includes this information regarding the American War for Independence, the Reformed Presbyterian involvement and the Covenanters response to the Constitutional Convention of 1787:
The American Revolution, which was also a civil war, began. The segment of Americans who truly supported the war included all of the Society People, all Seceders, indeed all Presbyterians. Americans of Scottish descent loved this war against England. They remembered the years of oppression and persecution at English hands. An Episcopalian from Philadelphia said, “A Presbyterian loyalist was a thing unheard of.” A representative of Lord Dartmouth wrote from New York in November 1776: “Presbyterianism is really at the bottom of this whole Conspiracy, has supplied it with Vigour, and will never rest, till something is decided upon it.” A Hessian captain wrote in 1778, “Call this war by whatever name you may, only call it not an American rebellion; it is nothing more or less than a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian rebellion.” King George III himself was reported to have called the war a Presbyterian War.

With French help, the Americans won. A new nation emerged. Reformed Presbyterians no longer needed to dissent from an ecclesiastical and political establishment that denied the covenants. Then the states ratified a new constitution, written in secret in Philadelphia in 1787. The Covenanters were aghast at its secularism. Governments of Christian lands had acknowledged Christ’s reign since Roman times, but the United States Constitution conspicuously omitted any reference to God or Christ. In Scotland the main issue had been the independence of the Christian Church from a professedly Christian King. In America, the issue was the government’s wholesale denial of Christ’s authority over the nations.

In the book Our Covenant Heritage - The Covenanters' Struggle for Unity in Truth  by Edwin Nisbet Moore, can be found timeless Biblical principles helpful to understanding and practicing the 'obligations between Church and State.' Below is a list of principles found in chapter 13, Lessons for Citizens: Church and State - Their Common Obligations:

[Please note this is just a list and the book explains these principles in greater detail.]
Principle #1 The church and state are of entirely distinct and have immiscible natures and purposes; however they share many mutual obligations. [page 341]

Principle #2 States are obligated to acknowledge God as the source of their authority. Churches are obligated to educate the state regarding these obligations. Both share the common end to advance the glory of God and the common good. [page 345]

Principle #3 The state is obligated to promote good and punish evil, according to the Word. [page 347]

Principle #4 States are obligated to honor and acknowledge Jesus Christ, and mold their institutions and behavior in conformity with Christian principles. [page 350]

Principle #5 When God transforms a state into a Christian nation, the people, state, and church should covenant to establish and preserve the true religion. [page 352]

Mr. Moore then concludes this section with a summary and states "a Christian nation is a desired and promised blessing from God that we should seek. Although it is appropriate for a Christian people to covenant with God, it is inappropriate for a Christian people to enter into covenant with an immoral state. The Covenanters, in the Solemn League and Covenant, found the right balance. They believed that the rights of God extend into both the ecclesiastical and civil spheres. They had a vision that the goal of the Great Commission was the conversion of nations..."

So, dear friends, in my quest to help establish a Christian nation, the decision to "dissent" and not vote in this election not only leaves me with a clear conscience, but with the hope that the good Lord will honor this decision and give America "a man after His own heart" for Christians to elect to the highest office in our land.


  1. A friend sent me an AFA email with their voter’s guide including this little snippet from Russell Moore: “Simply not voting is a cop-out, not an option. “Christians who boycott voting,” says Russell D. Moore, dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, are “more akin to Pontius Pilate washing his hands rather than John the Baptist taking on the powers-that-be…” One of the two major presidential candidates will be the next president. “None of the above” is not on the ballot.”

    Excuse me, Mr. Wildmon and Mr. Moore, but in God’s economy not choosing any evil on the ballot is pleasing in His sight. I’ll not have the blood guilt of innocent children on my hands by voting for a nominal, lukewarm, supposedly pro-life, flip-flopping candidate like Mitt Romney. My conscience is truly held captive to the Word of God as Martin Luther so eloquently stated 500 years ago, and for me dissenting from participation in this charade of a presidential election is the only good choice to be made.

  2. Ms. Wittman,

    As a strong Christian I believe you do a devastating disservice to the unborn by abstaining from the election. A "nonvote" is in fact a vote for
    the most pro-abortion president in the history of our nation. That is not all; you will be re-electing a man that seeks to strip any believer of the religious liberty that is our right as children of God. In addition, you will be electing a man that seeks to redefine marriage completely opposed to the laws of God.

    There will indeed be blood on your hands if you stand by and do nothing. As the daughter of the first obstetrician to testify before Congress on behalf of the unborn, I know that at times you have to compromise in order to reach the good that you seek. We will not have a perfect society until Heaven, as we are all sinners. Jesus Christ would do whatever he could to save the unborn, even if that meant voting for Mitt Romney. Christ dined with sinners in order to draw them to Himself. None of us is perfect; we are all on a journey to the fullness of Truth that is Jesus Christ and we all need others to help along the way.

    You will be held accountable for the damage you do to the cause of life by promoting the abstention of voting to other souls. I will pray for your
    change of heart.

    Mary Beth Rolwes

  3. Hi Mary Beth, I can certainly use prayer and appreciate yours. However, I am a pro-life activist and try to do all I can to speak on behalf of the preborn without compromising Scripture or my principles. I trust the good Lord will cover me with His righteousness and defend my actions, if need be. I won't be changing my mind on this matter; voting for a confused man of a false religion to rule over me is not something I will ever be likely to do, unless I become insane or something like that. :) Thanks for dropping by.

  4. Wow Angela. You are not choosing one to "rule over you"-- that is reserved for God alone. We are a democracy and unless Jesus Christ were running there is no perfect choice.
    There are many false religions that hold parts of God's truth within them --There is only one
    True Church, the one founded by Jesus Christ
    and established on the rock of Peter.
    God Bless you.

  5. Okay... If it makes you feel better, I refuse to vote for a Mormon to represent me in the White House. I am not trying to be flippant, but this is a serious matter for me and to violate my conscience is something you nor anyone should ask me to do.

  6. Thanks Angela I appreciate this post and thank you for your transparency into this matter. I will be abstaining from this election as well. The fear, the urgency and the political bullying I feel is not something I want to take part in, and contradicts scripture quite frankly. My God's sovereingty is real and today I will be praying for Gods will to be done. the seriousness of voting for a Mormon is JUST as serious as voting for a so called believer. Satan is crafty and is an angel of light and is a mastermind...I will not be fooled!
    In HIs love,

  7. You are welcome, Jos! I am going to spend today in prayer and praise of our Great Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ while taking care of my family and home. I have much to be grateful for and your message of encouragement is much appreciated. May the good Lord bless, honor and keep you and your loved ones close to His Heart this day and for all eternity. Amen.

  8. Angela,
    I think you have a principled and biblical stand. I think I could make the case for a different one but you don't need my affirmation nor my criticism. Much of what we face these days may be the final death of what academics call "Christendom" that is the condition in which the State and Church were on two parallel although different paths.

    Today the Church and State seem to be more and more divergent in our society. This is very difficult for many to accept. Gender, ethnic, sexuality politics are merely symptoms of the (to mix metaphors) Great Divorce.

    I pray the Lord will bless you in your choices to submit and thanks a bunch for visiting my blog this week:


Post a Comment

Popular Posts (All Time)

A discerning look at 'Biblical Patriarchy' and those who abuse it

By Angela Wittman While much of what Doug Phillips teaches regarding Patriarchy sounds biblical, because of the lack of practical application, his teachings are often taken to extremes. Sometimes, men just hear his vision of men always “leading,” and they become domineering and demanding, causing undue stress on the wife. I know of one family that divorced precisely because of hearing this teaching and not understanding what it really should be. Sometimes, men will try to emulate what they see in Doug Phillips, and start requiring their families to have all the same rules as the Phillips. Unfortunately, if there are no personal convictions behind the rules, they soon become extremely oppressive and smother the family. Some men just have no clue about how to “lead” their families; they just know that it’s being constantly preached at them from the pulpit. Having come from a home without a godly leader, these men need lots of practical examples. (Taken from: Doug Phillips’ Kangaroo Court

A discerning look at Ted Weiland's "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective"

By Angela Wittman I believe I have found within the Scriptures the key to what made America great, and this key can restore her to her former greatness. - Ted Weiland, ( Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution; The Christian Perspective , A couple of years ago Ted Weiland contacted me and asked if he might send me his primer on  Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective . After receiving and reviewing the primer, I decided to toss it in the trash due to the concern that Mr. Weiland was missing a foundational point - Biblical covenanting.  And after recently reviewing his work in greater detail, I believe the reformed and theonomic community should be cautious about Mr. Weiland's book and his beliefs. Due to some glaring "red flags" I encountered while researching Mr. Weiland, I've decided to write this warning and state my concerns. First of a

'Of Saving Faith'

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XIV Of Saving Faith I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, [1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, [2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, [3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened. [4] II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; [5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, [6] trembling at the threatenings, [7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. [8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. [9] III. This faith is differ