Search
  • Brad Bright

Updated: Aug 2


Remember that the candidates’ principles are far more important than their party affiliation. To place confidence in unworthy candidates is a miscarriage of Christian stewardship. “Putting confidence in an unreliable person in times of trouble is like chewing with a broken tooth or walking on a lame foot” (Proverbs25:19). –Bill Bright


I recently recorded a podcast entitled “Is it a Sin to NOT Vote?” The additional information I promised is below. If you sincerely desire to serve as a faithful steward of your God-given vote, read on. It is not designed to tell you who to vote for, or what political party to support. My goal is to pass on practical information to help you wisely invest the vote God gave you.


How do you decide who to vote for, or who to vote against? Think about that for a moment. Is it their style? Their personality? What they say? How they say it? Do they seem trustworthy? Maybe fear drives you? Maybe they claim to be a Christian. Many factors influence how we vote.


Elections are a billion-dollar industry with a lot at stake. Candidates pay dearly for marketing people who know how to manipulate you, trick you, scare you, woo you and capture your imagination. They also hire skilled coaches who help them package and deliver their public speeches. Some candidates are so articulate they could even fool their own mothers.


My mother was in the Oval Office with President Clinton on the National Day of Prayer in the 1990’s. She did not vote for him. She did not trust him. However, she said the man was so “charming” that had she not been absolutely certain of who she was talking to, she would have easily been sucked in within the first five minutes.


During my days on Capitol Hill, I knew a congressman who was highly respected and known to be a strong evangelical in his home district. He was tall, handsome, extremely smart, well-spoken and knew all the evangelical lingo. However, on Capitol Hill we all knew him to be a self-serving liar.


My point is—never trust the packaging or a silver tongue. It’s like Saruman in The Lord of the Rings—if you listened to him for very long, he would draw you in with his voice. The best defense was to just not listen.


And this brings me to the point of this blog, if you can’t trust a candidate’s words, how do you decide? In the next few paragraphs, I am going to share some tips that can help you cut through verbal mirages.


So, let’s begin. Following are six voting criteria:


1) INTEGRITY. Do their words and actions match? If they don’t, ignore their words and heavily weight their actions. Do their words and votes match? If they don’t, ignore their words and go with their voting record. But be careful, they can even fool you with how they say they vote.


During my days on Capitol Hill in the 80’s, I remember one congressman who went back to his home district in Georgia and told a group of conservatives he voted for Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative(SDI). He then told group of liberals he voted against funding SDI. Both were true. He had voted for the initial bill, then voted against funding it. Pretty shrewd, huh?


2) TRACK RECORD. “Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.” We know people can change, but it’s wise to keep this saying in mind when a candidate’s track record and words diverge. Unless you can clearly identify why the candidate changed, go with their track record. You’ll be right 9 times out of 10. Remember, never underestimate the ability of a skilled politician to deceive you if you listen very long.


3) ASSOCIATES. First, who are their friends? Remember the proverb your mother taught you: “You can judge a man by the company he keeps.” There is a lot of wisdom in that saying.


But there is another component to this concept that is just as important. Who do they hire? In politics there is a widely accepted truism: “Personnel is policy.” What that means is, no matter what a politician says, the person the candidate chooses to implement the policy is the one who will determine what actually happens. So look as carefully at the track record of the candidate’s chief of staff and key staffers as you do at the candidate.


4) MONEY. Money runs politics. As the saying goes, “Follow the Money.” Who gave money to the candidate? Who has the candidate give money to? Who has given money to their PAC? Who payrolls or enriches their wife, kids and siblings? For congressmen, senators and the president, it’s often helpful to visit the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) website and look up your candidate. It takes some time, but you can often uncover very interesting connections.


One word of caution: many businesspeople often give to both candidates so they can have access after the election no matter who wins. That may be questionable ethics, but it is shrewd. And it is extremely common.


5) ENDORSEMENTS. What individuals have endorsed the candidate? What groups have endorsed the candidate? Oh, and don’t forget, who has the candidate endorsed? Endorsements are a big clue as to how the candidate will vote after he or she is elected.


6) WORDS. “Actions speak louder than words.” It’s true. Turn down the volume and vote based on the first five points above.


I have one more piece of advice that is often overlooked. What is the job description of the position the candidate is vying for? It should make a difference in how you vote.


JOB DESCRIPTION OF A U.S. CONGRESSMAN:

What is the primary job of a U.S. congressman? It’s to pass laws and spend your money, right? So, vote based on how you think they will spend your money as well as the laws you think they are likely to support or oppose.


JOB DESCRIPTION OF A U.S. SENATOR:

What is the primary job description of a U.S. senator? It's to pass laws, spend your money, confirm cabinet members and confirm federal judges. Let me ask you, what is the most powerful branch of government today? Is it the legislative, executive or judiciary? It’s the judiciary. In theory, the three branches are supposed to serve as checks and balances against each other. However, in modern practice, the balance of power between the three branches of government is no longer balanced. The federal courts routinely tell the Congress and President what they can and cannot do. So, remember, when you vote for a United States senator, you are also voting for largely unaccountable federal justices (including the Supreme Court) who will control your destiny and the destiny of this nation.


JOB DESCRIPTION OF THE U.S. PRESIDENT:

Likewise, the President wears a lot of hats in our government, but one of them is to nominate justices to the federal courts. Since the federal courts are the most powerful branch of government (they can tell the president “No!” and he must obey—at least for now) make sure you take that into account.


Now, you are probably thinking to yourself, “I don’t have time to apply these criteria to every candidate I have to vote for!” Unless you are retired, or a political analyst, you are correct. So here is my final piece of advice. Ask 5 to 10 like-minded friends to join with you (your church would probably be a good place to find such people). Each of you take 2-3 candidates and thoroughly research them. First do a written report on each candidate. Then send it out to every member of your group. Finally, find a time for everyone to get together to talk about each candidate and ask questions. Now you can vote wisely without having to do all the work yourself.


I strongly recommend iVoterGuide.com as a resource to help you evaluate candidates. They apply the exact same grid to every candidate, so it gives you a great comparative analysis. And, unlike most candidate rating systems, they do not weight votes in order to manipulate their ratings. As long as iVoterGuide.com continues to work hard to use the exact same grid for every candidate, I will continue recommending them. If they ever stop, I will let you know as soon as I know.


I leave you with words my sister-in-law, Paula, often voiced whenever her kids walked out the front door, “Make wise choices.”


Your 7 Duties as a Christian Citizen by Bill Bright & Brad Bright is available on our Resources Page. It is a short booklet designed to help you steward your responsibilities as a Christian Citizen well.

Copyright ©2022 Brad Bright

54 views0 comments
  • Brad Bright

“America is faced with the greatest crisis in its history. We are in danger of losing our nation, and our God-given freedoms to those who disdain the God of our nation’s founders. If that should happen, our opportunity to help fulfill the Great Commission throughout the United States and the world could also be lost.” –Bill Bright



If we are to keep our religious freedoms secure, we would do well to understand the difference between Separation of Church and State, and Segregation of Church and State.


In 2015, the Bremerton School District in Washington State effectively fired coach Joseph Kennedy for praying on the 50-yard line following a football game. He filed suit against the Bremerton school district.


Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled on the case. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor once again misconstrued Thomas Jefferson’s concept of Separation of Church and State. She wrote that the majority opinion “elevates one individual’s interest in personal religious exercise…over society’s interest in protecting the separation between church and state, eroding the protections for religious liberty for all.” Apparently, she believes we must censor religious speech in order to protect religious liberty. Hmm.


Fortunately, in this case the Constitution won. Coach Kennedy’s Constitutional rights were upheld. However, Justice Sotomayor and the other dissenting Justices are not alone in advocating for censorship of religious speech under the guise of Separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, they have exchanged Separation of Church and State for Segregation of Church and State.


How did Separation of Church and State devolve into Segregation of Church and State? How did Freedom of Religion mutate into Freedom from Religion? How did we go from protecting the religious beliefs of every American citizen to censoring religious speech?


On December 16, 1620, the pilgrims landed in America, fleeing religious persecution, fleeing tyrannical governments who prohibited the free exercise of religion, requiring compliance with a uniform creed. Within this context, the Founding Fathers opened the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution with these words:


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

What that means is, Congress shall not establish a State Church like the Church of England, nor in any other way regulate or censor religious speech. In other words, the federal government must wear a gag when it comes to religion, deferring to the individual citizen at all times in all places. It may never censor the religious speech of any individual in any setting simply because it is religious speech. That is what religious toleration means. It means “Hands off!”


Please look carefully at the wording of the First Amendment. It does not say, “…prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless….” It says “…prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Period. There is no “unless.” There are no caveats, no exceptions. In other words, every American citizen is entitled to the free exercise of their religion at all times in all settings. That includes florists, bakers, photographers, fire chiefs, school teachers and high school football coaches.


In case that was not clear enough, in the very next clause of the First Amendment, our Founding Fathers further clarified their intent with the words, “or abridging freedom of speech.” In other words, not only is the federal government to wear a gag regarding regulating religious speech; it is to wear a gag regarding all speech. Government may not prefer one form of speech (religious or secular) over another. It must actively protect all forms of speech. The only clear exception is when the physical safety or liberty of the American people is at stake since it is the responsibility of the government to protect “life” and “liberty.”


That is why the 1963 Abington School District v. Schempp Supreme Court decision is problematic at best. Not only did the Supreme Court vote to outlaw Bible reading and prayer in schools, it mandated that all activity in public schools must have a “secular purpose.” For the first time in our history, the Court gave “secular” speech a clear preference over religious speech, kicking religious belief to the back of the bus. If there is a specific point at which Separation of Church and State mutated into Segregation of Church and State, that was it.


Furthermore, do you remember Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist association where the term “Separation of Church and State” comes from? Let’s look carefully at what he actually said:


“I contemplate with sovereign reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

He said, the (federal) legislature should “make no law….” “Make no law,” was the central point. That single restriction on government is what he said built “a wall of separation between Church and State.” Let me ask you, when a florist declines to make flowers for an event that contradicts her religious beliefs is that a legislature making a law? When a baker chooses to not make a wedding cake because of his religious beliefs is that a legislature making law? When a fire chief teaches the Bible’s view of homosexuality in his own church is that the legislature making a law? When a coach prays on the 50-year line is that the legislature making a law? Of course, the answer is “No!” Citizens exercising their right to free speech and freedom of religion can in no wise be interpreted as making a law. Jefferson’s clear intent was to emphasize that the government can “make no law” regulating or prohibiting the religious practices or speech of its citizens. Separation of Church and Stategags government, not individual American citizens. How far we have fallen from Jefferson’s vision.


So, let me summarize everything I have said so far. Separation of Church & State mandates that the federal government must wear a gag when it comes to the “free exercise” of religion. It may never prohibit the free exercise of religion in any setting at any time. Conversely, Segregation of Church and State occurs any time government censors religious speech, preferring secular speech over religious speech—in effect booting religious speech to the back of the bus.


Let me say that again: Segregation of Church and State occurs any time the government censors religious speech, preferring secular speech OVER religious speech.

Like Jefferson, I wholeheartedly embrace Separation of Church and State, however I categorically reject all forms of Segregation of Church and State where religion is kicked to the back of the bus; where secular speech is given preference over religious speech; where religious speech is censored simply because it is religious.


So, where do we go from here?


I believe the first step is for each of us to learn to recognize the difference between Separation of Church and State and Segregation of Church and State. Separation of Church and State gags the government. Segregation of Church and State gags individual citizens.


The second step is for each of us to start using the term Segregation of Church and State to describe every instance of government censoring the religious speech of its citizens. Words shape how we think. Words shape culture. Simply by changing the words we use to describe government censorship of religious speech we can help shape how the culture views the government’s role on matters of religious belief.


The third and most important step is to go out and make God the issue every day. Those who disdain God have often intimidated Christians into silence with the mantra, “Separation of Church and State.” Now you know what it really means. Now you know it was intended to gag the government, not you.


God is the issue. If we do not make Him the issue, we will eventually lose what is left of our religious freedoms, as well as all our other God-given freedoms. It is time for followers of Jesus to shine brightly in the darkness—without apology.


Watch my podcast, Episode #10 Segregation of Church and State, to hear more on this critical issue!



Copyright © Brad Bright 2022. All rights reserved.

82 views0 comments

Updated: Jun 14



Most followers of Jesus in America are confused about their role as citizens of the United States and their obligations to government, not because they don’t understand God’s command, but because they have not deeply considered the implications of God’s command within the context of a constitutional republic.


Romans 13:1 commands, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (NIV). In Paul’s day this meant, first and foremost, obeying Caesar, the head of the government. Paul appealed to Caesar when he did not receive justice from Festus, the governor of Judea. Jesus instructed, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” The only escape clause to this principle is if and when the Constitution clearly requires you to do something contrary to the Word of God.


In the United States the highest of our “governing authorities” is not Caesar, but the Constitution.

The president, every congressman, senator, federal judge and soldier takes an oath of office swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Every new immigrant who wishes to become a naturalized U.S. citizen must also take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution—not the president, not the Congress, not the Supreme Court. If they do not, they are not allowed to become a U.S. citizen.


For example, the Presidential Oath of Office says:


I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.


All the other oaths are similar.


Here’s the point.


In the United States of America, the Constitution is king—as “established” by God, according to Romans 13:1.

Therefore, when forced to choose between obeying the Constitution or a rogue bureaucrat or a misguided soul clothed in black robes, we must always obey the Constitution. Based on Romans 13:1 it is our Christian duty before God.


In light of that, it is not civil disobedience to oppose a judge or bureaucrat who violates the Constitution (our king). This is critical to understand. Instead, it is our spiritual duty to oppose officials who violate the Constitution. Based on Romans 13:1, submitting to a judicial ruling or law that violates the Constitution is sin, unless the Constitution itself is in violation of God’s law.

In such circumstances the critical question every sincere follower of Jesus in America needs to ask themselves is, “Will I obey or disobey the Constitution of the United States?”


When a judge’s ruling violates a citizen’s freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, due process or equal protection under the law, it is always our sacred obligation to uphold the Constitution (our king) and oppose the wayward official. The choice is between obeying a judge (a functionary) or the Constitution (our God-ordained king).


When a bureaucrat or judge says you violated “separation of church and state” by praying in school or a government facility, you have ZERO moral or legal obligation to comply. Why? Because “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, but the “free exercise” of religion is, which means, the federal government may not censor or prohibit your religious speech. And, again, the Constitution is king.


But that is not all. A judge only has moral authority because the Constitution bestows it. When a judge violates his oath of office by not upholding the Constitution, he forfeits his moral authority. He may still retain coercive power, but never confuse power with legitimate moral authority. Think Hitler: he had great power but no moral authority.


Why do I even address this issue? Every Christian needs to understand that when a judge, politician or bureaucrat violates a clearly enumerated Constitutional right, we have a moral obligation to vigorously oppose all such faithless government officials who set themselves up against the Constitution (our king), even if they are a Supreme Court Justice. It is not an issue of civil disobedience. Let me repeat. It is not an issue of civil disobedience. It is an issue of whether we will obey or disobey the Constitution, and therefore God’s command. And remember, disobeying God is sin.


In America, the Constitution is Caesar. If Jesus walked among us today, his words might have sounded like this, “Render unto the Constitution what is the Constitution’s, and unto God what is God’s.”


GOD is the issue.


To learn more and hear my discussion about this topic listen to my podcast. Click on the button below and let me know what you think!




Copyright © Brad Bright 2022. All rights reserved.

146 views0 comments
1
2