There are several things fascinating about this Presidential election. As someone who has virtually given up on National politics, for me to say that is not an easy statement. The effect of the Donald Trump phenomenon has influenced far more than just his candidacy for the highest office in our nation. The most important aspect that I have noticed is that Christians, who have traditionally voted Republican, have been forced to deal with an identity crisis. Can they vote for a man like Donald Trump who barely pretends to hold to the true faith?[1] On the heels of this dilemma, they are questioning the basis for voting and the role their faith has in that decision. There is no doubt that Trump has said and done things that are too depraved to be repeated here, but so has Hillary Clinton, his opponent in this race for the White House. Isn’t she the greater evil and therefore Trump would be the better choice, the lesser evil? Is it acceptable for a Christian to vote for a man like Trump for President? This brings up the case of voting for the lesser of two evils. I have yet to meet anyone that actually believes Trump is an upstanding man of character. As for me personally, I have never been forced to wrestle with the ethical implications of my vote in any previous elections like I have in this one. This is in large part due to my role as being elected as a Republican Presidential Elector in the State of Texas. I have had to weigh what are the obligations of my personal vote in the ballot box and how do they differ from my representative vote as an Elector for the Electoral College. 
 
 Before answering these questions we must first agree on the standard we appeal to, to decide such matters. I firmly believe that the Christian must always turn to the Bible as the revealed Word of God. If the Bible says we ought not to do something, then we ought not to do it. If it commands us to do something, then we had better well do it. This should seem like an obvious statement that doesn’t need to be written, but in the world of politics the obvious sometimes isn’t. The Bible has a lot to say about civil rulers and the standard He holds both them and us to. 
 
 Qualifications 
 
 What are the qualifications for someone who desires to serve in civil office in the Bible? There are many passages in scripture that have shaped my understanding of the biblical qualifications for civil office. Here is a brief glance at a few of them.[2] 
 
 The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: He who rules over men must be just, Ruling in the fear of God. ~ 2 Sam 23:3 
 
 These are the parting words of King David to the children of Israel. He gives them the minimum requirements, as evident by the must, for civil rulers. Dr. Phillip Kayser summarizes this passage well, “it appears that the absolute minimum is that he be male (‘he”), that he be subject to God’s law (“just”), and that he be a believer who rules in the fear of God. The ‘must’ indicates to me that this is God’s minimum standard.” God spoke through King David, a civil ruler, and gave an authoritative command (imperative) about what type of man a ruler must be. He must fear God and be just according to God’s law. We can also look to the qualifications Moses was given by Jethro for selecting judges that would help him rule on smaller cases. 
 
 Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. ~ Exodus 18:21 
 
 These are the same quality of men we see described in 2 Samuel. They are men who fear God and will rule justly according to God’s law. Moses repeats similar instructions to the Israelites before they are to enter the Promised Land, 
 
 Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you. ~ Deut 1:13 
 
 Since to be wise starts with fearing the Lord (Prov 1:7), it becomes clear that these are consistent qualifications throughout the Bible. God has given us a standard for our civil rulers. They are to be men that fear Him and are to rule justly according His law. This has implications for both the rulers and those choosing them. 
 
 Interpretative Objections 
 
 For those that disagree with this interpretation of scripture these are some common objections I hear most often. First, “doesn’t that only apply to Old Testament (theocratic) Israel?” It is a reasonable objection, but there are other passages that make it clear that this was not a one-time standard that only applied to one nation. Psalm 2 address all nations and kings of the earth. 
 
 Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us.” He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure: “Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion.” “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’” Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. 
 
 It is obvious with references to “nations, kings of the earth, and judges of the earth” that the plain reading of this text is the calling of ALL civil leaders to submit to Christ’s law, rule justly, and serve Him or suffer the consequences. Again Dr. Kayser writes “Psalm 2 confirms this view. It prophesies concerning the New Testament era that any Gentile ruler that casts off God’s laws (v. 3), who rejects Christ’s Lordship (vv. 1-9), who fails to serve the Lord with fear (v. 11), and who refuses to ‘kiss the Son’ will have God angry with him and Christ will dash him with His rod of iron (judgment).” Christ has absolute authority over every person, church and nation. All government is upon His shoulders (Isa 9:6) and all civil authority is delegated by and from Him (John 19:11). Consider all of the pagan nations that God judged for their disobedience and it is evident that God holds all nations and their rulers to His standard of righteousness. 
 
 A second objection is to reject that it applies to voting. The basic assumption in this objection is that Israel didn’t vote for their civil leaders therefore 2 Samuel can’t be an absolute binding standard upon voters. I believe the Bible presents a different picture, but before we turn to some examples we must first understand what exactly a vote is. We tend to think of voting only in terms of our personal experiences. However, a vote is simply the expression of who we desire to represent us in any elected position. To vote doesn’t require any set number of candidates or political parties. It only requires one person making a choice and expressing it in some recognizable action (Ex. ballot, raised hand, or voice). With that in mind, we find several examples of voting for civil office in the Bible. Here are a few.[3] 
 
 We already looked at the passages relevant to Israel’s selection of judges under Moses. “Moreover you shall select from all the people, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens” (Exod 18:21) and “Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men…” (Deut 1:13). E.C. Wines writes, “No fact can be plainer, or more certain, than that the judges, instituted at the suggestion of Jethro, were chosen by the suffrages (voting) of all Israel. The direction of Moses to the people, upon that occasion, is very explicit.”[4] 
 
 The people clearly voted verbally for Jephthan in the book of Judges: 
 
 It came to pass after a time that the people of Ammon made war against Israel. And so it was, when the people of Ammon made war against Israel, that the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah from the land of Tob. Then they said to Jephthah, “Come and be our commander, that we may fight against the people of Ammon.” So Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “Did you not hate me, and expel me from my father’s house? Why have you come to me now when you are in distress?” And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “That is why we have turned again to you now, that you may go with us and fight against the people of Ammon, and be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.” So Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “If you take me back home to fight against the people of Ammon, and the Lord delivers them to me, shall I be your head?” And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “The Lord will be a witness between us, if we do not do according to your words.” Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them; and Jephthah spoke all his words before the Lord in Mizpah. ~ Judges 11:4-11 
 
 Then there is the story of Israel choosing Saul to be their king as recorded from 1 Samuel in chapters 8-11. It concludes with this: 
 
 So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal. There they made sacrifices of peace offerings before the Lord, and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly. ~ 1 Samuel 11:15 
 
 The most famous of kings in the biblical record, David, is another example of a civil ruler being elected. It is noteworthy that David had been anointed by Samuel to be king years before he was willing to take the throne. He refused to take it himself. He waited until the men of Judah came to him. He waited until he was chosen by the people. 
 
 So David went up there, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the widow of Nabal the Carmelite. And David brought up the men who were with him, every man with his household. So they dwelt in the cities of Hebron. Then the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. 2 Samuel 2:2-3 
 
 The last example we will look at of the people choosing their leader is King Solomon. 
 
 Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless the Lord your God.” So all the assembly blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the Lord and the king. And they made sacrifices to the Lord and offered burnt offerings to the Lord on the next day: a thousand bulls, a thousand rams, a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel. So they ate and drank before the Lord with great gladness on that day. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him before the Lord to be the leader, and Zadok to be priest. ~ 1 Chronicles 29:20-22 
 
 In each of these examples the people chose their leaders in some form or fashion. While the kings of Israel had certainly been anointed by God to serve in those positions that in no way discounts the role the people had in the selection process. For Daniel makes it clear that God always “removes and raises up kings.”[5] The biblical example is that the people are to choose, that is vote, for their civil leaders. 
 
 The third objection to the application of these biblical qualifications for voting is that several of the kings already mentioned did not rule according this standard. In others words, they would say “we can’t look for perfectionism in our candidates because if that is the case Saul, David, and Solomon all failed the test. They were not men who feared God and ruled justly according to His law. If God raised them up to be kings than either a) God broke His own standard or b) the standard isn’t applicable.” 
 
 First we have to understand the difference between the revealed will and secret will of God.[6] God can command His people to vote one way (revealed will) and hold them accountable for that vote. He can also at the same time use their disobedience to raise up an evil king according to His (secret) will. The fact that God uses people’s voting to bring both good and bad kings to power according to His will is not a contradiction and is perfectly consistent with His nature. Having said that, I do not think that Israel disobeyed these qualifications in these examples. To fear God and rule justly does not mean to be perfect. If we look at each of these men at the time they were put into office it appears they were all qualified. Saul is said to have “the Spirit of the Lord depart”[7] from him which necessarily means he had the Spirit early on in his administration. David was a “man after God’s own heart, who would do His will.”[8] When Solomon came to power it was said of him that “the Lord his God was with him and exalted him exceedingly.”[9] Each of these men sinned greatly against the Lord during their administration, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t qualified at the time they were chosen. The qualifications of being godly men who fear the Lord and are able to rule justly does not require perfection. It only requires what it states. They must have a discernable fear of God and appear to rule in light of that fear. 
 
 Pragmatic Objections 
 
 I now want to address the three objections to these qualifications that I consider more pragmatic in nature than interpretive. The first objection is that we don’t have anyone biblically qualified by this standard in the race for President. “If we are commanded to choose, then we must choose the least evil candidate.” There is a case to be made that we must do all that we can to stop the greatest evil. However, in that process we must still vote for qualified candidates. Remember “must” was the term scripture used. We can not use a means that God disapproves of to bring about an end that will please Him. He doesn’t honor rebellion. Furthermore, it is just not true that we don’t have anyone qualified. There are hundreds of people running for President in 2016, many of which meet these qualifications. What people generally mean when they offer this objection is that there isn’t anyone in the Republican or Democratic Parties, and therefore anyone that “has a chance at winning”, that meet these qualifications. This is absolutely correct that there isn’t anyone in either of those parties that are biblically qualified. However, I have yet to find anywhere in God’s Word a command for us to only choose men that have a path to victory. 
 
 The second objection is that a 3rd party vote is a vote for the Democratic candidate. The presumption in this objection is that Republican candidate deserves our vote and therefore if we do not vote for him, we have essentially withdrawn a vote that belongs to him. If we recall that a vote is simply the expression of who we desire to represent us in any elected position, then this becomes an illogical statement. If my choice is candidate X, then my choice doesn’t magically become candidate D by virtue of the fact that I didn’t chose candidate R. If I choose candidate X, then candidate X is my choice and only candidate X. 
 
 The third objection is that the righteous thing to do is to stop the greater evil. First, this assumes that the Democratic Party is the greater evil therefore we must do everything we can to stop Hillary Clinton from winning. I can understand this position for there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would be an evil President, but would she really be more evil than Trump in policy? Rather than going to the talking points of the political parties and inside operatives let’s look at the biggest issues that actually matter. If we look at where they stand on the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, murdering of unborn children, undeclared wars, the complete disregard for private property, or our national debt; the only difference between the two is in style and rhetoric. Where it matters most, they will both pursue the same wicked policies. Even if I am wrong about their policies, and one is slightly better than the other, it still would not make it an ethically righteous decision to suddenly throw off the qualifications in hope of possibly having a slightly less evil government. Theologians and philosophers refer to this as situational ethics. Situational ethics says the morally right and wrong thing to do change based on the situation. The Bible knows nothing of situational ethics, God and His Word do not change. If God tells us we must choose (vote for) a righteous man that fears Him, we are not free to attach an “unless” to the end of that command. May we boldly proclaim that “God be true and every man a liar” (Rom 3:4). We must fear God, not man… or woman! 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 If civil leaders are expected to rule according this standard and they are judged when they do not (Psalm 2), then what can we expect as voters when we dismiss these qualifications that God has given us? My biggest concern as a Christian is what God expects of me as revealed in the Bible. I have yet to have anyone address these passages in satisfactory way that convinces me otherwise. It seems clear to me that God both calls me to vote and directs me to only vote for men who fear Him and are just according to God’s law. He doesn’t expect or allow me to add to his qualifications and seek for perfection. He also doesn’t hold me accountable for all the sins that these qualified men commit once in office. He does, however, give me clear commands for who is qualified and expects me to be obedient with my calling as a voter. Therefore, I can not in good conscience vote for Donald Trump for President. The lingering question that remains is: what does that mean for my role as Republican Presidential Elector? That is the topic for another article. 
 
 Art Sisneros 
 
 [1] I acknowledge he claims to be a person of faith, but his denial of basic Christian tenets like the need for forgiveness make his claim laughable and believed by nobody. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=80&v=A3l0e6nS9oI 
 
 [2] For a more comprehensive list see http://fortifyingthekingdom.com/scriptural-qualifications-for-civic-office/ 
 
 [3] For a more complete study on this subject I recommend Roots of the American Republic by E.C. Wines 
 
 [4] E.C. Wines, Roots of the American Republic, P18 
 
 [5] Daniel 2:21 
 
 [6] Theologians refer to the revealed/prescriptive will vs. the secret/descriptive will of God. For more information see Appendix I in The Sovereignty of God by Arthur Pink. https://books.google.com/books?id=p3OOU3wL9YIC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=god%27s+secret+will+vs.+revealed+will&source=bl&ots=l7WglX2zw6&sig=7lTlmHAZurEUeTT5cpU_dEYvMig&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6jLnrsZPQAhVpslQKHS–Dqo4ChDoAQhEMAc#v=onepage&q=god’s%20secret%20will%20vs.%20revealed%20will&f=false 
 
 [7] 1 Samuel 16:14 
 
 [8] 1 Samuel 13:14, Act 13:22 
 
 [9] 2 Chronicles 1:1 
 
 Advertisements ||||| Texas GOP elector resigns rather than vote for Donald Trump 
 
 AUSTIN – A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas has resigned his position after writing last weekend that he could not vote for President-elect Donald Trump. 
 
 Art Sisneros of Dayton, who explained his decision in a blog post, acknowledged that Trump will be president in January, but said casting his vote for the New York businessman “would bring dishonor to God.” Resigning would allow the remaining electors to fill his vacancy with someone who will vote for the president-elect during Texas electors’ Dec. 19 meeting, Sisneros added. 
 
 “I do not see how Donald Trump is biblically qualified to serve in the office of the Presidency,” he wrote. “Of the hundreds of angry messages that I have received, not one has made a convincing case from scripture otherwise. If Trump is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I cannot and will not vote for Donald Trump for President.” 
 
 The Republican Party of Texas did not immediately respond to a request for comment. ||||| A Republican elector from Texas decided to resign from his position instead of voting for Donald Trump. | AP Photo Texas elector who criticized Trump says he’s resigning 
 
 A Republican member of the Electoral College who had expressed reservations about supporting President-elect Donald Trump has opted instead to resign his position and turn it over to an alternate elector. 
 
 Art Sisneros, a Texas Republican elector who told POLITICO in August that he was strongly weighing a vote against Trump, confirmed Monday that he would quit the position. Sisneros had said as recently as last week that he still hadn't decided how to cast his electoral vote. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 Sisneros detailed his decision to resign in a little-noticed blog post over the weekend. In it, he argued that Trump is unqualified to be president — but also wrote that he knows he can’t prevent it from happening. 
 
 “If Trump is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I can not and will not vote for Donald Trump for President. I believe voting for Trump would bring dishonor to God,” Sisneros wrote. “The reality is Trump will be our President, no matter what my decision is.” 
 
 Sisneros said his resignation is a reflection of his belief that “our republic is lost.” 
 
 “Since I can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an Elector,” Sisneros wrote. “This will allow the remaining body of Electors to fill my vacancy when they convene on Dec 19 with someone that can vote for Trump. The people will get their vote … I will sleep well at night knowing I neither gave in to their demands nor caved to my convictions. I will also mourn the loss of our republic.” 
 
 Texas Republican Party chairman Tom Mechler said Sisneros' replacement will be selected by the remaining Texas electors when they meet on Dec. 19. 
 
 “We respect Mr. Sisneros’ decision and appreciate his willingness to step down from his position as a Presidential Elector in Texas," Mechler said in a statement. ||||| When running for the Presidential Elector Nominee some six months ago, I had no idea the conflict that would ensue both from without and within. To say that it has been an “educating experience” would be an understatement. I embarked on this journey with a basic understanding of the difference between a republic and a pure democracy. I knew the Constitutional Fathers[1] set up our government as the former and not the latter[2]. They had wisdom we lack. In my speech before the convention, I mentioned that nothing exemplified the difference between these two forms of the government more than the Electoral College. I admit, at the time, I was ignorant how deeply that held true. 
 
 Republic vs Democracy 
 
 The essence of a republic is that the authority rests in elected representatives, not in the people directly. Noah Webster defined a republic as, 
 
 “A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.”[3] 
 
 The Electoral College was created with this mind. In the original design the Electors were chosen, either by an election or appointment[4], to represent the people of their district in the selection of a President. The assumption was these Electors would be 1) men most familiar with those that were capable of filling this office, 2) possess wisdom and discernment to know those who sought the office but weren’t capable, and 3) could be trusted to act in the best interest of those they represented. Alexander Hamilton said Electors would be, 
 
 “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”[5] 
 
 The Electors were to be men who were selected to make this vote based on their own discern ment. There is no indication that Electors were ever to be directed by the population at large on how to vote. Their votes were to be their own, made in the best interest of those they represented. That is the nature of true representation. Gary Alder writes in his concise of history of this system, “A presupposition that wise Electors who know how to nominate individuals of character, experience, virtue, and integrity underlies the whole process. The wisdom and integrity of the Electors is essential. The independence of the Electors is even more crucial. For the system to work, Electors must know how to choose—not be told who to choose.”[6] 
 
 Today the average voter screams in opposition, “Why would they trust their Electors to make this choice on their own?” It is because the framers understood the nature of a republic. Ironically, though many of them would not have identified themselves as Christian, they understood this biblical concept of representative (covenant) heads more than most pastors do today. Representative heads act and speak on behalf of and in the best interest of those they represent. A limited analogy can be found in the family relationship. Parents are the representative heads of their kids.[7] When parents make a decision for the family, they do so on behalf of everyone they represent. Good parents act in the best interest of their children. At times this may even be contrary to the desire of the children. In most homes, kids do not have the right to vote to eat Skittles for dinner. It is not in their best interest. The parents have a delegated authority to protect those under their jurisdiction. Hamilton, in a similar way, saw the role of the body of Electors (representatives) as a protection for the nation. 
 
 “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.”[8] 
 
 Unfortunately, we no longer operate with the same wisdom and discernment as our forefathers. Where they warned of the evils they experienced which “flow from the excess of democracy,”[9] we demand the voice of the people be heard. This difference between a republic and democracy is all but lost in public discourse by conservatives and progressives alike. Those on the left side of the aisle seem to bemoan the fact that the popular vote is ignored. Many don’t like that the representatives, Electors, even exist. They are calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College system completely. Conservatives aren’t much better. They don’t mind that the representatives in a republic exist as long as, contrary to Webster’s definition, no “power is lodged in their representatives.” They want the power in the people directly. The representatives are only there to do what the people demand. They want a democracy, not a republic. They want the power to vote for Skittles for dinner. This is evident by how they approach their legislators. They want them to do X, Y or Z because that is what “we the people” demand. The Constitutionality of it only matters when the legislators are listening to another faction of their constituency. 
 
 Corrupted College 
 
 The Electoral College was corrupted from its original intent once states started dictating the votes of the Electors. The two biggest aggressors to the original system were from political parties and the switch to winner-take-all states. The rise of political parties, as George Washington prophetically predicted, has had a “baneful effect”[10] on our nation. They have all but ruined our Electoral College system. Originally Electors were free from political parties and their pledges. What mattered most was the character and qualifications of the candidate, not the viability of their path to victory (primaries) or the team that any candidate represented. The Electors were also free from these statewide popular vote contests that run all but two states today.[11] “When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy [statewide popular vote] being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no ‘analysis’ or ‘deliberate’ concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a ‘general ticket’ of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote,[12] 
 
 The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket.”[13] 
 
 The current pledges most political parties make Electors sign after they are elected is contrary to the original intent of the Constitution. The fact that the pledge makes no mention of the biblical qualifications (I wrote about here) necessary for one to serve as President makes it an immoral pledge. Most will think I am just clinging to long forgotten principles that, quite frankly, no one cares about anymore. That may be true, but I would point to Principle 1 of the Republican Party of Texas 2016 Platform, which was passed at the same convention that elected me. 
 
 We, the 2016 Republican Party of Texas, believe in this platform and expect our elected leaders to uphold these truths through acknowledgement and action. We believe in: “The laws of nature and nature’s God” and we support the strict adherence to the original language and intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the United States and of Texas.[14] 
 
 The law of nature’s God give clear principles for electing civil leaders. The original intent of the Constitution gives a specific method that to apply those principles. The Republican party of Texas declares their #1 principle is to honor God and original intent of the Constitution. They then force Electors to make a pledge that is contrary to both. To point out this discrepancy is treasonous. 
 
 Conflicted Elector 
 
 I admit all of this has left me deeply troubled and conflicted as an Elector. When asking the three wisest men I know about the wisest decision I should make, I received three different answers. As an Elector, I came to conclusion I have three options under our current system. I can 1) vote for the nominee of their party under which I was elected, 2) vote for someone else and be considered a faithless elector (a term I despise), or 3) I could resign my position if the candidate turns out to be someone I can not, in good conscience, vote for. I believe under the right circumstances every option is not only valid, but can be ethically the righteous thing for a Christian to do. The question that everyone wants answered is, what will I, an Elector who is under the conviction that our nominee is not a biblically qualified candidate, do? After wavering back and forth, my conscience is finally at peace with the decision I’ve made. 
 
 Voting for the nominee of our party, Mr. Trump, is certainly what the vast majority of Republicans are urging me to do. I have yet to find anyone that has biblically answered my first article. They don’t make the case that Trump is indeed biblically qualified. I have had a few people take issue with the original intent of the Electoral College and my job as an Elector. Once presented with the evidence they usually acknowledge the validity of the original intent, but claim that has changed. The biggest beef most people have with me being so “arrogant” as to publicly state “this issue is so important that I am going to think about it” is that I signed the pledge. I have already expressed my reasons why I think the pledge is an immoral, unlawful pledge that the GOP makes Electors sign. It undermines the Bible and the Constitution. But they are 100% correct. I did, in fact, sign the pledge. It was a voluntary pledge and I willingly signed it. I was wrong in signing this pledge and not communicating to the body when I ran that my conscience would not be bound by it. I honestly did not have the convictions about the original purpose of the Electoral College or the biblical qualifications until after I was an Elector. The Bible calls this a rash oath and warns against making them.[15] It clearly states, 
 
 “if a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or good, whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it- when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters. And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing.”[16] 
 
 To be ignorant of all the details involved in an oath (pledge) does not excuse the sin of making that oath. One thing is clear, I have sinned in signing that pledge. I humbly confess that it was wrong for me to do so. I am grateful for the forgiveness I have in Christ for all my foolishness. The heart of this issue now is, does honoring the pledge cause me to sin? If it does, then I am obligated not to honor it.[17] If it doesn’t, then I am obligated to honor it.[18] 
 
 My second option is to be a “Faithless Elector.” A Faithless Elector is an Elector that casts his vote contrary to any party pledge or state law he may be bound by.[19] On the surface this seems like it would be difficult to justify how being faithless could be a righteous act. Aren’t Electors elected to represent the people? Yes, they absolutely are. That only begs the question, what does it mean to represent the people? This is where our understanding or lack thereof of a representative form of government comes into play. As an elected representative head, I am to speak on behalf of and in the interest of the CD36. It is my conviction that the greatest danger to my district is not a Hillary or Trump Presidency, but it is the judgement of God. If we continue to disobey His clear commands, we can expect to receive His judgement. If being a “Faithless Elector” means standing alone on principle in the hopes that God would continue to grant patience on our district, then it is worth any political future, threats to my safety, and whatever else may come my way. 
 
 The last option I see for me is resigning from this position. The Republican Party of Texas has an immoral pledge because that is what the people want. They want a democracy. They want their popular vote across the state counted. They do not care about the authority of the office of an Elector. As long as they have someone to do what the people demand, they don’t care who it is. 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 I do not see how Donald Trump is biblically qualified to serve in the office of the Presidency. Of the hundreds of angry messages that I have received, not one has made a convincing case from scripture otherwise. If Trump is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I can not and will not vote for Donald Trump for President. I believe voting for Trump would bring dishonor to God. The reality is Trump will be our President, no matter what my decision is. Many are furious that I am willing to have this discussion publicly. Personally, I wish more civil officers would be honest about their convictions. Assuming a Trump Presidency is their ultimate goal, they will get that. The problem is, that isn’t what they want. They want a democracy. They will threaten to kill anyone who challenges their power to vote for Skittles for dinner. That is evidence alone to prove that our republic is lost. The shell may remain, but in the hearts of the people and functionality of the system our republic is gone. I also believe that a pledge is a man’s word that he will follow through on something he committed to. God’s Word is clear we should all “let our ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and our ‘no,’s ‘no.”[20] I believe to resign is to honor the intent of the pledge as it relates to the people of my district. Since I can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an Elector. This will allow the remaining body of Electors to fill my vacancy when they convene on Dec 19 with someone that can vote for Trump. The people will get their vote. They will get their Skittles for dinner. I will sleep well at night knowing I neither gave in to their demands nor caved to my convictions. I will also mourn the loss of our republic. 
 
 Art Sisneros 
 
 [1] The true founding fathers were those men that established the culture and law of our land some 150 years before 1776. 
 
 [2] James Madison takes up this issue in Federalist# 10 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm 
 
 [3] American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Noah Webster 
 
 [4] In 1792- 9 out of 15 states appointed electors by 1836 23 out of 24 states went to elected electors- The Founders’ Constitution vol 3 pp. 552-553 
 
 [5] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp 
 
 [6] The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College, Gary Alder p. 44 
 
 [7] Ephesians 5:22-6:4 
 
 [8] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp 
 
 [9] United States-Formation of the Union, P 125 Elridge Gerry at Constitutional Convention 
 
 [10] George Washington Collection, p 519 
 
 [11] Maine and Nebraska are currently to only states that do not have a winner take all system. 
 
 [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Breakdown_and_revision 
 
 [13] “Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823″. 
 
 [14] https://3npv5lo075n4f1mrxbxvz8hv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/PERM-PLATFORM-as-Amended-by-Gen-Body-5.13.16.pdf 
 
 [15] 1 Samuel 14:24-52 and Judges 11:29-40 give examples of rash oaths 
 
 [16] Leviticus 5:4,5 
 
 [17] 1 Samuel 14:44,45 Israel interposed on Jonathan’s behalf. Lev 27 details how to buy back (redeem) after a vow has been made. The vow was not eternally binding. For the Christian, redemption was accomplished on cross. 
 
 [18] Numbers 30:2 
 
 [19] Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector 
 
 [20] Matthew 5:37 
 
 Advertisements
– There's been talk of "faithless electors" trying to overturn the Electoral College vote on Dec. 19 that presumably will fall in Donald Trump's favor, but one Texas elector has so much faith that he's taking a different route, per the Houston Chronicle: He's resigning his GOP elector's post entirely. In what Politico calls a "little noticed" blog post from the weekend titled "Conflicted Elector in a Corrupt College," Art Sisneros of Dayton explains the difference between a republic and a democracy, states that most electors are forced to make pledges that flout both the Bible and the Constitution, and proclaims he's stepping down as an elector because, although the "vast majority of Republicans" are pleading with him to vote for Trump, "they don't make the case that Trump is indeed biblically qualified." "I believe voting for Trump would bring dishonor to God," Sisneros adds, comparing electors to parents who are supposed to step in so their kids won't gorge on Skittles for dinner—but who, in what he says is the conservative view, still go by what the people say. By resigning, he says, another elector can step in, and "the people will get their vote. They will get their Skittles for dinner. I will sleep well at night knowing I neither gave in to their demands nor caved to my convictions. I will also mourn the loss of our republic." Sisneros also acknowledges that in regard to the "biblical qualifications" he thinks candidates should possess, "most will think I am just clinging to long forgotten principles that, quite frankly, no one cares about anymore." The Republican Party of Texas didn't immediately get back to the Chronicle for comment.