In analyzing an article, while on air filling in for a local talk radio host, relating to the Ohio primary election and whether or not criminal investigations of over 20,000 voters who changed party affiliations would take place, I posited a position that has generated some intense, yet respectful, opposition from members of our own board.

My basic position is this: a believer in Jesus Christ as Sovereign Lord and Savior (ie: a Christian, in other words) should not engage in tactics which violate the revealed Word of God and/or his own conscience. In other words, to put it more bluntly, situational ethics is sinful.

A little background, to start. Ohio has primary elections for the purposes of determining the nominees for each major party (Republican and Democrat) for the November General Election ballot. When an elector either requests an absentee ballot, or shows up in person at a county board of elections office or at the designated polling place on Primary day, they must, by law, declare their party affiliation prior to receiving a ballot. A good explanation of Ohio’s primary affiliation laws can be found in this article in the Dayton Daily News.

A tangental position, not necessarily affecting my basic premise of the argument in any way, given Ohio’s current election law on this topic, is that the party affiliation requirement amounts to, I believe anyway, what is an unconstitutional “test oath”, such oaths being rejected by the US Supreme Court in 1867. Be that as it may, that’s a discussion for another thread and a later time. The fact is, that is what is legally binding in Ohio law at this time.

In essence, the discussion revolved around the position that Christian voters who crossed over to vote for the opposing party’s candidate, who did so with the intent specifically to intrude upon that party’s selection process to benefit their own party nominee’s chances in the general election, and did so having signed the affiliation oath (or even if they didn’t sign it), were acting in an unbiblical manner.

The responses on the radio program were mixed. Some agreed, some disagreed. One voice of disapprobation came from a very dear friend and fellow Institute board member, whom I shall now afford the benefit of positing his position on the matter before continuing my thesis and counterargument to his thesis….