How much trouble he avoids who does not look to see what his neighbor says or does or thinks, but only to what he does himself, that it may be just and pure; or, as Agathon says, look not round at the depraved morals of others, but run straight along the line without deviating from it. - Marcus Aurelius (1)
In the previous few posts, I attempted to lay out the case that someone claiming to be Christian, yet not displaying any of that outward reality does not deserve our vote. The fact of our support for a politician who claims to be a member of the faith, but lives and acts like the world destroys the witness that we have with the world by eroding the world’s faith in us to be steadfast observers of the Word of God. They should know us by our good works, not by our worst instincts and qualities. It additionally leads to an erosion of our own standing with those in the Church, as people see a gospel preached but not lived, they leave. In this post I will try to further the discussion by examining what our responsibility is if a scenario where no candidate professes to be a Christian, where there are perhaps two Christians opposing one another, or there is some other comparison amongst relative neutral candidates from a spiritual standpoint. It is in this scenario that the questions previously listed will require wrestling with:
How do we elect someone to lead when we know all of us are sinful humans?
Is it morally and ethically right to vote for a “lesser of two evils?”
What kind of standard can/should we hold these secular leaders to?
Should Christians be single-issue voters?
Should we only vote for Christians?
Should Christians vote at all?
Within this line of reasoning I expect to not have much Biblical ground to stand on. Because these issues are not specifically mentioned in the Bible my response to each will be mostly my opinion. I will, however, continue to use the Bible as the lens through which I view all things, and the foundation on which I stand. This includes 1 Peter 2:9-19:
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.”
This being one of the few direct applications of political theology in the New Testament, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. No where in the Bible does it mention how to vote. So we must use our best attempt while honoring God to chart a path forward. Beyond what the Bible teaches, it is my belief that America is at its best when the functions of Democracy are working as intended. I am a firm believer that the Constitution set up a form of government that has allowed the flourishing of religious and non-religious people throughout our history. So at this point, all my opinions are going to be from the viewpoint of supporting this Liberal (in the classic sense) Democratic Republic. The Classical Liberal viewpoint is generally:
“Democracy of some sort is the proper form of government.
People should have full intellectual freedom, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press.
Government should remain minimal and should regulate people’s lives very little.
In particular, people should be free to regulate their own economic activity.
Power of one person over another is a bad thing; hence, government should be organized to guard against abuses of power.” (2)
These ideals are clearly what the framers had in mind, though they were not fully implemented in their day. We must hold onto the good, and strive to form a more perfect union by addressing that which needs changing. As such we must support the safeguarding of the institutions that allow the free functioning of society, we should support candidates who are first committed to protecting civil liberties for all citizens, and call for reform when needed. Although America has been very successful in lifting many out of poverty and political systems that stymie human achievement, there is always work to do to make us better. That better work is what we must look for in candidates.
Question 1: How do we elect someone to lead when we know all of us are sinful humans? The first step to answering this question is remembering just that, that every candidate we elect is going to have flaws, we have one savior, and no one on the ballot will come close to him. We must resist the urge to become so enthralled by a particular candidate that we are blind to their failings. Through prayerful consideration we should have wisdom and discernment in the candidates we support. As an accompaniment to this consideration we must not become so supportive of one faction that we are unable to apply Christian principles to all policy solutions. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have the corner on good government. They each are ruled by selfish, greedy, power-hungry individuals who want to advance their own ends. So we cannot let these factions dictate to Christians how we think and vote. It is for freedom we have been set free, so why would I submit myself to the blind slavery of political party loyalty? Almost all the founding fathers warned against this, The Federalist Papers include many warnings against factions, and most famously perhaps is the warning in President Washington’s farewell address:
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.” (3)
Not only does Washington warn against factions, but he presciently warns that they have the tendency to lead to despotism and the ruin of liberty. In short, before party loyalty, or policy objectives we should look to elect people of merit. People of merit will have exceeding amounts of both virtue and knowledge (4). It is these people who we can most ably expect to uphold the institutions and laws that allow our country to thrive. When challenges come up they will be able to look at them and find the best solution, not just the one that pleases their supporters the most. Aside from these qualifications, there is much freedom in choosing a candidate. God has not prescribed a certain party over another, so vote how your conscience guides you. There is room at the cross for people of all political convictions, whether Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal or Socialist, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are all sinners. And just because someone votes differently than you it does not mean they are less worthy of the love of Christ. So let Christians take the lead on voting for candidates of merit, and loving our neighbor no matter what the outcome of an election.
Question 2: Is it morally and ethically right to vote for a lesser of two evils? With the answer to question 1 behind us, it should be readily apparent that the vote is always a choice between a lesser of two evils. Even if both candidates are Christian, they are still fallen human beings with the propensity to sin. There will never be a candidate who is perfect, or who has perfect policy prescriptions so we again must be discerning in how we vote. Multiple founding fathers mentioned choosing between two evils. In a letter to Dutch creditors Robert Morris states: “But Gentlemen it is no uncommon thing for a government to find itself in situations where nothing is left but a choice of evils and where the smallest of those evils will be a very great one.” (5) However, he does not go through the moral reasoning on how to select which and if it is even morally acceptable. Elsewhere Thomas Jefferson writes: “True it is, that the people of America are placed in a predicament that, has left them nothing but a Choice of Evils; yet it is fortunate they have a Choice.” (6) So by Thomas Jefferson’s reasoning though we have to choose between evil, at least we have a choice! I can see some merit in this line of reasoning. In another instance, on the choice between Jefferson and Burr for President, John Marshall wrote to Edward Carrington: “It is understood that votes for Mr. Jefferson & Colo. Burr are equal… I consider it as a choice of evils & I really am uncertain which would be the greatest… I have only to wish that the best for our common country may be done but I really do not know what that best is.” (7) Along this same line, in another letter Jefferson calls the greatest evil that could befall our nation to be disunion, so that whatever leads to that is the greater evil. (8) I agree with Justice Marshall, and President Jefferson that disunion would be devastating, and that protecting our democratic system is immensely important.
There is certainly evil in the world, and evil that politicians can do that should preclude our support for them. But how do we choose when God calls us to a way of life that no modern party today supports completely? In the Old testament, God called the Israelites to repent for: speaking lies (Isaiah 59:3); promoting child sacrifices (Isaiah 57:5); fear and conspiracy (Isaiah 8:12-13); corruption (Isaiah 10:1); neglecting the poor and needy (Isaiah 10:2); oppression of immigrants (Jeremiah 7:6); neglecting the sabbath (Jeremiah 17:21-22). On top of that, in the New Testament Jesus called those who profess faith in him to live with these priorities: love and compassion for those who are hungry, thirsty, and strangers (Matthew 25:35-40); love for our enemies (Matthew 5:43-47); give to the needy with no expectation for earthly reward (Matthew 6:1-4); be merciful (Luke 6:27-36); live a righteous life on the inside as well as the outside (Luke 11:37-53); put our treasure in heaven (Luke 12:32-34); follow Jesus to the point of death (John 12:23-26); abide in Jesus, abide in love (John 15); trust in Jesus (John 16:33).
In light of these directives, some questions that have come to mind as I think through this are: If my vote for someone enables them to achieve a level of power that allows sin to be committed, can I vote for them? Am I to be held responsible for that sin? Where does freedom end and sin begin? If we vote for the greater good does that absolve us? But what is the greater good? Does stopping 5,000 abortions offset the moral burden of 5,000 families languishing in poverty because the welfare system has been defunded? Is restricting the rights and influence of the LGBTQ community more important than finding actual solutions to gun violence in America so that we do not have to mourn even more children killed in schools? How do we love the immigrant as God commands us, but also have modern political boundaries? How do we justify spending more money than any country in the world on the military industrial complex, yet allow the poor and needy to go hungry and without medical care? How do we allow economic progress and activity without completely destroying the world God has given us to take care of?
The way I see it, we are presented with two logical next steps. First, we can either withdraw ourselves from the political sphere completely, abstain from voting, and focus our lives entirely on meeting spiritual and physical needs outside what good or bad may be done in government. Second, we will have to acknowledge and come to grips with the fact that to vote for any candidate requires some sort of compromise. I do not believe we should ever compromise when it comes to voting for a false Christian, but if no candidates disqualify themselves in this way, there is a lot of room for Romans 14 level discernment and conscience. We know that God has called us to live a certain way, and if your conscience cannot approve you to vote for a candidate then that is sin for you to vote for them. However, if you believe it is right and good, then do so in the power of the spirit. This is one of the reasons that many in my generation have been frustrated with the older generations in recent years. We read the Bible and see that God calls us to a certain way of life, he calls us to protect life, have integrity, fight for truth and justice, care for the less fortunate, and be compassionate to the sojourner. Neither party is doing all of these things well. Many on the right and left however, have continually acted as if their way is the only moral high ground. We have been chastised by those within the church for sincerely questioning why certain things are the way they are, and why some things and people we are being asked to support do not look like the Bible. They act as if this is all black and white, but I do not see it that way. There is much harm that has been done in recent years by those within the church who take this stance.
If, as some in our Christian history, you personally decide that it is not possible for you to vote in good conscience, that is ok. There have been times where I have felt and acted the same way. For others, though, how should we approach the compromise that we must inevitably make? As Christians we have the best opportunity to find the middle ground, especially today in our polarized society. We know that God has called us to love him and love our neighbors. So what can we do that will most benefit our neighbors? “But seek the welfare of the city to where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” (Jeremiah 29:7) This verse was directed to the people of Israel at a certain point in time, but we can glean some wisdom from it and apply it to our current situation. As we are “exiles” in this world, so we are in this country, and as God directed his people Israel to seek the common good of Babylon, we should be people who seek the common good wherever we find ourselves in this life. While seeking the common good we should always maintain Christ-like humility and love so that our light will not be diminished. But what is the “common good” for Christians in 21st century America?
This short list below provides a good starting point for a holistic approach:
We should support politicians that inspire us and help us to aspire to be greater than we are.
We should advocate for a religiously tolerant and pluralistic society.
Continue to strengthen the divisions placed within the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom for all within our country to serve God as best fits their own conscience without worry of governmental interference.
This includes freedom of speech, and thought, as well as protection for having those that do not fit within the current culture’s acceptance.
We should advocate for strong functions of democracy.
This includes not only secure and fair elections, but also:
Make all federal voting days a national holiday.
Make all state and local elections state and local holidays.
Automatic voter registration on 18th birthday for all citizens.
Remove laws and procedures that the current two-party duopoly has instituted which limits competition and the free flowing of the best ideas.
Christians should lead the way on protection and respect for all life.
Including:
Sensible legislation protecting the unborn.
Vastly more social support for unwanted pregnancies, supporting the mother during pregnancy, and the child after.
Greater, guaranteed, paid parental leave for mother and father.
Increased access to affordable healthcare that is not tied to employment.
Right now we have laws that mandate hospitals treat patients, but no guarantee that these patients have insurance to be able to pay for their care. How does this make sense?
Additionally, ERs across America have become the dumping ground and a catch all for the mentally ill, poor, homeless, and anything or anyone else that society doesn't know what to with. This is unsustainable.
Increased funding for education at all levels of society.
This includes increasing teacher salaries to continue to attract the best talent to this field.
More compassion and support for immigrants and refugees.
Right now we have laws that mandate when refugees arrive they must take English lessons, but they also must work full-time. If we invested slightly more money and allowed them to learn the language full-time for 6 months refugee and immigrant outcomes would be exponentially better than today.
We should support equitable access to civil rights.
Since this nation is founded upon civil rights, and not religious rights, we should not advocate the denial of those rights to any citizens.
We should fight for equitable access to opportunity.
A free and minimally regulated economy is beneficial to the national success, however we cannot let unchecked economic concerns take precedence over all others.
In our own history unchecked capitalism and industrial expanse has often created more problems than they produced benefits, we should advocate for sensible restrictions that protect our people, our environment, and our society from these excesses.
Something I am particularly passionate about, we should support a systematic limiting of government excess, especially in terms of overreach of power and corruption among officials elected and appointed.
This includes reigning in the outsized influence money has on our politics, within both sides of the political spectrum a few wealthy individuals largely control where the parties and policies go.
Which has led to essentially legalized corruption, enshrined and supported by those within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at the federal and state levels.
Outlawing dark money in elections.
Term limits for members of congress.
Including rules that limit their lobbying after holding office.
Extreme limitations on lobbying.
I only answered two of the questions I intended to in this post, so I will continue with the rest in the next post. My parting thought is this, the debate over these two questions essentially boils down to the question: is there advantage to be gained in voting for a lesser of two evils as opposed to compromising in some way, or withholding the vote completely until a morally fit candidate is in place? In his On Duties Cicero says that when given the choice between something advantageous and something moral, there really is no decision to be made at all, because nothing that is immoral can be advantageous (9). Doing the morally right thing is more important than anything else and will always produce advantage in the end. If not in the political sphere, at least in the person's own character. With access to the only true source of right moral thought in the world, we Christians should understand this more completely than most. Doing what is morally right will never put us at a disadvantage, primarily because our only true king controls all things and he is working even when we don’t see it.
1) Aurelius, M. (1936). The Harvard Classics: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (C. Eliot, Ed.; G. Long, Trans.). P.F. Collier & Son Corporation.
2) Shively, W. P. (2007). Power & Choice (10th ed.). McGraw Hill.
3) George Washington’s Mount Vernon. (n.d.). Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796. https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/washington-s-farewell-address-1796/
4) “Decr. 24th.,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-01-02-0010-0009-0003. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, vol. 1, 1755–1770, ed. L. H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961, pp. 326–329.]
5) The Papers of Robert Morris, 1781-1784. v. 9 | Digital Pitt. (n.d.). https://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3A31735070112333
6) “To Thomas Jefferson from Edward Rutledge, 30 April 1796,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0059. [Original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 29, 1 March 1796 – 31 December 1797, ed. Barbara B. Oberg. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002, pp. 92–93.]
7) “To Alexander Hamilton from John Marshall, 1 January 1801,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0154. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 25, July 1800 – April 1802, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977, pp. 290–292.]
8) “Editorial Note: Opinions on the Constitutionality of the Residence Bill,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-17-02-0018-0001. [Original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 17, 6 July–3 November 1790, ed. Julian P. Boyd. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965, pp. 163–183.]
9) Cicero. (1967). Cicero: Selected Works (M. Grant, Trans.). Penguin Books.
Comments