Okay, so it's election season in the United States. I've seen any number of Christians lamenting that the current candidates for President presents them with a choice between two evils. In that scenario, they say, you choose the lesser of the two evils. And depending upon one's perspective of which evil is "lesser", then that's the particular candidate they put forward as the "obvious" choice.
For years, I've urged Christians to take their obligations to their neighbors seriously and therefore not to take a particular vote every four years with the kinds of seriousness that border on idolatry. One vote on one day every four years is far less significant than the decisions we make every day -- the votes we cast -- with our time, money, and attention. "Policies" on the economy, war and peace, justice and the like are made every day, in myriads of ways, not just one day every four years in November. So if we want to take our voting seriously as Christians we take those daily votes far more seriously than we take our votes for president. Christians, I claim everyday, need to be more involved and engaged in the public square, not less. For me, that means I don't vote for president anymore. Others may not have that spiritual conviction; what are they to do?
For starters, unless Jesus of Nazareth is on the ballot, any American election forces us to choose the lesser of evils. Let's be honest here. Across every party and platform, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Still, the question is a valid one. Believing in human depravity doesn't negate our sense of responsibility to the Spirit's moving that we should vote. By the standard of God's law, every person is a liar, but that doesn't mean we should hire an employee we know has a pattern of lying. Jesus taught that all who have lust in their hearts are adulterers, but that doesn't mean a woman should shrug her shoulders when she learns her potential new husband is a serial philanderer.
When considering the question of choosing between the lesser of two evils, we must begin with what voting is within our system of government. In the American democratic republican system, every citizen is an office in the government -- we bear responsibilities for what the government does. And that should be no surprise to Christians. Following Jesus and submitting to his Lordship (as King of kings and Lord of lords) makes demands for public justice on public office-holders (Luke 4.15). So if the Spirit of God is moving you to vote, then at least take voting seriously and hold citizens of the United States to God's vision of shalom -- peace with justice.
Paul insisted that the sword might be given to government by God to commend the good and punish evil (Romans 13), but he didn't say that every government was a gift from God in a way that requires blind submission to whatever authority might be in place. If you're reading Romans 13 without reading Romans 12, you're doing it wrong. That's why Revelation 13 has to be the balance to Romans 13 -- governments always have a limited role, because those in power who use that sword in unjust ways stand in judgment of the Lamb.
In a democratic republic (such as the American one claims to be), the authority over statecraft rests with the people. In the voting booth, we delegate who gets the authority of wielding that sword for a time, those who are supposed to follow God's vision of shalom and institute justice with righteousness on our behalf. It's better to think of a political presidential campaign as a job interview. Which is why we Christians in America can't entertain hiring someone who might do evil on our behalf.
Can a candidate make promises about issues then do something different in office? Yes. Can a candidate present a sense of good character in public then later be revealed to be a fraud? Sure. The same happens with pastors, spouses, employees, and in virtually every other relationship. But that sense of surprise and disappointment is not the same as knowingly delegating our authority to someone with poor character or wicked public stances. Doing so makes us as voters culpable. Saying, "the alternative would be worse" is no valid excuse. We're either doing what is right or we're doing what is wrong. There's no alternative there.
A Christian can't merely choose the least of the bad options. If both options are evil, to choose one is -- well, to choose evil. And that's no choice at all for Christians. Our first moral commitment in Baptism is to renounce the forces of evil and all their ways. To claim that we have to make a choice as Christians between two evils is a false choice. It sets up a scenario in which fear rules our hearts, rather than the love of God made known in Jesus Christ. That's not the way Jesus envisions government governing in Romans 13 -- that much seems clear.
Just imagine imposing this false choice in a very different sphere, medicine for example. Imagine a Christian doctor having to choose between participating in assisted suicide or in abortion. That's not a Christian choice. So why are we saying that's what we have to do come this November?
That said, political issues aren't equal. I simply cannot vote for a "pro-life" candidate who is also for racial injustice or war crimes or any number of other first-level moral issues. While they may have great ideas about economic growth, economics is hardly the bottom line for Christians when it comes to governments (that whole "greed" thing in the Bible is pretty serious).
Sometimes we Christians are going to be presented with two alternatives -- such as we are this year -- where neither one is morally qualified. One candidate, while "pro life" (in some areas), is a race-baiter, while the other is a liar at best. In that scenario, a write-in vote is the only real alternative. So there are minor party candidates that deserve more attention.
Before someone tells me that's a "wasted" vote, let me remind you: Sometimes a candidate from outside the major parties wins. Abraham Lincoln ran as a Republican in an era when the major parties were the Whigs and Democrats. Even when third-party candidates don't win the election, they can introduce issues and build a movement for the future -- again, Christians take a longer view of politics than just the next four years. Write-in candidates have occasionally won; US Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska won her re-election as a write-in candidate in 2010.
We don't always expect our write-in candidates to win. The main Christian objective has got to be to participate in the political process without endorsing a moral evil. As Christians, we are not responsible for the reality of our two-party system or for the way others exercise their citizenship, but we will give an account for how we delegate our authority. Our primary concern is not the election night victory party, but the Judgment Seat of Christ.
When we face two clearly immoral choices, we don't rationalize our vote for immortality or injustice -- just because the alternative would be worse. Paul is pretty clear about that much: We will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we "give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1.32).
This side of the New Jerusalem, you're not going to have a perfect political candidate, but that doesn't mean you can vote for evil, even if it's your "only" option.
For years, I've urged Christians to take their obligations to their neighbors seriously and therefore not to take a particular vote every four years with the kinds of seriousness that border on idolatry. One vote on one day every four years is far less significant than the decisions we make every day -- the votes we cast -- with our time, money, and attention. "Policies" on the economy, war and peace, justice and the like are made every day, in myriads of ways, not just one day every four years in November. So if we want to take our voting seriously as Christians we take those daily votes far more seriously than we take our votes for president. Christians, I claim everyday, need to be more involved and engaged in the public square, not less. For me, that means I don't vote for president anymore. Others may not have that spiritual conviction; what are they to do?
For starters, unless Jesus of Nazareth is on the ballot, any American election forces us to choose the lesser of evils. Let's be honest here. Across every party and platform, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Still, the question is a valid one. Believing in human depravity doesn't negate our sense of responsibility to the Spirit's moving that we should vote. By the standard of God's law, every person is a liar, but that doesn't mean we should hire an employee we know has a pattern of lying. Jesus taught that all who have lust in their hearts are adulterers, but that doesn't mean a woman should shrug her shoulders when she learns her potential new husband is a serial philanderer.
When considering the question of choosing between the lesser of two evils, we must begin with what voting is within our system of government. In the American democratic republican system, every citizen is an office in the government -- we bear responsibilities for what the government does. And that should be no surprise to Christians. Following Jesus and submitting to his Lordship (as King of kings and Lord of lords) makes demands for public justice on public office-holders (Luke 4.15). So if the Spirit of God is moving you to vote, then at least take voting seriously and hold citizens of the United States to God's vision of shalom -- peace with justice.
Paul insisted that the sword might be given to government by God to commend the good and punish evil (Romans 13), but he didn't say that every government was a gift from God in a way that requires blind submission to whatever authority might be in place. If you're reading Romans 13 without reading Romans 12, you're doing it wrong. That's why Revelation 13 has to be the balance to Romans 13 -- governments always have a limited role, because those in power who use that sword in unjust ways stand in judgment of the Lamb.
In a democratic republic (such as the American one claims to be), the authority over statecraft rests with the people. In the voting booth, we delegate who gets the authority of wielding that sword for a time, those who are supposed to follow God's vision of shalom and institute justice with righteousness on our behalf. It's better to think of a political presidential campaign as a job interview. Which is why we Christians in America can't entertain hiring someone who might do evil on our behalf.
Can a candidate make promises about issues then do something different in office? Yes. Can a candidate present a sense of good character in public then later be revealed to be a fraud? Sure. The same happens with pastors, spouses, employees, and in virtually every other relationship. But that sense of surprise and disappointment is not the same as knowingly delegating our authority to someone with poor character or wicked public stances. Doing so makes us as voters culpable. Saying, "the alternative would be worse" is no valid excuse. We're either doing what is right or we're doing what is wrong. There's no alternative there.
A Christian can't merely choose the least of the bad options. If both options are evil, to choose one is -- well, to choose evil. And that's no choice at all for Christians. Our first moral commitment in Baptism is to renounce the forces of evil and all their ways. To claim that we have to make a choice as Christians between two evils is a false choice. It sets up a scenario in which fear rules our hearts, rather than the love of God made known in Jesus Christ. That's not the way Jesus envisions government governing in Romans 13 -- that much seems clear.
Just imagine imposing this false choice in a very different sphere, medicine for example. Imagine a Christian doctor having to choose between participating in assisted suicide or in abortion. That's not a Christian choice. So why are we saying that's what we have to do come this November?
That said, political issues aren't equal. I simply cannot vote for a "pro-life" candidate who is also for racial injustice or war crimes or any number of other first-level moral issues. While they may have great ideas about economic growth, economics is hardly the bottom line for Christians when it comes to governments (that whole "greed" thing in the Bible is pretty serious).
Sometimes we Christians are going to be presented with two alternatives -- such as we are this year -- where neither one is morally qualified. One candidate, while "pro life" (in some areas), is a race-baiter, while the other is a liar at best. In that scenario, a write-in vote is the only real alternative. So there are minor party candidates that deserve more attention.
Before someone tells me that's a "wasted" vote, let me remind you: Sometimes a candidate from outside the major parties wins. Abraham Lincoln ran as a Republican in an era when the major parties were the Whigs and Democrats. Even when third-party candidates don't win the election, they can introduce issues and build a movement for the future -- again, Christians take a longer view of politics than just the next four years. Write-in candidates have occasionally won; US Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska won her re-election as a write-in candidate in 2010.
We don't always expect our write-in candidates to win. The main Christian objective has got to be to participate in the political process without endorsing a moral evil. As Christians, we are not responsible for the reality of our two-party system or for the way others exercise their citizenship, but we will give an account for how we delegate our authority. Our primary concern is not the election night victory party, but the Judgment Seat of Christ.
When we face two clearly immoral choices, we don't rationalize our vote for immortality or injustice -- just because the alternative would be worse. Paul is pretty clear about that much: We will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we "give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1.32).
This side of the New Jerusalem, you're not going to have a perfect political candidate, but that doesn't mean you can vote for evil, even if it's your "only" option.