Nov
1
Voting Christianly, part 2: With Biblical Principles in Mind
As with yesterday’s bonus post, today’s post is a citation of recent Facebook comments by Scott Klusendorf, President of Life Training Institute, the formatting of which I have adjusted for readability.
“Yesterday, a pastor of a politically diverse congregation asked what he should say to his people about voting. Here is what I sent him…
Thesis: Christians should vote with Biblical principles in mind.
Principle #1: God holds sovereigns responsible to uphold justice for the weak and vulnerable.
(a) In a constitutional republic like ours, the people (us!) are the sovereign! That means sitting out the political process is not an option.
(b) It is right, therefore, for Christians to seek to influence governments to protect society’s weakest members, including the poor (Ex. 23:6), foreigners (Ex. 22:21; Deut. 27:19; Zech. 7:10), and the helpless (Ps. 82:3–4). The lives of unborn humans, in particular, as image bearers of God and as the weakest members of society, ought to be protected.
(c) Scriptures that affirm God holds sovereigns responsible to uphold justice for weak and vulnerable:
Romans 13:4 — Governments are to act on behalf of the good of all people.
Micah 3:1-12 — Leaders who tear skin from God’s people and who love evil will be brought to ruin.
Psalm 82:1-4 — Rulers must not judge unjustly or show partiality to the wicked. Instead, they must protect the afflicted and destitute, as well as rescue the weak and needy from the wicked.
Psalm 58:1-11 — Rulers must decree what is right and judge uprightly
Jer. 5:26-29 — Wicked rulers who do not uphold justice for the fatherless and protect the rights of the needy will be punished.
Jeremiah 9:24 — God delights in justice
(Other Scriptures relating to God and justice for the weak and vulnerable: Isaiah 1:16‑17,21‑23;58:6‑7;61:8; Psalm 94:1‑23; Proverbs 24:1‑12; Matthew 25:41‑46)
Principle #2: Given we are political sovereigns, Christians should vote to promote the good and limit the evil insofar as possible given current political realities.
(a) In a fallen world, there are no perfect political parties. All have flaws, but some parties are more in line with Biblical truth than others.
(b) In a fallen world, there are no perfect candidates. As Wayne Grudem points out, with some candidates, we will get good policies and character flaws. With others, we will get bad policies and character flaws. We should vote for candidates that promote policies that limit evil and promote good.
(c) Suppose it’s July of 1860. You’re a Christian slave chained deep in the bowels of a ship destined for Savannah where, if you survive the journey, you’ll be auctioned to the highest bidder. The presidential election is coming up. What do you pray your fellow Christians will do on election day?
Option A: Vote for the candidate and party that promotes slavery wholesale because slavery isn’t the only issue and the candidate and his party are good on other topics that matter.
Option B: Vote for the candidate and party that will limit the evil of slavery even though the candidate himself is flawed in many ways.
Option C: Refuse to support either candidate, especially the arrogant one, because the character of the candidate matters as much or more than his policies.
Principle #3: Given we live in a fallen world, we are not voting for the lesser of two evils; we are, as my friend Kevin James Bywater points out, voting to lessen evil.
(a) Consider abortion: How does it follow that because we can’t save all children, we shouldn’t try to save some? Suppose a proposed bill will stop 97 percent of all abortions, but you don’t have the votes to stop all abortions. Are you compromising if you vote for a bill that will save some but not all? Not if you keep working to protect all unborn humans.
(b) In a fallen world, there is no perfect legislation. Even if a proposed law stops short of banning a moral evil (abortion, for example), we can, in good conscience, vote for the law if by doing so we limit the evil done while we continue working to ban the evil in total.
(c) Voting to lessen evil is not compromise. As Robert George points out, “Politics is the art of the possible. . . . The pro-life movement has in recent years settled on an incrementalist strategy for protecting nascent human life. So long as incrementalism is not a euphemism for surrender or neglect, it can be entirely honorable. Planting premises in the law whose logic demands, in the end, full respect for all members of the human family can be a valuable thing to do, even where those premises seem modest. Fully just law would protect all innocent human life. Yet sometimes this is not, or not yet, possible in the concrete political circumstances of the moment.”
Principle #4: Not all moral issues are equally weighted.
(a) The claim that “sin is sin” or that “all sins are equal” fails to make important distinctions. True, we all equally share a sinful nature that, outside the new birth, puts us by default under the wrath of God. But it does not follow that the sinful acts which spring from that sinful nature are equally bad. There is a difference between stealing a pencil and dismembering an innocent human being.
(b) Scripture speaks of particular sins the Lord “hates.” One of those things the Lord “hates” is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Prov. 6:16-19). Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood, the intentional dismemberment of an innocent human being. Therefore, supporting a presidential candidate and a party that promotes the shedding of innocent blood wholesale does not square [with] Scripture.
(c) True, abortion is not the only issue any more than saving Jews was the only issue in 1940 or freeing slaves the only issue in 1860. But both were the dominant moral issues of their day. Suppose a head of state has a great health care policy, but he thinks it should be legal to beat your wife and will use the power of government to enshrine your right to do so. Wouldn’t that be reason enough to reject him and his party?
(d) Of course, you would be correct to reply that Proverbs 6 lists other sins the Lord hates such as haughty eyes, lying lips, hearts that devise wicked plans, and feet that rush to evil. But, again, it does not follow that all sins are equally weighted. A candidate’s rude tweets will not intentionally kill innocent human beings. The policies of a pro-abortion president will. Imagine a schoolhouse is on fire with children trapped inside. A crude talking man with arrogant tweets is willing to join you risking his life to save kids. Meanwhile, a “nice” man thought to be less haughty and with fewer sarcastic tweets not only refuses to help you, he promises to throw gasoline on the fire. Is there no morally significant difference between the two men? Worse still, should we endorse the arsonist?
Once again, I think Scott asks great questions and makes some excellent points, and I hope someone will find his reasoning helpful in clarifying their thinking on the subject.
