Principles for Deciding for Whom I Will Vote

As best I can remember every election in which I have listened to conversations about the candidates, I have heard people make some variant of the “lesser of two evils” rationale to explain their vote, especially when others expressed divergent opinions. Though I must admit to having fallen prey to this myself to avoid being drawn into a contentious debate, I have come to reject its validity.

For one thing, it evades taking responsibility for doing the thinking required to take an informed position. Second, it feeds doubts that undermine the democratic process that is central to the life of the United States and much of the world. Such disillusionment with democracy opens the door to demagoguery.  While all candidates and elected officials are fallible, finite human beings, some who were enthusiastically embraced and effective in office have had significant personal character flaws. And some of high character and integrity have been dismissed as weak and ineffective.  I will leave it to the reader to identify examples from their own time and from history. Third, it compromises the support and respect of the offices these folk hold in trust for the whole community.

As a pastor, I make a point of not articulating preferences for political candidates. I know some might think this is also an evasion of responsibility. At one level for me to support specific candidates could have jeopardized the tax exempt status of the congregations I served, if such support was somehow understood as representing or instructing the congregation. Whether churches should have tax exempt status and under what conditions is worthy of examination, but for me to deprive a congregation I serve of their tax exempt status by my individual action would be abuse of my authority. But far and away the most important reason I keep my political opinions to myself is that I don’t want anything to distract from my calling to introduce people to Jesus and encourage their faith journeys with him. I don’t want people tuning out what I say about Jesus because they associate it with a political stance, whether they agree with the politics or not.

Having said this, as a pastor I do believe I have a responsibility to teach people how to think biblically and let that shape their political opinions. When I was serving a congregation as their pastor, I believe I had both church and divine authority for such teaching. So I will not tell you whom I think you should vote for or whom I will be voting for, but I will try to explore a biblical way of thinking about how to decide for whom I will cast my vote with the intent of being a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ.

Stereotypically conservative Christians have emphasized personal righteousness and liberal Christians have emphasized social righteousness. Biblically this is a false dichotomy, and they should not be played against each other. Both personal and social righteousness are essential to life as faithful disciples of Jesus. In fact, they are indistinguishable in the Mosaic Law, the Hebrew prophets, Jesus in the Gospels and the New Testament Epistles. Even the idea of “both-and” and “balance” as though these are somehow competing ideas is totally foreign to the biblical writers. The personal and social are not aspects of righteousness; they are righteousness. In the necessarily adversarial dynamic of democratic politics that recently seems to have become particularly destructively polarized and divisive, this way of thinking is challenging and often rejected by those without adequate biblical foundations. So advocating holistic biblical righteousness will necessarily be embraced and rejected by both political liberals and political conservatives.

I had intended to post this essay after the political conventions in July, but since it appears likely that the 2016 race for the US Presidency will be between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, and the contentious debates are already at full-tilt, I decided to post it now. Whether character becomes part of the political dynamic of this election, it is a concern to me, and as a pastor I think it should be a concern to all Christians. Accusations of serious character flaws have been hurled at Hilary Clinton, especially but not exclusively from the conservative far right. Many who would be her natural political allies have at least hinted that trust will be an important issue in the election, but she has pretty consistently defended her integrity while acknowledging some level of fallibility. Donald Trump seems to parade his character flaws without shame in public as though they were somehow strengths that recommend him to the voters. No one needs to accuse Donald Trump of a defective character; he wears it as a badge of honor demonstrating that he gets things accomplished no matter who or what stands in his way.

I expect to hear a lot of voting for the “lesser of two evils” talk as the campaign moves toward November. I have no illusions that I can write an essay that is sufficiently compelling and widely read enough to head it off. Nevertheless, I believe that is the wrong approach for the reasons with which I began. I also do not recommend abstaining or voting for a protest candidate with no chance of winning. Those options seem to me to abandon the election to base instincts.

As a pastor and as one who aspires to follow Jesus faithfully, I am exploring how to vote when the candidates in question seem to have significant character flaws that are at odds with Christian discipleship without succumbing to a “lesser of two evils” mentality. To do that, I am making two presuppositions. First, I make a distinction between those who intentionally build their lives around being the most faithful disciple of Jesus possible and those who have adopted or assumed a generic, cultural Christian identity. Second, I believe nurturing Christian discipleship is the responsibility of the Church, not the nation. Government supported religion is detrimental to authentic Christian discipleship. The US Constitution, which makes no mention of God, guarantees that the country will not have an established religion nor have a religious test for public service.

I have no way of knowing what is in the hearts of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, nor what may have transpired in their relationship with God. Mrs. Clinton has identified herself as a United Methodist, and some observers have traced her political philosophy to these Methodist roots. She has not given high public profile to her faith or church participation. Mr. Trump declared himself a Christian and campaigned in some evangelical venues, perhaps prompted by the overt evangelical Christian identification of his primary opponents. Yet, he seemed unfamiliar and ill at ease in those settings and has not identified a Christian body with which he participates. I certainly cannot say whether Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump would be better classified as cultural Christians than intentional disciples of Jesus. I would suggest, however, that such a distinction offers little guidance in deciding how to vote.

There is a certain validity to the apocryphal quote attributed to Martin Luther (though without documentation). “I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a foolish Christian.” Someone may well be a devout disciple of Jesus who is competent in one area of expertise and incompetent in others. None of us would want a Christian accountant to rewire our house. We’d hire a certified electrician for that without regard to religious conviction. When it comes to public office, integrity and values count as much as skill and knowledge. I would hope that I could count on the integrity and values of a self-identified Christian, but we know both that Christians are as vulnerable as any other humans and that values constellations are expansive and complex. Thus two highly committed and well informed Christians might very well start from a solidly shared biblical base and diverge in significantly different directions in living that out. Just look at the widely varied views Christians have of something as basic to all of them as the sacraments.

So how do I as a disciple of Jesus in a pluralistic, secular democracy decide how to vote when all of the candidates seem to be at best cultural “Christians?” Or when a devout Christian’s competence seems inadequate or political philosophy diverges from mine? Can I do this with confidence and not succumb to the “lesser or two evils” rationalization?

I know plenty of well-meaning Christians urge prayer and the application of biblical texts to specific issues. I don’t want to discount that as a pious formality, but I do know how easy it is to manipulate biblical proof-texts and intense emotions in prayer. So yes, pray and explore the Bible, but I want to recommend a large biblical lens that draws together the Mosaic Law, the Hebrew prophets, Jesus in the Gospels and the New Testament Epistles with some measure of consistency that applies as much in a social and political context that is indifferent or even hostile to Jesus as one in which he is respected and honored.

Applying principles from the Hebrew Scriptures that were given to a theocratic society with prophets, priests and kings in our modern democracies is hazardous at best. Perhaps the experience of the Church’s first three centuries (from the Acts of the Apostles until Constantine’s disastrous coopting of a distorted Christianity for the purpose of military conquest) when the Roman Empire treated Christians as sometimes dangerous outsiders is more relevant. However, Rome had some rudiments of a republic, our society in which all citizens may vote and participate in public life is vastly different. Understandably, well informed, serious Christians have taken many different approaches to this question. I will not attempt to sort them all out nor exhaustively explore the relevant biblical material.

I suggest Psalm 72 as a suitable starting point for such explorations. It is a prayer for God to guide and bless the king. Notably, it says nothing about the king’s personal spiritual life, but it asks God to bring justice and righteousness through the king. It appeals to God to bless not just the king but the whole nation with prosperity so that those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder enjoy prosperous lives. It asks God for the king to give special attention to the needs of the weak, the poor and the needy. It asks God that the king will limit violence. It also asks God to bring the respect and honor of other nations to the king and the nation. It asks God that the people of the nation will be enthusiastically delighted in their king.

Yes, the Psalm reflects a longing for a noble ideal that ancient Israel (and Judah after the divided kingdom) never realized. Nevertheless, I think it does identify qualities of good government that apply regardless of the political system. Yes, it comes from a specific moment in Israel’s monarchy but the themes are consistent with the Mosaic Law and the prophets. In the New Testament Jesus and the Apostles relate to their very different societies with the same sensitivities.

I encourage all who are concerned about how to vote in the current polarized environment to do their own explorations of scripture beyond Psalm 72. I do recommend using Psalm 72 as a template for deciding how to vote when feeling drawn to having to choose between the “lesser of two evils.” Which candidate will best foster justice and righteousness? Which candidate will best promote prosperity that will enable those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder to prosper? Which candidate will most effectively address the needs of the weak and poor? Which candidate will engender the most respectful international relationships? Which candidate will win the respect and honor of the people of the country?

Yes, I believe character counts! Public leaders with serious character flaws damage the nation and hurt people. As a pastor, I am acutely aware of how deeply broken trust by spiritual leaders wound and scar people and communities of faith. I believe we who are entrusted with the care of souls are and should be held to an even higher standard than public officials. Moral failure, usually in the areas of sex, money and power can permanently disqualify someone from spiritual leadership. That is not a denial of grace and redemption but a recognition of the consequences for those who place their trust in us. In the public arena where religion is constitutionally (and I believe correctly) not a criteria for holding public office, we must expect wider variation in standards. That does not excuse misconduct. Those who break the law must be prosecuted. Voters have every right to vote out those who have violated that trust even if it was in the bounds of legality. The spiritual realm is not a question of competition or comparison but of objective righteousness. In the political realm, we are comparing competitors to determine who has the greater likelihood of bringing the kind of righteousness, justice, prosperity, compassion, and respect to the community as a whole.

"Politically Correct" or Polite?

Now that rejecting language that has been branded “politically correct” seems to have become politically expedient, I am wondering if calling people derogatory names will become socially acceptable. My anxious suspicion is that even if the vocabulary doesn’t make it into polite conversation, the attitudes behind the language is getting more open. By the way, my personal take is that those who reject “politically correct” are merely giving themselves permission to be impolite. Are we headed for a society in which these words and the attitudes behind them are coming into common usage? Wop, dego, kraut, chink, kike, hun, gook, nigger, jap, bitch, honkey, faggot, darkie, ho, coon, wetback, coolie, oreo, cracker, goy, hillbilly, spook, yid,  hymie, jungle bunny, poncho, sambo, raghead, spic, wasp, white trash, broad, pimp. I’m sure I have missed one you find particularly offensive or favored. 

Do We Want Ahab or Jezebel for President?

1Kings 21:1-21, the story of Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard, is the Hebrew Scripture from the Lectionary for this coming Sunday, June 12. As I have been reflecting on this, I thought that it spoke to political leadership and campaigns. To appreciate the power of this story requires some familiarity with conditions in during the Divided Kingdom Ahab’s reign in the Northern Kingdom of Israel where foreign, pagan influences identified with the Phoenician Baal worship of Jezebel.

The Hebrew kings had their power and wealth specifically circumscribed in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. So when Jezebel chides Ahab, “Do you now govern Israel?” (v. 7) she is thinking in terms of the absolute despots who were above the law and common among pagans. She mocks Ahab as too weak a king.

Though pagan influences in the Northern Kingdom of Israel had diluted the force of Mosaic Law, some such as Naboth still adhered to it. Thus he would neither sell nor trade for the land designated as his ancestral inheritance. Whether a clear line of succession from the time of Joshua could be documented does not diminish Naboth’s appeal to this principle.

Interestingly, when Ahab first approached Naboth (v. 2) he first offers a trade and gives Naboth the option of selling it for money.  But when Ahab is explaining it to Jezebel (v. 6), he first mentions buying the vineyard for money and second said he offered to trade. I suspect the shift in order suggests that Ahab was hoping to appeal to a certain Hebrew mentality when talking to Naboth and reveals more pagan priorities when talking to Jezebel.

Ironically, Jezebel does have enough of an understanding of Hebrew law to manipulate it to accomplish her nefarious purposes. She arranges for two false witnesses to testify that Naboth had cursed God and the king so the city elders will condemn him to death by stoning. So rather than just a royal decree (such as when Herod had John the Baptist beheaded) as would be typical for a pagan despot, she arranged for the appearance of a Hebrew trial and execution.

With our modern, casual  interchange of God and Lord, as though they were equivalent, we also miss an important distinction in the text. They translators do try to clarify for us if we will pay attention. Naboth answered Ahab (v. 3) “The Lord forbid that I should give you my ancestral inheritance.” The use of “Lord” is translators’ code that the Hebrew word is YHWH, the personal proper name for the God of Israel. Whereas Jezebel has the false witnesses say that Naboth has cursed God. This is translators’ code that the Hebrew word is ELOHIM, which might be understood more generally as “the deity.” To me this suggests Naboth believed he had a personal relationship with the God of Israel, while Jezebel (and presumably Ahab) were thinking more generically, lumping the God of Israel together with the pagan gods.

Perhaps those who read this far are bored with what I find fascinating in the passage but have kept reading to find out what I think it has to do with political leadership and campaigns.

Through its history the US has had both strong and weak Presidents. Sometimes the strong ones are politically able to expand the power of the office because of responding to a time of crisis such as war or economic decline. But these strong Presidents have always had their critics and detractors who complain that they are overreaching the authority granted to them by the US Constitution.

To be sure, Franklin Roosevelt has been both lauded as a strong President who led the country in the crises of both the Great Depression and World War II. He has also been vilified as an autocrat who manipulated and cajoled to wield his power. I well remember the accusations of the “imperial presidencies” of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. In the political paralysis of the impasse between the US Congress and President Obama, he has been accused of abusing the authority of the office of the President. In the current political campaign, Donald Trump has spoken of the power of the President in terms similar to his power over his businesses. Hilary Clinton has been criticized for her unilateral actions as Secretary of State and at least tacit support of President Obama’s executive orders.  

My  point is not to endorse or even condemn a candidate. Rather, as I reflected on Ahab and Naboth, I was taken back to the Hebrew understanding of a righteous king. Such a position is not primarily about power. The king could not do whatever he wanted (though some, even the best did try). The king was subject to the same legal code of justice as all the other people of the country. And the king was not to accumulate great wealth. In fact, wealth and power were regarded as highly dangerous for the king and for the people. In Psalm 72 the king is specifically charged with insuring justice and prosperity for the weak, the poor, the widows, the orphans, the foreigners.

As a Christian in a pluralistic, secular democracy, I do not expect the President to share my theological perspective or religious identity. I would like to think that if the President was also a disciple of Jesus that President would be an advocate for justice for those who struggle most and would be extraordinarily cautious about the accumulation of wealth and power. And actually, that is what I would welcome in any President or presidential candidate, regardless of their religious affiliation or convictions. I lament that should such a person run for office, that one would be roundly rejected by the voters. And should such a person somehow become president, that one would be vilified as weak.