It has been a while since I last posted, and that is because my Politics class came to a close for the semester. Professor Innes wanted his students to regularly engage in current events as a life-long habit. For me, apparently, it is working. I have to thank my good friend Anthony R. for encouraging me to write this post, by writing his thoughts on the upcoming election. His blog is much shorter than mine and well worth the read. If you would, read it first and you will have a better idea of what I am referring to. However, if you do not want to do this, my blog should still be able to be read on its own.
Anthony's blog link: http://anthonythoughts.wordpress.com/2008/01/06/jesus-doesn’t-endorse—he-tells-america-how-its-gonna-be/
My response:
Anthony, be serious now. You know in your heart that any TRUE Christian would vote for Ron Paul.
Joking aside, I was surprised that you did not talk more about Romney and why you support him. In this post, I think you ask the right questions to the subject of what is a Christian's role in democracy--specifically within the 2008 race. This is a question that God certainly does not discuss in the Bible because democracy is not in the Bible. However, I have pulled certain principles that inform the way I think about our current political situation. This is going to be long, but please let me explain my thoughts.
When Israel goes before God to select a king for Israel, God was displeased with their choice. They looked at the outward appearance, but of course God looks at the heart. This is why David became and made such a wonderful monarch, and Solomon after him, since Solomon was concerned with justice. As with virtually everyone in the Bible, David and Solomon's faults are also noted, but for the most part, they are some of the most noteworthy and striking examples of good, God-honoring political leadership. I take from the situation concerning both men that God desires political leaders who love him with their whole hearts and who are concerned deeply with justice. God values what we would call honor and integrity in a leader. I see these themes all throughout the books of Chronicles.
God also commends those who manage well. In the parables of the talents and other similar parables, the servants of the King who do a good job with what they have been given are praised, and those who do poorly with what they have been given for the lack of even trying are despised and deposed. God values thoughtful and excellent management in the individuals that He has granted power to.
In both cases, I see principles that are applicable to today. While I think you are astute in pointing out that there is not one candidate that God endorses, I believe that through careful consideration, one can find the candidate or couple of candidates who do the best job of exemplifying the principles mentioned above.
Another consideration. The classic passage for determining the role of government, as we know, is Romans 13. The point there is that government is to protect its citizens and punish evildoers. In the case that a candidate looks like they will fail in that regard, it would be wise to not vote for them. Therefore, by implication, maybe someone with more socialist policies, like Hillary or Edwards, would be a poor choice for office because their policies might actually cause more harm than good, all things considered. Economically, they could continue to further hurt the nation and this would be counteracting the role of government. On the other hand, if the Democrats are more concerned to focus on internal issues such as creating clean energy independence, one could certainly make a good case that such is in the interest of the people and that since the Republicans are not concerned with that segment, they should not be voted for.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. As you expressed, there is no easy bacon. In no case does it seem loudly and immediately obvious that a certain candidate would be a better or "more godly" choice (whatever one might mean by that). This is where I do not think it is reasonable to say that God has selected one person and that person will be God's candidate. I would actually consider that taking the Lord's name in vain--blasphemy, and if nothing else, certainly unhelpful to the rest of the citizenry.
The question at this point is: What makes a good candidate? Well, what does God value most? If it is life, than vote against anyone who is pro-choice. If it is the voice of the people, the side with a Democrat. If it is honesty and integrity, then find the most honest candidate. This makes me think.
God has laid out His character in the Bible, and from many places, we learn how God thinks about politics. Jesus sure talks about it some. After all, the "Kingdom of God" is an inherently political term. I have the tendency to return to Romans 13. God values justice. He wants a system that punishes evil. As I said before, he values someone who manages well. But He is also concerned about life. By selecting a candidate who will allow for greater liberty, one will allow the church to be freer to spread the gospel and engage in the work that God has for His church to do.
One question that I have wrestled with is this evaluation of what should be valued most. Does God hold life above everything else. I am led to believe that it is dear and important, but no, that is not the primary thing that is important in life (in the physical sense). For example, my understanding of Giuliani's perspective on abortion is that he is for letting the states decide. He personally does not consider abortion a good thing (or maybe I'm wrong there), but he will allow pro-choicers to hold sway if a state decides that way. Part of me says: that's sad, we should make abortion illegal by overturning Roe v. Wade and that will fix the problem. But see, I do not believe that will fix the problem. Sure it will make abortions harder to get, but it will just push them into the black market. Such a judicial decision will not change the heart of man. Loving one's neighbor as yourself will provide the soil for the Spirit to change hearts. Abortions will still happen. And people will still think that abortion is not murder.
In a case like that, even though Guiliani is not completely against abortion, I try to see beyond that. I do not believe that the abortion issue is the biggest issue in running the country. Even if it is, maybe the way that most Christians are attempting to go against it is not the most effective. I wonder what Jesus would say. I do not think he would be pleased if a person voted for a pro-life candidate if that was the only aspect that the voter took into consideration. So what if a pro-life candidate gets into office if he causes the rest of the nation in most other areas to go to Hell in a handbasket? Where is the long term impact? If the President does not protect the rights of those citizens he disagrees with (and by rights, I mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), gays for example (this is not to say that he allows or legalizes gay marriages, but one must recognize that these people are citizens too and are entitled to the same rights as the rest--I would say gay marriage is not included--partly on the argument that it is not protecting the citizens and country at large--but this is a different topic). If the President persecutes minorities and discriminates, fails to address the important energy concerns that our nation is facing, and fails to protect citizen's rights, but is pro-life, I do NOT see this as a valid candidate (and I don't have anyone in mind here who fits the description that I just expressed). Jesus, as I currently understand Him, is not that narrow minded, but has a broader kingdom focus. On the flip side, if someone is pro-choice, maybe that gives you an indication of their perceptions, and if you believe that they are erroneous in that area, it may be worth investigating in depth their other beliefs, because those might be problematic as well. That part is my opinion and don't feel obligated to agree with me.
I'd like to bring up another point that I think is important. I believe that Ben Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention something akin to: "The nature of politics is compromise." It's true. In order to get anything accomplished, you must find middle ground and a middle way and meet there, if you cannot persuade your fellow politicians. Please do not misunderstand me. I do NOT mean that one should compromise on the values that he or she holds dear. Vote your conscience. That is likely the safest road (assuming that when you vote, you have also worked to be informed). But two things on compromise, which may be two sides of the same coin. In this very opinionated republic, it is very unusual to find a large number of people who completely agree in every respect with a particular candidate. For example, I may like Huckabee's convictions and certain policies, but not his stance on immigration (I'm not sure what that even is at this point). However, because I agree most with him, out of the candidates, I would side with him. The other side of this coin deals with the reality of our current system. There are Democrats and Republicans. Then there is everyone else. The rest of everyone else has so small a chance at winning the election that there is practically no hope of them winning (or so it seems to me). Some say: "If everyone voted their conscience, then those other parties might have a chance." Yes, but if the moon were made of cheese, we might solve world hunger. Please excuse my sarcasm, but the conditional that I just quoted is an impossible hypothetical. For all practical purposes, there are two parties and two alone that matter. If you want to have your voice heard in politics (for the most part--I admit that there are ways around my argument here, but hear what I am saying), you should vote for either one or the other. Yes, vote your conscience. But there is a time and a place to vote in the realm of reality too. Suppose there is a state that is split. You believe that the Republican candidate more accurately lines up with the principles we discussed above, when compared to the Democratic candidate. In fact, you so disagree with the Democratic candidate that you think it would be terrible for the nation if that candidate came to office. Your vote counts. The decision of you state could sway the election one way or another. But you like the Independent candidate better than the Republican. Who do you chose?
In this case, it seems to me that you are obligated, if not morally, at least by the voice of practical wisdom, to vote for the Republican. That lines up with your conscience in a more appropriate way. That is the area where compromise and voting your conscience intersect. That is the main point I wanted to make. But to run with that, then, does it make sense to vote for a third party candidate at all if they never have the chance of winning?
I say that to provoke thought. The alternate argument, that I am sympathetic to, is that it is not all about who wins the election. The important point is that the message of the third party candidate is heard. If you believe that God places it on your heart to vote there for that purpose, then I doubt I would argue with you. I can see that God would do both--allow my heart to tell me to vote for the Republican (or whoever) while He allows your heart to point you toward the third party candidate (or whoever different), because you are arguing for the God-affirmed principles of liberty, choice, and excellence, while I am acting on the wisdom principles of democratic politics, informed by a Biblical worldview, such as compromise, policy, and truth. This points us back to the truth that there is no easy answer and even highlights the paradox that what seems contradictory (both you and me voting differently) might ultimately be toward the same God-ordained purpose of allowing others to better love Him and love others.
At this current date, I do not have anyone that I would definitely vote for because I have not researched the beliefs and proposed policies and histories of each candidate deeply enough. My gut response is Guiliani because he did a good job cleaning up NYC and I am experiencing the effects of that living in a city that he was able to clean up significantly. I think I ought to research more before the time comes for my voice to count. Huckabee and Romney, in their own ways, look somewhat attractive to me as well. After witnessing the NH Democratic debate, I have ruled out those candidates because I do not think that the policies that they were expressing and the underlying values on which they stand (in most cases) line up with the ones that would lead toward the best running of the America that is founded upon the Creator God.
One last caveat. This is why I love the liberal arts, classical education that I am receiving at The King's College. I am not only encouraged to think about these things, but I am commanded to, trained in them (thought about the great ideas), and surrounded by a community of others who reflect similarly upon the world. Anthony, even though we may not agree on everything, I thank you for your insights, your thoughtfulness, and your love of finding truth and goodness. While our politics are not exactly in harmony, I believe that our attitude and our hearts are, at the deepest level. To God be the glory in the outcome of this upcoming election.
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment