It is commonly assumed that since all politics are compromised (read: evil) then Christians cannot take part in politics without compromising their convictions. The best that any Christian can do is simply continually negotiate the least of all evil choices. For Christians at the mainline seminary with which I am familiar, the least evil of all political choices is apparently the Democrat party (though for a few this least evil choice is the Green party or the Libertarian party). In the conservative, evangelical Christian circles I once more regularly frequented, the least evil of all political choices was the Republican party (though for a few it was the Reform party or some other strict constructionist party). Then there are those Christians who advocate a complete withdrawal from all political action.
But it seems as though this view of politics as an exercise of ubiquitous compromise seems both fatalistic and dangerously flawed. It presumes that Christians may only have recourse to human machinations when it comes to politics and forgets that it is God who institutes and dismantles governments. It also assumes that the frequent and willful compromise of one's convictions will not have long-term and serious spiritual consequences.
Thus for Christians the only legitimate form of political engagement is one in which they retain the commitment to their convictions while at the same time acting in such a way so as to actualize those convictions and persuade others through dialogue and example of one's convictions. But taking this route will eliminate the possibility from voting for particular candidates, and even entire parties, because these candidates and parties espouse positions and platforms which directly contravene one's Christian convictions.
For example, if one is convinced that abortion is a sinful act, then one cannot vote for a candidate who or party which epouses the propriety and validity of abortion. If one is convinced that a socialist economy is the only appropriate economic arrangement of human societies, then one cannot vote for a candidate who or a party which espouses a capitalist model. Here one could multiply possible permutations of Christian convictions and contravening candidates and/or parties.
The immediate reaction to this assertion is likely to be one of dismissal. This, so it is charged, is an overly naive view. There is no candidate or party that completely espouses the entirety of the Christian faith. I do not dispute this assertion.
However, it is the case that one or another candidate or party espouses positions so opposed to Christian convictions that any amount of compromise (read: support) of that candidate or party will violate well-known and primary Christian truths. To ignorantly do so may not be culpable, though one will still suffer the consequences of one's actions and vote. To knowingly violate those truths, and one's consequences, disforms and disfigures not only one's soul, but those souls who will also suffer the consequences of those acts and votes.
If, for example, as has been briefly noted, one is opposed to abortion (on whatever grounds, but convinced this is the Christian position), then it is not possible to vote for a candidate or party who assumes the propriety and validity of abortion--even if that candidate or party may advance other Christian concerns. To do so would, unless repented, lead to ultimate spiritual darkness.
But, it will be argued, party A is pro-abortion, and one is convinced abortion is a sin, while party B is anti-abortion. (One may also refer to candidates A and B, and so forth.) Yet party B has a dismal record, in say, environmental concerns. So, it stands to reason, a Christian cannot vote for party B. And, since party A, though pro-abortion, is committed to helping the poor through governmental aid (something party B is similarly shoddy at), then, the only real alternative for the Christian vote is party A, despite its pro-abortion stance.
But this reasoning doesn't hold up. It makes the category mistake of assuming that all evils are equally evil, and that given options between party A with two evils and party B with three evils, a Christian is justified in voting for party A. But this is a grave mistake.
In point of fact, there is a hierarchy of evil. Though all sins will separate one from God, not all sins are equally devastating in their human and spiritual consequences. While I may argue with my wife in a fit of pique, and perhaps sinfully let slip and call her a derogatory name, this sin, though evil and needing to be repented, is not the same category of sin as were I to, in a fit of anger, brutally beat her. Both are sin. Both damage relational ties. Both separate me from my wife and from God. But clearly the latter, beating, is a much more grave sin with much more devasting consequences.
So it is in the moral realm generally. There are some evils which are so evil no amount of compromise, even though such compromise can lead to many great goods, is morally possible. To put it in current sociopolitical jargon, there is a "litmus test" (or there are litmus tests) for Christians in the political arena. Some candidates or parties espouse political platforms which so violate Christian moral norms that no Christian can vote for them in good conscience.
Another fallacy of the reasoning noted above is the equation of social policy with the Christian Gospel. Christians, by dominical fiat, have an obligation to help the poor. But while party A espouses a position that assumes churches and other private volunteer organizations are to be the primary benefactors (and not government), party B espouses a position that the government is the more effective and efficient benefactor which entails the redistribution of income through taxation to provide the necessary revenues to aid the poor. Both parties have a clear position favoring support of the poor--and so in this way fulfill the Gospel command--but have two opposed philosophies on how best to do that. Unless the means advocated to support the poor by one or the other party can be shown to be intrinsically immoral, then conceivably a Christian is free, morally speaking, to vote for either party (and again, one may substitute for "party" "candidate").
So it is not true that Christians must weigh various evils with equal weight. Furthermore, one cannot confuse legitimate differences on public policy with differences on Gospel commands. And thus it is that Christians cannot just vote for whichever candidate or party most realizes their Christian convictions. There may be attendant evils, in the forms of political actions and platforms, in these candidates and parties such that Christians foster those evils by their support.
Although I have spoken somewhat relativistically regarding these Christian convictions--for example giving the impression that Christians can be legitimately opposed on the issue of abortion--in fact I do not at all think this is the case. I spoke in neutral terms to gain a hearing. But in point of fact, I do not believe there is wiggle room on issues like abortion, sexuality, pornography, divorce, and other serious moral offenses. There is objective Christian truth that all Christians must heed in these matters. But my point is not to argue for these truths, but to show that as Christians we are not justified in violating these truths with our support of candidates and parties even if by violating them we accomplish other goods.
Christian involvement in politics is a difficult matter. Given the fallenness of all political candidates and parties (Democrat, Republic, Green, Libertarian, Reform, independent, etc.), no candidate or party will exactly match our Christian convictions. But neither can we give our support to candidates who knowingly oppose clear Christian moral truth. Given a choice between two candidates or parties who, for example, espouse the validity and propriety of abortion, we may vote for neither. In which case we must either run ourselves, or back a candidate who does not violate such moral strictures, yet doing so in full awareness that he (or she) will lose.
In the end, it will not be asked of us whether we voted Democrat or Republican. Rather, it will be asked of us whether we were mindful of the least of these. Will our voting show that we have remained true to our Lord?
Posted by Clifton at October 15, 2003 08:33 AM | TrackBackWhat a long post.
To me, politics takes the form of roadsigns on the road of prophecy. If you believe God has predestined certain world events to occur, then certain things that politicians do and events that occur ("good" or "bad" in secular eyes) can have a completely different meaning in SPIRITUAL terms. When you rest your faith on God, and HIS plan for the world, then what Joe Blo politician does takes on a completely different meaning. God controls all, not the lying schmucks we elect.
Posted by: bill colrus at October 15, 2003 12:54 PMI agree that it is God who is in control (I wrote: " it is God who institutes and dismantles governments"), but if I understand your comments correctly, I'm afraid they may lead to a certain complacence/fatalism which will lead to a withdrawal of Christians from the political arena. And that, in my view, is not a good thing.
That is to say, God is in control, but he has ordained it such that his efforts work together with our own. We do have many good works to accomplish in the realm of politics, but in the end it is not up to us. God calls us to work, and works in us.
The political system is designed to find secular, man-made solutions to problems and situations - the real solutions to which are found in the Word.
I am not opposed to work towards "improving living conditions (physical, emotional, environmental, economic, etc) but it's the political system - even at its most pure and best-intentioned - which can't hold a candle to God's system. Bottom line, help people yourself, don't wait around for politicians to do it - and vote them out if necessary.
The problem is that our government, and government, IS God to a HUGE segment of the world, and governments and their "believers" desires/actions seldom jive with the Word.
Posted by: bill colrus at October 15, 2003 02:00 PMClifton, being as I am one of the "Don't play the game" folks. I would like to point out that letting God run the Gov't (instead of me getting involved) doesn't withdraw me from the political sphere. Every act of charity or grace is a political act, every evagelical Mystery is a political act - infact I would suggest that the Holy Mysteries themselves are the only good political acts available for they participate in the Kingdom directly and are that Kingdom participating with us in the World.
My own personal issues with democracy and lowest common denominator politics are not designed to excuse me from political acts - only from Secular politics.
God is, very much, in charge, but I don't think I have it in me to decide if GWB or a random Democrat to be named later are more able to Govern in a Chistian manner. God can put someone in office and I can trust that to be according to His plan.
Posted by: Huw Raphael at October 15, 2003 03:22 PMHuw:
I completely agree with your pointing out the irrevocably political nature of the Eucharist. Hear ! Hear! Would that more Christians would accept that.
And while I hear your misgivings--I have them myself--I'm not sure it's an either/or scenario. I'm of the opinion that Christians probably compromise themselves when officially aligning with a particular party (but it's more a felt opinion than a thought one). Still, it seems to me that Christians are obligated toward some sort of thoughtful involvement; indeed, that God may well require Christians to be involved in the political sphere precisely because he uses us to accomplish his ends. And while political ends are distinctly human and subject to frustration, those ends (peace, education, honorable employment) may promote admittedly greater ends (spiritual peace, the knowledge of God, vocation).