Walking The Election Ridgeline
Written by David W. Hegg | Senior Pastor
Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political scientist and historian who lived in the early 19th Century. To help his country preserve its blood-bought liberty in the aftermath of the French Revolution, he looked to learn from the young democracy of the United States, still in its infancy. His work, Democracy in America, is a collection of observations about our nation's origins and is still considered an expert perspective on how democracy impacts society. Interestingly, Tocqueville considered America’s national character more important than our founding documents and credited the Puritans for shaping that character. He observed how the clergy in America differed from the clergy in Europe. He writes, “In America, religion is a world apart where the priest [clergy/pastor] rules, but which he takes care never to leave; within its limits, he governs the mind; beyond, he hands men over to themselves and abandons them to the independence and instability which are proper to their nature and to the times.”[1] During his time, the clergy of Europe exercised dominion and authority over all aspects of civilian life, a carryover from Papal power and influence. But in America, he noticed how practicing Christians walked the ridgeline of faith and civilian life, allowing Christian conscience and freedom to shape Christian practice – this ridgeline still applies today.
When Christ-followers participate in an election cycle, these key scriptures inform our approach and mindset as we walk the political ridgeline.
Matthew 22:17-22
17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.
Romans 13:1-7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
With these texts in mind, what is the relationship between the church and the state? What are the benefits/dangers of the church relationship? How should Christians view the church in a democracy?
David Hegg outlines the following things to consider when heading to the voting booth:[2]
1. Must we vote to be a good citizen?
Romans 13 requires us to be "subject" to the government. But the word applies to obedience to laws. We are not legally bound to vote. There is no law requiring us to vote. The Romans 13 command does not mandate that we do things that are left as
"voluntary" by our government. Matthew 22:15-22 is understood similarly as necessitating our giving to the government what they have a right to receive from us.
Since voting is not legally mandated, we are not legally obligated to "give" them our vote.
2. Should we vote as those in subjection to our government?
Our leaders are asking us to vote, and so while it is not mandatory, we should vote because our leadership is asking us to. It is still voluntary, but as those submitted to the governing authorities, we should do as they have asked unless it violates the law of God. And it cannot be demonstrated that voting violates the law of God.
3. What does a vote constitute?
What exactly does a vote constitute? In other words, what are we saying when we vote for someone? I maintain that we are not endorsing everything in their character, principles, or views simply because knowing these things about any candidate has never been possible. We don't even know all that about one another since parts of our character, principles, and views are known only to ourselves.
I would postulate that a vote simply delineates our preference, from among the choices offered, for the candidate we believe will best occupy and exercise the office in question. It is a choice between options, not an endorsement of the person per se. Like any other choice, it is always seen against the backdrop of available options. For example, eating at In-N-Out is not an endorsement of their cuisine as the healthiest. Still, it demonstrates preference regarding the choices of fast food or hamburger joints available.
4. Can we vote for a "write-in" candidate?
The next question arises: If we should vote, is it legitimate to write in the name of someone we do feel better about? For example, is it legitimate to write in Jared Burkholder’s name instead of voting for one of the candidates listed? This question may not have a clear answer, but we can learn something from one of the planks in Just War Theory.
Augustine first advanced this theory using two categories: The "right to go to war (jus ad bellum) and "right conduct in war" (jus in bello). In the first category, among the six necessary elements for entering war, "justly" is this: the probability of success.
He thought entering a war that could not be won was wrong. Jesus also spoke to this (Luke 14:31,32) in the parable of the king, who first considers whether he can win the war before setting out for battle.
The idea I would attempt to transfer to voting for a write-in candidate is this: If you are voting to be in submission to your government leaders asking you to vote, then to vote for someone who has no chance of winning is fraudulent regarding the wishes of your government leaders. I take it their request for me to vote is a request for me to show them which, from the options available, I prefer. So, to vote for someone else does not live up to the previously agreed position that, as a good citizen, I should heed my leader's request to vote.
Conclusion:
We are not constrained to vote by law but are compelled to vote to be submissive to the desires of our government leaders.
A vote is not a general or even a specific endorsement of any candidate in their totality.
A vote is simply a declaration of preference from among the choices presented by our governmental leaders.
The choice to vote for someone with no chance of winning is not a vote in good faith, given that our governmental leaders will declare our preference among the candidates they present. (They are not asking who we want to see elected, but rather which of the candidates presented is our preference.)
In closing, if we put all this together, it argues a Christian can and should vote their preference from among the options presented by the government and should look to the Scriptures to inform and strengthen our conscience during political seasons. As Tocqueville reminds us, “How will society avoid perishing if, while the political bond is loosened, the moral bond is not tightened? And what can be done with a people that is master of itself, if it is not subject to God?”[3]