Monday, May 25, 2009

Dear Voter

By Matt Kaufman
Boundless Webzine

Dear Kyle

I'm glad we got to catch up at Starbucks the other day. We always cover so much ground, and we wonder why we don't do it more often. I'm sorry that we didn't have more time. Especially because, toward the end, you brought up a topic that deserves more attention than we were able to give it.

You mentioned how frustrated you were over the presidential prospects for 2008. You'd taken a look at all the major presidential candidates, you said — "the ones who have a chance to get nominated, anyway" — and you don't know that you can support any of them.

As a Christian, you said, you'd hoped you could find a candidate who was "God's choice" — someone who sought to discern and follow God's will, or at least someone who'd take a strong stand for some important moral principles. You saw so few people like that in today's politics, and so many amoral careerists, that you wondered how involved in politics a Christian should really get. "Maybe we should just stick to doing ministry," you said. "Maybe we should leave government to the worldly people and focus on souls."

I understand how you feel. I share your frustration over most candidates. And naturally, I agree that ministry is more important for Christians than politics. So, for that matter, is the daily Christian life of prayer and work and care for people around us.

Yet I'm afraid that you're at risk of carrying things too far. I don't think Christians can just abandon the political realm altogether, not even when that realm is most distasteful. If anything, that may be when we're needed most.

I've long wished more Christians would think about the purpose of government, and what role believers should play in it. I know: This is the kind of topic where I tend to go on and on. So I promise to keep it relatively short this time. Give me another 500 words and I'll stop. Maybe 700, tops. Deal?

As Christians we want to start thinking about things by looking at the Bible. And it does provide some guidance, not to say a detailed blueprint.

In 1 Timothy 2:2, Paul writes that the reason we pray for "kings and all those in authority" is "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." Government is chiefly supposed to play a support role for society: Not to usurp the role of God's other institutions, like the family and the church, but to maintain the basic civil order that enables them to flourish. You can't go about the business of life if you're being terrorized by street gangs or invaded by Visigoths.

That's a theme which comes up in other verses about government. 1 Peter 2:14, for example, says the state is supposed "to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." Some people construe that as a mandate to redistribute income for "social justice" or to travel the globe on a mission to liberate the peoples of the world. I think that's a pretty big stretch. The verse here is using the language of criminal justice: The function of police and courts dealing with (say) thieves or killers.

There's plenty of room to disagree over whether government should or shouldn't do specific things. But I hope all Christians can agree that it's got to do its fundamental duties first. That's why the abortion issue is so important in so many elections, even when candidates don't want to talk about it. There's no duty more fundamental for the state than to protect the lives of its most defenseless citizens. A government that doesn't do that duty doesn't deserve to govern. It's no surprise the world tries to avoid this issue by chanting mantras like "choice." Christians should know better.

Here's another thing I hope we can all agree upon: A government must not undermine other institutions God made for their own good purposes — such as the family and the church. Should the state "help" those institutions, funneling money toward them through various social programs? Again, we can debate that. But surely the state should do no harm. For example, it shouldn't hand condoms to kids behind their parents' backs. It shouldn't distort marriage by treating "domestic partnerships" (heterosexual or homosexual) as its equivalents. These sorts of things violate God's design for the church, the family and the government.

When we see this going on, what do we do about it? Some Christians, again seeking biblical guidance, may not see obvious answers. In biblical times, rulers by and large made no pretense of seeking the consent of the people they ruled: They simply ruled. Believers were called upon to pray for them and to meet some obligations, like paying taxes. Seldom did God call upon them to judge the righteousness or wisdom of a government's actions — unless they themselves were ordered by the government to do something immoral.

But God put those believers in one kind of world and us in another kind. Those of us who live under elected governments aren't supposed to defer to our rulers and go about our business. Government is part of our business: We the people are supposed to run the show. We are called upon to judge rulers and their actions. Americans tend to think of that as our "right." A better word would be "responsibility."

Which brings us back to where you started: What do we do if we don't see any major candidates to support? I won't try to tell you if this is one of those times: You have to study each candidate's record for yourself. I'll just say a few things. (1) In some cases we can compromise but in some cases, on some issues, we can't. (2) There's nothing wrong with voting for a candidate who supposedly "can't win" if you believe that's what God would have you do. (3) You don't have to vote for anyone if there isn't anyone you can support in good conscience — but (4) if that's the case, it may be a sign that Christians, far from withdrawing from politics, should get more involved to make things better.

I know, that sounds like the start of a long conversation. But I did promise to keep this short, didn't I? Tell you what: If you want to pick up this conversation, I've got free time next week. Say, 7:00 Tuesday night? Let's start early enough that we can take our time this time around.

See you at Starbucks,

Matt