Purgos

The need for a hierarchy of issues when going to the voting booth is obvious since there is no candidate whose worldview matches completely the biblical worldview that the Scripture calls each Christian to possess.  But we measure worldviews in degrees not merely in “right” and “wrong”.  Some are more right than others and some are more wrong than others.  Elections serve, much like relationships, our jobs, paying our taxes, caring for our bodies and a host of other issues in life, as both outlets for and glimpses into our worldview.  We see our worldview in how we vote not because one candidate is evil and the other good or because one has all the right principles and the other none of the right principles but because we are making a judgment call.  Worldviews are best seen through judgment calls because there we see the public ordering of our private values and passions.

            I think all believers should be able to agree that not every issue is of equal worth.  With this as a given how might we define what issues take precedence over other issues?  What factors should guide one in such a subjective process as an election.  First let’s say clearly what serves as poor criteria for establishing a hierarchy of issues upon which to evaluate the platforms and policies of particular candidates.

1. Cultural Pragmatics – What the culture identifies as the primary needs of society cannot serve as a healthy barometer for what that society actually needs.  The needs of our culture must be identified through a different lens than our contemporary cultural worldview.  How flawed it would be to attempt to take an ill culture’s assessment of the solution to their plight without bringing an external standard or perspective to bear upon it to demonstrate its viability or inability to solve the present problems.  We would not take a mental ill person’s prognosis and recommendations for their own wellness without seeking some external vantage points.

2. Personal Well-being – We all have such varied lifestyles for a variety of reasons.  Some are small business owners.  Some are single parents. Some are wealthy.  Some are poor.  Some have many children.  Some have few.  Some have chosen moral lives.  Some have chosen immorality.  I think you get the point.  We have chosen different lives or been handed different lives from God and as a result we might vote a particular way if we were the only person in the world.  However, we are not the only person and are instructed very clearly in the Bible to live with a vital sense of otherness. (Php. 2:3-4)  So a vote with primarily personal interests in view is flawed.

3. The Mistakes of the Past – Most agree that there have been mistakes in the past in the administration of various facets of government rule.  Whether these were errors in judgment, willful deception, honest mistakes or flawed views of government and society is not relevant.  Many regret some things and some regret many things, but we are where we are in today’s America.  The question in an election is not how do we steer furthest from the past, but how do we most honor Jesus’ worldview given the present situation.  Reactionary voting, whether it be to past presidents or to past congresses, is not a wise, sound approach.  Christians are famous…I mean infamous for reactionary tactics that swing us all the way to the other side of the spectrum, leaving us equidistant from the biblical view as we were at the beginning.  A reaction to the mistakes of the past is a poor means of moving forward.

 

A Look at the Issues

Second, let’s consider some important issues that play into this present election from a biblical perspective.

The Bible seems to place particular value on those who are incapable of defending themselves.  Those who are left in society to either suffer or be cared for on the principles of others.  This shows up in Jesus language about children in Matthew 18:1-11, in James description of what constitutes pure religion and in the Jerusalem church’s paramount request of Paul in Gal. 2:10, to care for the poor.  Within this category we should be mindful that everyone who falls in these categories is not in equal need or equally defenseless.  For example there are ample injunctions to care for the poor (Pr. 14:31; 17:5; 19:17; 21:13; 28:27) and we must take those seriously and give them an important place in our worldview.  At the same time we must also account for the fact that some, but certainly not all or maybe even most, of the situations of the poor are a result of personal moral failings and rebellion against God (Pr. 10:7; Eccl. 10:18).  This has to be taken into account because it changes how we might minister to those individuals while never absolving us of the responsibility to minister to them.  So while they hold a high place in the hierarchy of societal needs as a group they cannot be held higher than those who are uniformly vulnerable and incapable of defending themselves or providing for themselves such as orphans or the unborn.  These are those who are truly defenseless and without a voice of there own.  Consider Pr. 31:8, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”  So the posture of people in these categories and their contribution or non-contribution to their respective plights play key roles in both how we relate to them and the place issues involving their protection should take in our hierarchy of issues. 

A second issue is the unwarranted killing of those who can defend themselves.  Such is the case when we discuss war, both just and unjust war.  Surely an unjust war is an atrocity and even a just war produces heavy sacrifice and personal anguish.  In a biblical worldview we recognize that there are some things worth giving one’s life for.  In Jesus’ worldview it was the well-being of his friends (Jn. 15:13).  The just killing of another is a worldview question all its own but thankfully we are not without Scriptural texts in this regard.  Just consider Gen. 9:6 and Rom. 13:3,4.  Now unjust war is, as I mentioned an atrocity.  As we weigh the idea of just and unjust war in our worldviews we must be sure however, that we do not declare a war unjust because tragically some unjust things were perpetrated in its name.  We do not declare a marriage bad even though some bad things may happen in that particular marriage. 

A third issue is our stewardship of God given resources.  We are called to be stewards of creation (Gen. 1:26-28).  We are called to be stewards of our money.  It is interesting that the biblical encouragements regarding the use of money are largely either philanthropic in nature (Ps. 15:1,5; Mt. 6:2-3) or given in an effort to lessen our allegiance to it (1 Tim. 6:10; 2 Tim. 3:2) and trust in it (Pr. 18:10-11; Eccl. 7:12).

A fourth issue is the need for morality in general.  Immorality is repeatedly condemned in the Bible and found to be repulsive to a holy God (1 Cor. 6:9; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:4).  The disintegration of societal morality is a pertinent issue and must be fought for in the market place of ideas as the church is called to “hate what is evil” and “cling to what is good.” (Rom. 12:9).  We can learn from God’s instructions to Israel through the prophet Amos, “Hate evil, love good, maintain justice in the courts.” (Am. 5:15).

Fifth are issues dealing with civil society.  These issues are more pragmatic and certainly have very personal ramifications.  For example issues of immigration have very important consequences to our national security and our way of life.  They invoke challenges regarding the implementation of wisdom, freedom, personal responsibility and honoring the image of God.  Most often these issues do not deal with identifying a problem (such as issues of abortion, war, homosexual marriage, etc…) but how to handle present challenges that are almost universally recognized. 

Some issues certainly overlap in these various categories.  What to do with energy situation, aspects of diplomacy, healthcare, education and others all have impact on our finances, our civil situation and national security, and our ability to go to war or not go to war.  Some also have moral implications as well (health care for the disenfranchised, tax payments going to support abortion, etc…)

 

A Proposed Hierarchy

At this point, having mentioned some flawed approaches to electing political leaders and surveying some general categories of issues, I will propose a hierarchy that I think reflects the biblical worldview and should serve as a template through which thoughtful Christians approach such civil responsibilities as voting.  I have put this together predicated upon a logical and I think theological presupposition, namely: There is a greater moral and spiritual burden to defend the well-being of the defenseless than those who are capable or at least have some opportunity to defend their own well-being.  Even below the well being of others who can defend themselves and care for themselves at some level is the importance of my own well being.  Therefore as you will see primacy of place goes to those who are incapable of caring for or defending themselves, next comes the care for others in general who at least have the human power for some self-care or self-defense, and finally is our concern for our own well-being whether it be fiscal or civil.  The biblical text seems to exemplify this.  Consider some references on God’s passion for defending the defenseless or caring for those who cannot care for themselves adequately: Dt. 10:18; Ps. 72:4; Isa. 1:17, 23.  In addition consider his exhortations to look to the needs of others, even those who may not be defenseless or unable to care for themselves as expressed in the thirty-five “one another’s” that form the basis of godly relationships.  The Bible assumes that we love and care for ourselves but uses that as an analogy or a sort of a fortiori argument for the value of caring for another (cf. Eph. 5:28-29).  So I think the hierarchy of the needy and defenseless gives direction to our moral obligation as we live, serve, pray and vote. 

 

Having established the guiding principle of this hierarchy, here it is.  (The delineation below is given in the following order: Level one issues should be given greater weight, level two less weight than level one yet more than level three and so on.)

Level one issues are abortion, euthanasia and the treatment of the mentally handicapped.  They represent those who are defenseless and deal with life and death matters.  This is the voters opportunity to speak for those without a voice.

Level two issues that deal with moral failings that are reprehensible in God’s eyes and cause society to fragment into a culture that brings greater displeasure from God upon it.   On this same level I would place how people deal with the poor and marginalized who have a small voice in society and who all too often reap the consequences of a fallen world’s propensity for greed and personal prosperity at the expense of others.  It seems to me that the biblical evidence shows this to be a moral issue as well.

Level three issues regard national posturing in going to war and diplomatic issues that produce a benefit for some and a suffering for others.  While just and unjust war is an important issue, the moral questions are complex.  No one should advocate unwarranted hostility toward those who can defend themselves.  But neither should we see this on the same plane as those who are utterly incapable of defending themselves and who are part of nations reciprocating aggression.  No aggression comes from the nursing home patient facing premature death from euthanasia. 

Level four issues are those impacting civil society and issues dealing with our pocketbooks.  I realize that such issues play significant roles in national security, future prosperity and even the prolonged viability of our country.  These issues, while important, are not as important issues of morality in regard to the defenseless, the marginalized, the immoral degrading of culture and the moral implications of war.

 

Certainly there are individual issues that have not been mentioned.  But the point here is not to speak to every situation but to demonstrate how these issues play out in the framework of our worldview and particularly this election.  So who should you vote for?  As a believer it is your responsibility to carefully think through the issues laid out above and assess how your approach to voting reflects the biblical worldview.  You may struggle with whether or not the hierarchy I have presented is biblical.  I would encourage you to think carefully in biblical, theological and philosophical terms.  We do not want to be a people who vote according to one of the three poor approaches mentioned earlier. 

Moving forward, remember to vote according to a biblical worldview, pray and trust a sovereign God and submit to your governing authorities in honor of the One who ultimately places them there.         

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.