The problem

No main political party is driven by the “breadth, balance or basis of Biblical ethical concerns”.1 Culture (and therefore political parties) are now driven by the principle of the sovereignty of the individual over the family and the community.

Tim Keller comments:

“Liberals think government should control and redistribute income but should leave people free to do whatever they choose in the area of personal morality.” This individualism shows itself in their views on abortion and marriage.

And further that:

“Conservatives on the other hand think governments should control and forbid personal immorality but should leave people free to do whatever they choose with their money.” This individualism shows itself in their understanding of poverty as mainly a failure of personal responsibility.

Jim Wallis comments: “If you support protecting an unborn life but don’t provide the necessary support to the mother and child in poverty after birth, how can you logically call yourself pro-life?”2 In other words, he argues that Christians can’t say “all we care about is someone’s stance on abortion. We don’t care what they do to the economy, to the poor, what wars they fight, or what they do on human rights.”

Trying to prioritise

The bottom line for Christians is that a holistic world view is necessary – we should as far as possible try to look at the world and other people as God does. The difficulty comes in ascertaining how you prioritise issues (if you can prioritise at all).

One could envision a scenario when all parties were so repulsive that one might choose to not be involved at all (see Mark Noll’s position!). But keeping in mind that there never have been or will be any perfect parties or governments, one should nearly always be able to at least side (when it comes to voting) for the lesser of two evils. Politics is after all, the art of the possible.

So if we are to break the habit of voting and remaining welded to traditional party lines (e.g. because my parents supported that party, no matter what the candidate stood for, as I previously have), what criteria are we to use?

Firstly we need to employ a Christian Worldview.

A Christian worldview will bring several different issues to the forefront of the Christians mind. Here are two examples from two well known Christian thinkers:

    Mark Noll’s seven issues3:-

Race – members of every race and ethnic group be treated equally before the law
Life – pro-life because personal preference must never trump human life
Taxes – income tax policy on broad views of justice and equity–that is, it needs sharply progressive income taxes
Trade – defend principles of free trade and, wherever possible, expand the operations of free trade
Medicine – basic medical coverage, supplied at minimal cost and with minimal hassle, should be offered to all.
Religious Freedom – people must be allowed to exercise the basic human right of worshipping God, or not worshipping God, as they choose.
International Law – justice in its actions overseas

    Chuck Colsons top ten4:-

1. Sanctity of Life: Preserving sanctity of life by resisting the encroachment of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
2. Religious Liberty: Defending the persecuted Church and others of faith around the world, and defending freedom of religion here at home.
3. Human Rights: Protecting human rights, whether it’s stopping sex-trafficking, slavery in Sudan, or the spread of AIDS.
4. Marriage: Protecting by law the traditional heterosexual definition of the family.
5. Terrorism: Strengthening America in the War on Terrorism and in the clash of civilizations against radical Islam.
6. Judiciary Roles: Restoring the constitutional role of the Supreme Court and restricting judicial activism.
7. Faith-based solutions: Advocating faith-based solutions to societal problems.
8. Marginalized Citizens: Caring for the poor and restoring prisoners. Preserving the financial stability of health care for the elderly and disabled.
9. Education: Improving education and promoting choices within the educational system.
10. Media: Challenging the negative impact of the mass media on culture — including speaking out against pornography, sexual exploitation, and violence.

Perhaps what is missing from both lists is personal virtue or character. Perhaps we need to not only think biblically about the issues surrounding the election, but also pay careful attention to the values that the person lives by, and the underlying values of their party and their policies.

Secondly we need to remember that politics is reactive rather than progressive.

In the main, politics responds to major cultural trends but does not create them. An example might be the recent laws on global terrorism. Any government 50 years ago would have been able to conceive of passing and enforcing such legislation. Politics responds to what is happening in society. As Tim Keller puts it “It may resist or support cultural changes, but it can’t generate them”.5 Therefore we have to be realistic about the degree of influence the party will have in the direction of biblical mandates which are currently highly opposed in society.

Related to the previous point, this will mean that the political activity of the day will largely be determinable by big issues that parties choose to campaign on. Single issue voting may be less profitable than a focus on the dominant issues. Dominant issues may be a combination of manifesto promises and prevailing cultural trends. I concede that the example of Wilberforce and others shows that ideology in individual politicians can be influential, but we have to also be honest and say that he was exceptional.

Conclusion

Keller suggests that “each Christian will have to find his or her own ‘tie breaker’ among the various Biblical concerns (such as abortion or poverty) when it comes to voting and then choose a candidate. I’m really not sure about this, since it forces us to jettison certain truths of our faith in making the decision – to caricature: either the ethics of social justice, or the ethics of personal morality.

Certainly we would have to ensure that such a ‘tie-breaker’ was not selfishly motivated. After all, if we vote on the basis only of what will be good for us, then we undermine entirely the Christian worldview of loving our neighbours as Christ loved us.

Certainly, on individual policy decisions of either party in government, we would want to show a spirit of respect to other parties and not feel we have to “embrace one partisan agenda over another, but rather go where the bible leads.”6

Certainly we need to recognise that often none of the parties seek to honour the Lord Jesus Christ and so are fundamentally driven by idolatrous agendas.

Whatever we decide, we can and should resolve to pray. Paul urges us that “… prayers… be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” (1Tim 2:1) We are to pray for leaders of a certain kind, for those who will allow us to live like God want us to live. We are to pray for leaders who will promote God’s kind of morality. And we’ll want to pray also that whatever decisions we make, we think through them with God’s priorities in mind and ask him to use them for his glory.

1. Redeemer Report: Reflections on Faith and Politics Jan 2005 P3
2. Open Letter to Chuck Colson (Jim Wallis)
3. Christian Century: None of the above: why I won’t be voting for president
4. BreakPoint: Chuck Colson’s Top 10 Moral Issues Facing America
5. Redeemer Report: Reflections on Faith and Politics Jan 2005 P1
6. Open letter to Jim Wallis (Chuck Colson)