Why Christians Should Vote

Coming out of a partial retirement for this post (law school sucks away free time).

Amidst the midterm elections, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend in Christianity reacting to the tea party movement and Christians in politics: A move to leave the political process. There are several people, blogs, and news articles I could present that represent this point of view, but the most recent and perhaps the most succinct I’ve read comes from “Whether Choosing Red or Blue, Politics is Love of Mammon” by Michael Degan. I can’t track down a copy of the essay, but the key portion I want to address is quoted, approvingly, by David Reynolds in his post “Why I don’t Vote.” The portion I’d like to address is this (all emphasis is Reynolds):

Democrat and Republican are two sides of the same coin — a coin that Jesus called “mammon.” And this is the choice we must make. Not between Democrat and Republican but between the alternatives that Jesus offers: God and mammon. “No one can serve two masters,” Jesus reminds us (Matt. 6:24). We must choose.

I have come to recognize that when I vote, I am staking a claim to a piece of the mammon. And no matter what kind of world I think I’m voting for, when I engage in politics, I am ultimately working for what is in my own self interest. In order to vote, I must decide who my enemy is. And I must work for my enemy’s defeat. How can I love my enemy when I do that? I have not found a way to vote and to love my enemy at once. Nor have I found a way to respond with love to my enemy’s attacks and still stay in the contest. Political operatives use the language of hate toward opponents because it works. As a disciple of Jesus, I choose to speak that language no longer.

What does God really want from us in the end? Has God taken sides in the prominent political issues of our time? Is God rooting for us to make abortion illegal, to end the war, to wipe out poverty, to prevent gays from marrying? Does God need our political machinery to establish the heavenly kingdom on earth?

I have discerned that God does not operate that way. I believe that God is watching us most closely when we stand face-to-face with those who disagree, oppose, or resent us. How do we react? With love or with hate? In God’s way or in the world’s way?

I reject voting not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with it, but because of who I become in order to win. When I join in that contest, I can’t help but succumb to the hatred.

Christians are called to proclaim the kingdom of God, not necessarily to create it. Creating is God’s divine work. When we try to create the kingdom, we undertake a self-serving and vain exercise in which we choose friendship with the world, and by so doing choose “enmity with God” (Jas. 4:4)

If Degan were only calling this a personal conviction that he had to remain out of the political process, that would be fine. Romans 14 encourages us to help our brothers and sisters who are weak in these and other areas. But he goes farther by using the collective “we” throughout, imploring others to take his stance. I respectfully disagree with this stance, and implore the exact opposite. Voting and being involved in the political process is not only required of Christians, to do otherwise is open rebellion and disobedience to God. This applies to all denominations, from Catholic or Orthodox, to every branch of Protestantism.

First, the Christian notions of government come directly from Paul in Roman’s 13:

¹ Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. ⁴ For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. ⁶ This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. ⁷ Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Governing authorities are established by and for God. So the leaders who are in the world are placed there by God. Does this means all of them are good? Certainly not. In the Old Testament God established Saul as the King of Israel, but Saul disobeyed God several times. To the point that God removed that anointing from God (showing that those leaders have a duty to the One that placed them there). Paul refers to the authorities as servants of God. This is a key distinction from Degan who refers to those in power in negative terms.

Second, the only point available that comes across as an ordained form of rebellion against one of the established authorities is when that authority forces his citizens to disobey God. Hence the Apostles obeying the orders of God rather then man (Acts), yet still accepting the punishment these powers placed on them. Daniel in the lion’s den (Daniel), and his friends in the burning furnace for refusing to worship an idol (Daniel). In each of these cases, the law was disobeyed, but the punishment was received. A modern example is Martin Luther King Jr.’s courageous protests where law was disobeyed, but he accepted the punishment. Paul is known for doing the same, sending many letters from prison.

Third, Paul says Christians are to render to these leaders what is due to them. This is in direct line with Christ who gave the same answer to the pharisees (Matthew): “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Ironically, for Degan, Christ asked for a coin as a metaphor to explain this analogy: “But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”  “Caesar’s,” they replied.” (Matthew). If Christ were doing this today the coin could have George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, or any other person on the money. The point would be the same: Render to Washington the things that are Washington’s and to God the things that are God’s. Paul elaborated on this by explaining that Christ’s meaning went well beyond taxes: “Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans). There is no indication, in any form, that Christ considered Caesar to be mammon.

The question then becomes what do people in a democratic republic owe to their leaders? Certainly specific obedience will vary from individual to individual, just as we are called into different occupations and callings (some to teachers, preachers, prophets, etc). So specific obedience will vary, but general obedience can be ascertained.

The highest state law in America is the Constitution. The very first words from that document are: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (Preamble). In other words, we, as citizens of the United States, have placed ourselves under obedience to this document and its laws. In the 1st amendment are encouragements to practice, freely, our religious beliefs. So there is nothing going against the edicts of God, like the above examples encountered. Our religious beliefs are encouraged to flourish, which include everything in Romans explained above.

We obviously owe taxes, adherence to law, and respect to the government. We have also set up a method for a democratic-republic form of government. This form of government requires its citizens to involve themselves in both providing leaders and voting for leaders. If people do not do these two things, anarchy will ensue. In a democratic republic, those who choose to become leaders are considered public servants. They serve their constituents in the best manner they are able.

This is a very basic look at our system of government. Does this mean it works every single time? No, of course not. But neither were the line of kings in Israel. However, the Bible does not say: Obey this leader unless you don’t think he serves correctly, or you don’t like it. In a system set to deal with a sinful world, imperfection should be expected. Christians are called to reflect Christ in everything they do. In follows that in such a system of government, being instituted by God, as all systems are, would have children of God who are called to serve within it. Others would be called to devote their resources to supporting those who follow this calling. American Christians have a unique privilege in this respect, they can support those with a calling in the simple manner of voting.

However, voting certainly doesn’t require a Christian servant to be involved to be valid. It may very well be God’s will a sinner to take office because that person is needed to serve for a time. It depends entirely on His will.

This brings us to Degan’s argument, which isn’t actually a new one. It is similar to the one used by Jehovah’s Witnesses to avoid pledging or swearing an oath before a court.

The problem is that he makes a single argument, on mammon, by isolating a single verse (without fully quoting it) to valid his beliefs. The full quote in Matthew is: “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” The point was entirely apolitical. A few verses previous Jesus remarked: “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” A man inherently cannot serve two masters because ultimately his heart makes that choice.

Money, lust, career, or anything can replace God in man’s heart (Timothy Keller covers this well in “Counterfeit Gods“). Politics can be one of those things, but it is hardly inherently a god, or a “mammon” that must be avoided. Especially when Christians are required to render not only what is due to them, but Paul urges us to pray for them specifically: ¹I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— ²for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy).

Finally, Degan argues:

What does God really want from us in the end? Has God taken sides in the prominent political issues of our time? Is God rooting for us to make abortion illegal, to end the war, to wipe out poverty, to prevent gays from marrying? Does God need our political machinery to establish the heavenly kingdom on earth?

God doesn’t need anything. But he does like to work through people. The political process is one of many ways. As I’ve shown, God set up this system and its leaders. Which means He certainly has an interest in what He created. And God certainly seems interested in removing the evil from the world. Poverty, widows, the defenseless, and other similar things we have been called to address. I would hardly call this list exclusive.

In some instances, the church has failed or refused to address evil in the world. God then steps outside that barrier to help His creation. The abolitionist movement is full of stalwart Christians (see: William Wilberforce and MLK for excellent examples). After the Civil War, however, the southern church was instrumental in keeping the slavery structure in place (arguing that the now freed slaves were required by God to be slaves). It took movement outside the church (MLK being a preacher moved outside that structure) to get anything going.

Given that things like abortion, the war, poverty, homosexuality ALL deal with God’s main creation, humanity, it follows he would be concerned with things that affect us. The question then becomes, if God is concerned with it, we should be concerned with how He wants to solve that problem.

Voting is, for the Christian, an act of obedience to God’s word. It is part of our political system of government. Voting is Caesar. Render to Caesar. If you don’t know who to vote for, then pray. Ignorance is never an excuse. If you are a Christian, then you have the all-knowing God of the universe to guide you through life’s problems. If you have problems, as Degan does, with remembering that government authorities are not “mammon,” then you have a problem recognizing God’s sovereignty on the earth, an entirely separate issue.

One final thought: The counter I’ve heard to this argument is that we don’t fight flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces of this world (Ephesians) which makes political fighting irrelevant. This hardly makes sense when combined with the exhortation from Paul to pray for leaders (Timothy, above). In fact, this comes more as a charge to do spiritual battle on behalf of leaders. But remaining only in the unseen spiritual is not enough. That would be like the Good Samaritan finding the injured man, praying over him, and leaving him on the road. We are called to actually act out our faith. So while I agree, wholeheartedly,  that the spiritual is involved, it also goes beyond into actual practice. Ephesians 6 points out who the actual enemy is in this world, the problem the Degan seems to have. If you have to figure out who your enemy is when voting, you’ve lost focus and need to reevaluate your spiritual priorities. The enemy isn’t some political force, which means voting comes down to agreeing with God on who He wants in charge.

Advertisement