The Voting Christian: Wisdom for the Ballot Box "Introduction"

Here is the introduction to the collection of WORLD magazine columns that I thought suitable for providing citizen-wisdom in the months leading up to the 2016 general election.

***************

I was recently interviewed by a Brooklyn media outfit on how evangelicals see the current election. Several times I was asked, “So who is God’s candidate?” I didn’t give a straight answer because it’s a complicated question. Nonetheless, it’s one that Christians are required to ponder.

On one level, “God’s candidate” means the one who intentionally and perfectly conforms his policies and judgments to the mind of God. But there is not, and cannot be, such a candidate. Only King Jesus fits that description. On another, quite unavoidable level, God’s candidate is the one he will raise up by our democratic republican system to govern us. But that, of course, is his business. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29).

The question can also be asking, however, which of the candidates—given what God has revealed of himself—does God want us to select. In the past, that question has seemed deceptively easy to answer. I say deceptively easy because it is never as easy as we think it is, as though in a given contest no serious examination of the candidates were necessary and no careful investigation of Christian principles and sober anticipation of natural consequences were in order. And as though that itself were easy.

In 1976, the Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter seemed to be the evangelical choice. In 1980, his opponent, the Moral Majority backed Ronald Reagan seemed an equally clear choice, despite his divorce and irregular church attendance. Or perhaps just looking back it seems that way. In 2000, it seemed to be George W. Bush, the born again Reaganite. And yet today many conservative evangelicals are lamenting—this side of their humiliating defeat in the culture wars, from fighting the feminist ERA to defending the DOMA citadel—how those battles and devotion to those champions distorted the gospel not only in the public eye but even in their own understanding.

Yet the Christian is inescapably a citizen not only of Christ’s heavenly kingdom but also of this earthly republic of laws. And by God’s great mercy, government in America is not just something other people do in faraway places and impose on us, though sadly that is increasingly so. It is still the beauty of what Lincoln described at Gettysburg as “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

If a Christian people is to govern itself and choose wisely those who will represent them in their decision-making responsibilities, then Christians need to be properly informed. They need godly wisdom. They certainly need to understand, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says (Question 3), what the Scriptures principally teach, i.e., “what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.” But the Book of Proverbs teaches us,

I, wisdom, dwell with prudence.

      And I find knowledge and discretion

The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil.

Pride and arrogance and the way of evil

      and perverted speech I hate.

I have counsel and sound wisdom;

      I have insight; I have strength.

By me kings reign,

      and rulers decree what is just;

by me princes rule,

      and nobles, all who govern justly. (8:12-16)

Christians in their capacity as free citizens have a responsibility to seek and grow in civic wisdom. This wisdom fits them to participate helpfully in the tasks of self-government for the common good and the glory of God. Though this certainly begins in the fear of the Lord, it culminates in making wise and prudent judgments concerning difficult matters that confront us in a world clouded and twisted by sin. This wisdom requires us to clear our heads, inform our minds, and chasten our hearts for distinguishing Christ from the world and the love of God from infatuation with the world, the flesh, and the devil—the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life, as the old King James Version rendered the beloved disciple’s warning (I John 2:16).

This book is far from sufficient for that task. Ideally it calls for a life’s worth of learning in the Scriptures, the insights of those greater than I, and as complete a knowledge of current affairs as one can reasonably muster. But if the reader is urgently occupied with family, business, church, and community and needs a handy help for understanding the times, perhaps this book will do.

Donald and Hillary: Disasters Foreign and Domestic

In legislative matters and court appointments, the president shares powers with Congress, part of the checks and balances in our government. But in foreign affairs, because the world beyond our borders is less predictable and more dangerous, the president has greater freedom to act. For that reason, the consequences of his action in that sphere are potentially ominous. So NBC's "Commander-in-Chief Forum" with the two major candidates for White House, moderated by Matt Lauer, was an event of considerable importance. It was a combination of interview and town hall meeting with each candidate receiving a 25 minute grilling, first Hillary Clinton, followed by Donald Trump.

Mrs Clinton started strong. She came across as tough and steely, mentally sharp, and in command. But that was the first thirty seconds. Then she got what she deserved on her sketchy handing of classified information on her unsecured personal server, its consequences for national security, and its implications for the quality of her judgement. Much of her time on the hot seat centered on matters of dishonesty (explaining/spinning the never ending charges related to her emails) and bad judgement (her Iraq War vote, the Libya debacle, and the Iran nuclear deal she initiated). It was not a good night for her. Even the staging  was awkward. The way she wiggled her way back onto her stool after each walkabout was painful to watch.

Mr Trump was amazing, but only in this: he still knows nothing at all about foreign policy, its history, principles, and conduct. And apparently he's fine with that. One would think that after the convention in the lead up to the debates he would have gathered his advisors and reviewed the various hot spots, asking in each case: What are the issues, what are the dangers, and what are the options? He might have met with a sympathetic professor for a condensed version of POL 208 Introduction to International Relations. "Just give me the highlights: the broad principles and key terms." But evidently he doesn't care. Perhaps he doesn't expect to win or doesn't really want to. The one point on which he became quite animated, however, was what he saw as our missed opportunity in Iraq to grab their oil. "To the victor go the spoils," he reminded us, as though citing a truism. Has he thought about how that would change all our international relations, and even change us. It's a short step from seizing oil to pay for an invasion to invading in order to seize oil or whatever booty may be had.

But how did last night help a voter who is perplexed by the prospect of two seemingly equally repulsive and nationally disastrous alternatives?

If your chief concern for this country is for a foreign policy that secures our national security and if, as Mitt Romney claimed (quite plausibly) in 2012, our chief national security threat is a resurgent Russia, then Hillary Clinton should get your vote. I expect that she has learned from her failed reset attempt and is bitterly resentful toward Russian president Vladimir Putin for his likely involvement in exposing her incriminating emails and disrupting the Democratic National Convention. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is striking soft on Putin, behaving almost like the Russian strongman's stooge. He admires Putin's "leadership" and blames the United States for our currently tense relationship. Trump believes that with his friendlier approach, co-operation is sure to follow. Call it a "reset," if you will.

However, if the chief concern facing our country is the freedom of Christ's people to live out their Christian lives with integrity and protecting the weakest and most innocent among us from an intensified abortion holocaust (I can imagine that these are high priorities for God, the Lord and Judge of the nations), then Trump would be where to send your vote. Not that he cares about these issues. Indeed, at the Republican National Convention he signaled his sympathies with "LGBTQ" people in what they see as their mortal struggle with traditional Christianity and its faithful adherents. (But he would fight to the death for our freedom to say "Merry Christmas" in a shopping mall! So we at least have that.) And he is only professedly (and that recently so) but unconvincingly pro-life. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is openly and implacably hostile to Christian concerns in these matters. There doesn't appear to be much that she sincerely believes, but her core convictions certainly include (besides enriching herself and her political war chest) the most militant feminist orthodoxy and the advancing logic of the sexual revolution. So if elected president, she will be hound and henchman for the LGBTs and will spare no effort to demolish whatever protections exist for babies in the womb.

None of this is to say that anything is predictable. Trump could end up simply a milder enemy of Christianity and friend of murdering moms than Hillary would be while destroying the American conservative movement in the process (read Prof. Tom Nichols on the latter) and failing or refusing to deliver on conservative Supreme Court hopes. He could also conceivably lead us into WWIII through sheer clumsy bombast.  Alternatively, Hillary Clinton could find herself stalled in her diabolical schemes by Republican congressional opposition, legal entanglements (these grow where our Hillary goes), and a united Christian front of her own making, meanwhile saving Eastern Europe and NATO from the Russian bear out of sheer desire for personal revenge.

When you're dealing with ignorance, vanity, incompetence, treachery, and mendacity on this level, the voter's confidence in his or her ability to predict the consequences of a candidate's election is discouragingly low. One must either judge which one issue is the pivotal issue for the nation (for example, slavery in 1860) or judge that neither candidate meets even the minimal requirements for the office and so either vote for a third candidate who does, write in a candidate, or vote only in the "down ticket" races.

We should all learn a lesson from this and sober up for 2020.