The Difficulty and Responsibility of Voting in a Post-Christian America

By Matthew S. Bracey

How should we vote when all viable options have problems? To answer this question, one must survey the fundamentals of Christian ethical analysis and examine the approach of realistic idealism. In short, we have a duty to vote for the achievable option that best preserves God’s purposes for government. Please note: this article is an endorsement only of the principles it espouses, not of any candidate.

The Fundamentals of Christian Ethical Analysis

Ethicists rightly observe that Christian ethical analysis balances objectivity (conduct, actions), subjectivity (character, agent), and teleology (goals, ends). First, it recognizes some actions are objectively right or wrong; respect for elders is right, whereas murder is wrong. Political policies necessarily represent positions about the morality or immorality of issues related to justice, life, marriage, religion, and so on.

Second, Christian ethics considers individual morality; for this reason, Scripture consistently appeals to holy living. Christian voters therefore rightly concern themselves with the morality of candidates and citizens alike. The application of this point can be complicated when a candidate with poor character supports policies that, compared to the alternative, succeed better in helping ordinary citizens live virtuous lives.

Third, Christian ethics contemplates the consequences resulting from the first two elements. We see this point in the New Testament authors’ repeated appeal to purpose clauses (“so that”). Responsible ethical analysis thus ponders the likely consequences to follow from specific platforms. This point is truly sobering when we reflect on how a platform’s domestic and international policies will impact billions of people.

Common Mistakes in Christian Ethical Analysis

Significantly, to pursue a fully Christian ethic, we must engage the issues holistically to avoid isolating any one element from the others. Mere appeal to conduct, character, or consequence reveals an ethic of strict deontology, individualism, or consequentialism, respectively. In contrast, Christian ethical analysis balances all three elements.

The sole appeal to conscience fails to examine policy questions. To illustrate, one’s conscience says to vote for the candidate with the better platform, whereas another’s conscience says not to vote for that candidate because of his character. By reducing such questions to individual conscience, we exchange Christian ethics for a Christianized ethical individualism (to say nothing about whether our consciences may be wrong, cf. Acts 23:1; 24:16).

Similarly, the solitary appeal to Christian liberty as the right to vote for whomever one chooses makes the same mistake because it does not sufficiently balance the individual with policies and results. Besides, this interpretation fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine, which, instead, concerns one’s freedom to do what he would otherwise not do because he loves his fellow Christians (Romans 14:14-17; 1 Corinthians 9:11-18). If anything, the application of Christian liberty to voting would lead a person to vote for a candidate he would rather not vote for because that candidate’s policies serve others better than the alternative.

Likewise, the idea of being a single-issue voter commits a similar mistake because it isolates one element from the others. Yes, single issues are important, but they miss the forest for the trees.
Responsible political analysis is more multilayered than any one factor. It balances questions of policy and character and assesses the likely consequences to result from them. Plainly, this task is not easy because it creates ethical tension.

What should we do if the people associated with the better platform fall short of its ideals or the platform is not as strong on an issue as we would like? We lean into the difficulty, working carefully through the tensions. Yes, a candidate’s character is important; yes, a platform’s position on a single issue is important. But such considerations are not everything; we must also consider the platforms’ policies in the aggregate and their likely results on a national and international scale.
Holistic ethical analysis is multifaceted, not reducing Christian ethics to a single point.

Realistic Idealism

F. Leroy Forlines articulates this idea as realistic idealism in Biblical Ethics. Ideals are good, but brute ethical idealism fails to engage the real world meaningfully. In contrast, realistic idealism meaningfully engages the real world with true ideals. Forlines’ discussion builds on his earlier discussion of the four basic values (holiness, love, wisdom, and ideals) in which he states the application of love, wisdom, and ideals is flexible in the real world.

Applied to political ethics, realistic idealism knows that no option is without problems. But it does not therefore effectively remove its witness from the process. It recognizes we will not achieve our ideals perfectly because the body politic necessarily includes competing ideals. Therefore, realistic idealism is flexible; it finds reasonable compromise when it reflects wisdom.
Realistic idealism means we do not live in a perfect world.

Even so, some criticize compromise as being dishonorable because it loses the ideal. However, compromise is a net good when it would realize some of an ideal against the prospect of realizing none of the ideal. Besides, it is an unavoidable component of any social body (e.g., families, churches, and workplaces). We see it, for example, in the outcome of the Jerusalem Council, a compromise between the ideals of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Acts 15:22–29).

Consequently, we should be unsurprised by the phenomenon of compromise in politics. The accounts of Joseph, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah present people who clearly recognized the flexible nature of actualizing ideals in a broken world. Additionally, they worked with deeply unsavory characters—womanizers, idolaters, and the like. Undoubtedly, they preferred a better set of circumstances (not exile), but they did not live in that world. Biblical examples demonstrate the application of ideals is flexible in the real world, often requiring compromise.

Our circumstances are not that dissimilar from these figures, except we also have the responsibility to vote for the most realistic option who best realizes God’s vision for government. In Romans 13:1-7, Paul explained that God established governing authorities for the purposes of upholding good and punishing evil. Moreover, in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Paul held that believers should influence the governing order for good; specifically, he instructed Timothy to pray that governmental leaders would support policies allowing Christians to lead tranquil lives.

God also instructs us to use available means to encourage a governing order that upholds good and punishes evil. Certainly, prayer is one means, but another means is voting. Realistic idealism reminds us the best option is not the ideal option if it is an unrealistic option. In circumstances where only one of two platforms will realistically win, a vote for an ideal but unrealistic option makes it more likely the even worse option will succeed.

God desires we do our best to influence the governing order according to His designs: upholding good and punishing evil.

Realistic idealism causes us to face the fact squarely that whatever choice we make contributes directly or indirectly to the eventual outcome. These stakes are not easy but honest. Realistic idealism flexes around the real world the best it can.

Friends have asked about my view on voting for an ideal but unrealistic option (e.g., third parties or write-ins) in non-battleground states. I appreciate the good reasons people might consider this proposition, but it strikes me as unwise. If enough people choose the idealistic path over the realistic one, these states will not remain uncontested, increasing the likelihood of an even worse path.

Sadly, I do not believe the prospect of the church banding together to vote for the idealistic path in hopes it will cause the establishment to take Christian ideals more seriously will succeed the way people hope. The better strategy is staying engaged rather than threatening to leave.

Additionally, the third-party proposition fails to join in solidarity with fellow Christians in battleground states who cannot afford to think in such terms. Do the Bible’s “one anothers” not incline us toward solidarity? Does Christian liberty not prompt us toward paths we would not otherwise choose out of love for our fellow Christians?

Finally, some have admitted to me that voting for the ideal option is simply easier on their consciences than voting for the realistic option. However, a holistic Christian ethic assesses more than individual conscience; it wades into the difficult waters of the real world.
Realistic idealism means we squarely face the difficult questions of political analysis.

A Tough Choice

Voters are like combat medics in the throes of war. Because real-world circumstances are far from ideal, we must triage the complicated, thorny issues before us. Christian ethical analysis does not isolate any single issue but evaluates the overall impact of each option. Yes, we should consider the candidates’ character. But we should also ask which viable platform succeeds more in upholding good and punishing evil. We should recognize policies concerning economics, international relations, the judiciary, life, marriage, race relations, religious liberty, and more will impact billions of people for decades — perhaps even centuries — to come.

For my part, one side is significantly better than the other side in relation to each of these areas when compared to the biblical ideal. Christian ethical analysis is not always easy, but it equips us to make the best decision we can.

About the Writer: Matthew Steven Bracey (M.T.S., J.D.) is an administrator at Welch College and teaches and writes on ethics.