Christians and Voting

Earlier I defended Mark Noll's decision not to vote for President against Chuck Colson's charges that Noll is shirking his Christian obligations. I've received some thoughtful objections to my invocation of Hitler-Mussolini in the course of that defense. Professor John O'Callaghan asks "Isn’t Colson’s point easier to make because neither George Bush nor John Kerry is the moral and political equivalent of Hitler or Mussolini? The more political rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding, are we really living in anything like Nazi German or Fascist Italy?" (His own helpful essay is the subject of this earlier post.) And reader Patrick O'Hannigan writes:

Did you really mean to answer Colson's substantive point by painting with an entirely hypothetical brush, or are you implying that the "moral conflict many pro-life progressives are facing" really is on the order of Hitler vs. Mussolini? The first approach is weak; the second dishonest.

Read Colson's argument again: he alludes to a search for the best people we
can find to lead us. In what scenario would that yield a choice between
Hitler and Mussolini? None that I can think of. Even in purely historical
terms, Hitler and Mussolini shared the stage with Churchill and Roosevelt,
who were manifestly better men, in spite of their considerable flaws.

Wondering what Colson would say to Noll if different candidates were
involved is the rhetorical equivalent of a parlor game: by following Alice
down the rabbit hole to Wonderland, it implicitly concedes that Colson has
the stronger argument in the reality we already know.

I don't read Colson's argument so narrowly -- he's not telling Noll that Christians should vote in light of the candidates' merits in this particular election. Rather, he seems to cast voting as a blanket obligation. He plainly states that "voting is not an option for Christians," but a "biblical duty." His foundation for this assertion is not convincing. Colson's characterization of American Christians as God's "instruments for appointing leaders" is suspect, especially in light of his supporting assertion that "Just like Samuel in the Old Testament, we are commissioned to find the very best people we can who are best able to lead us." Samuel received direct revelation from God that Saul (and later David) were to lead Israel. As a one-person appointments committee, he anointed them. Deal done.

How is this biblical cherry-picking helpful to figuring out a Christian's voting obligations in 21st century America? Certainly it shows that God acts in human history, but it does not show that the Christian's most effective option for serving as an instrument of God's purpose is to support one of two candidates offered up every four years by secular political parties, as though God has designated either the Democrat or Republican each time around, and we simply need to decipher which one. (If the obligation stems from the duty to minimize harm/evil, then third-party candidates are not viable options, I presume, for they present no realistic chance of being elected. Besides, God would never back a certain loser, right?) I agree that Christians should work to elect the best leaders possible, but that work won't always result in an election-day choice that all Christians can embrace.

Even if Colson's conception of civic obligation can be narrowed to the Kerry-Bush choice, I think it's a non-starter. If we're unable to construct a blanket obligation for Christians to vote, how can we construct that obligation in this election? If there's one thing that the discussion on Mirror of Justice has evidenced, it's that reasonable, thoughtful Christians can disagree passionately about the moral status of the Bush and Kerry candidacies. Further, the moral failings of each candidate's agenda do not necessarily lend themselves to ranking in a way that makes a morally problematic candidate palatable. ("Disregard of the international community is bad, lax environmental protection is really bad, but abortion is really really bad, so I'll vote for Bush.") I certainly was not intending to equate Bush-Kerry with Hitler-Mussolini, but if we can't discern an obligation to choose between the latter, I don't think there's an obligation to choose between the former.

Rob