Love Your Neighbor, Vote with Prayer

Ten days left until the 2012 election. My phone is busy with robocalls imploring me to save America, and my mailbox blooms with glossy colored postcards urging me to stand against a mix of urgent threats.

For some of us, voting is easy: walk into the polling booth and vote the party ticket. For others, though, that seems immoral: a sell-out to party power, an encouragement to our politicians to represent the agendas of deep-pocket party supporters rather than the needs of simple citizens.

A few weeks ago, registering voters in our local library, I found myself in conversation with a recently naturalized citizen, a man eager to participate in American democracy.

“How will I know who to vote for?” he asked earnestly.

“You can find a sample ballot at this website,” I said, scribbling a web address on the handout we’d given him: SmartVoter.org, offered by the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters. It provides information about polling places and hours and sample ballots for every precinct.  (In other states, the same information is available on Vote411, provided by the US League of Women Voters). 

“But,” he seemed uncertain how to say it, “how will I know . . .” He paused, unsure.

“What they stand for? What their positions are?”

“Yes.”

“That’s harder. But this is still a place to start." I explained that SmartVoter (and Vote411) provide links to candidates' websites, plus pass on answers some candidates have given to specific League questions. 

I admired the man’s motivation. Still learning the language, still struggling to find his way in a confusing new country, he was determined to understand the issues and to use his vote wisely.

I set out several months ago to think through issues and to argue that “voting as a Christian” doesn’t mean giving my vote without thought to the party that claims to stand for “Christian values.” In a recent article, The Politics of Abortion: Should Christians Vote Straight Ticket, Elliot Miller of the Christian Research Council argues that in their zeal to oppose abortion, Christians have become pawns of a party that claims to uphold a pro-life movement while often pursuing conflicting goals: “ Straight-ticket voting allows your party to get away with paying mere lip service to your issues.”

I find myself wondering: how many of us are aware that of the seven Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of abortion in the landmark Roe v. Wade case, five were Republican? Of those who dissented, one was Republican, one Democrat. The history of political party and issues of life is far more complex, and in many ways more cynical, than most of us understand. 

Miller argues, as I did in my post "The Least of These":

“A pro-life ethic should not only apply to the unborn but also to the born, including people whose lives would be lost in a frivolous war, the catastrophic loss of life that could occur from a policy that results in nuclear war, loss of life due to environmental degradation (not just apocalyptic global warming scenarios but present-day famines in Africa and elsewhere that we have the means to do something about), the lives that are being lost daily in America through the ready availability of assault weapons, and so forth. If a candidate claims to be pro-life but promotes reckless policies on some or all of these issues, that needs to be factored in.” 

As Miller notes, pro-life Democrats have found their  more holistic pro-life efforts“sabotaged by the pro-life movement.” This is currently the case in Pennsylvania, where a moderate pro-life Catholic Democrat, Bob Casey, has been ranked “0 percent faith-friendly”  by a blatantly dishonest "Voter Guide for Christians." 

A closer look at Casey’s positions shows  a consistent pro-life stance that still insists on accessible contraception and womens’ health care screenings, whether through Planned Parenthood, health insurance mandates, or other health care provision. He has been unfairly labeled “pro-abortion” because he insists, I think correctly, that the fastest way to reduce abortions is to make sure women have affordable family planning information and support, while the current “pro-life” movement seems determined to cut funding for anything that might help women limit family size wisely. I admire Casey’s respect for women and for life, and his courage in trying to vote his conscience, even as the pro-life movement joins the party faithful in aggressive and deceptive attempts to unseat him.  He is one of very few pro-life Democratic senators left, and unapologetic about his Christian faith, passion for justice, and motivation to serve the poor. Wouldn’t it make sense to encourage and support him? Apparently not.

The Faith and Freedom scorecard disseminated widely in churches and religious sites offers ten essential topics for a Christian to consider when voting, including "Repeal Obamacare," "20% Across-the-Board Income Tax Cut," "Cap and Trade Carbon Tax."

I've been reading the Bible all my life. Please: in what way is a 20% across-the-board-tax cut a “Christian value”? 

And how is repealing "Obamacare" one of the top ten priorities for someone concerned with seeing faith play a role in our political decisions? From what I can tell of God’s concern for our health, I’d say Good Samaritans among us should think carefully before deciding that those with pre-existing conditions or low-paying jobs don't really need insurance. 

Cap and trade? Am I expected to believe that Christians should – as a matter of faith and freedom - vote AGAINST protecting the environment fromincreasing carbon emissions and worsening climate change? (Ever hear of Kiribati?)

I’ve mapped out some of the issues I’ll be considering as I prepare to vote:

• Extreme inequality
• Food equity, transparent labeling, protection of small farmers
• Subsidies for the wealthy at the expense of the poor
• The influence of corporate money in our political systems
• Peacemaking and our dependence on war
• Our bloated military budget and why it should be cut
• Love of guns displacing love of neighbor
• Care for those in prison; injustices rising from privatized prisons
• A whole-life approach to abortion and social issues
• Right-sized government
• Fair wages and worker protection
• Care of creation and appropriate regulation
• Issues of character, honesty in advertising, meaningless negative labeling, unexamined privilege  

While we many argue about the wisest, most faithful approach on any of these issues, I am more convinced than when I started that the Christian faith has much to say about matters too often ignored by those who claim to speak for the church.While some would like the government to legislate on moral issues and stay out of the way on matters of economy and regulation, others believe that the role of government is to maintain justice and protect the common good, while leaving matters of personal morality to the guidance of the church. In every arena, solutions that seem obvious to one person may appear implausible, wrong-headed, or genuinely evil, to another. 

Which is why, as I suggested when I set out on this series back in July, we are responsible to examine issues, think through the proper role of government, and advocate and vote in ways that reflect our own convictions. For those of us who claim to follow Christ, the need is greater than ever to demonstrate our commitment to the priorities Christ taught us, priorities of mercy, compassion, peace, justice, rather than the agendas promoted by party politics, wealthy donors, and slick political ads.

When we let the maneuverings of political "faith leader" groups shape our votes and our voice, both our witness for Christ and our influence for good are hijacked.

To find out individual candidate's stances on issues that matter, Smartvoter, or, in other states, Vote411, offer answers to specific questions, and links to candidate websites. For those who hold or have held public office,  On the Issues offers specifics on votes cast for and against legislation, as well as quotes from candidates on a wide variety of issues. The public record of candidates sometimes paints a much more nuanced picture than opponents might give; it also can show inconsistencies, and obvious attempts at manipulation of voters. 

The Voter Guide, a national site, offers links to local voters' guides, some with more information than contained in the League sites. OpenSecrets provides information about campaign finances, contributors, lobby groups. Another website I'll be consulting is the Grover Norquist "Taxpayer Protection PledgeSigner" site. I object strongly to anyone taking a pledge that prohibits wise consideration of all solutions. It’s highly doubtful I’ll be voting for anyone on Norquist’s extensive list. 

We live in a broken world, with broken institutions, broken people. There are no perfect candidates, no perfect platforms. Those who cry for peace will have to look elsewhere. Those who long for justice will find that agenda sadly missing. Those who pray for wiser use of natural resource will search, maybe in vain, for candidates standing firm on clean air, clean water, clean food.

But I’ll still vote. I think of the hundreds who died in Tiananmen Square, hungry for the rights we take for granted. I think of the women in Liberia, facing down men who used violence of every kind to maintain control and silence opposition, or the dissident writers spending decades in prison, gulags, camps, composing poems in their minds, writing speeches in their memories, waiting behind bars for the simple right to speak. I listen to reports of young activists in Syria, battered for their dream of freedom, and promise to invest more deeply in the freedom I've been given.

Our votes are not about defending our own rights, our own parties, our own strongly-held opinions. They’re tools in the service of the common good, one more way to defend the rights of the poor and needy, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, even when that neighbor speaks a different language, or prays for peace in a country other than our own. 

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
    for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
    defend the rights of the poor and needy.

    (Proverbs 31:8-9)

Learn to do right; seek justice.

   Defend the oppressed.

Take up the cause of the fatherless;

   Plead the case of the widow.

   (Isaiah 18:17)

This is part of a continuing series about faith and politics: What's Your Platform? Join the conversation.  Look for the "__ comments" link below to leave your comments.  

For further thoughts on values and faith, I recommend the work Miroslav Volf has done this fall in thinking through Values of a Public Faith: Values of a Public Faith (part one), Values of a Public Faith (part two), Values of a  Public Faith (part three). Sojourners has also produced a downloadable pdf,  "Why Voting Matters: An Issues Guide for Christians." And Evangelicals for Social Action provide a similar guide: "Can My Vote Be Biblical."  Note: none of these resources say "This is who you should vote for." Instead, they raise important questions, offer suggested guidelines, and argue for informed individual decisions. 

Pulpit Freedom, Public Faith

As we slog towards election day, it seems more and more difficult to speak of political matters without raised voices, wild assumptions, uncharitable accusations. Just deciding whether to watch the debates was cause of anxiety in many households.

“Why watch? Why vote?” some ask, while others are certain any vote other than the one they have in mind would be an act of heresy contributing to the immediate destruction of the American nation.

Today (October 7), has been deemed “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” An estimated 1400 preachers will take to their pulpits to record sermons specifically endorsing candidates.

Should preachers endorse specific candidates? What happens when “faith leaders” proclaim that one candidate is God’s choice, only to see that candidate flounder; then proclaim another as God’s choice, despite that candidate’s repeated infidelities and profound selfishness and dishonesty? What happens when those same leaders now stand in their pulpits to tell their congregations to vote for a man they insisted, just months ago, no Christian should vote for?

In A Public Faith, How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good, Miroslav Volf describes what he calls “malfunctions of faith”:

"In the course of Christianity’s long history – full of remarkable achievements by its saints and thinkers, artists and builder, reformers and ordinary folks – the Christian faith has sometimes failed to live up to its own standards as a prophetic religion. Too often, it neither mends the world nor helps human beings thrive. To the contrary, it seems to shatter things into pieces, to choke up what is new and beautiful before it has a chance to take root, to trample underfoot what is good and true. When this happens, faith is no longer a spring of fresh water helping good life to grow lushly, but a poisoned well, more harmful to those who drink its waters than any single vice could possibly be "(4).

The malfunctions Volf describes are all fully at play in our current condition:

Functional Reduction: In this malfunction, practitioners "employ religious language to promote perspectives and practices whose content and driving force do not come from or are not integrally related to the core of the faith"(10). Volf suggests that this is not a result of "bad faith" or intentional manipulation, but instead "the language of God is hollowed out from within, maybe by lack of trust and inconsequential use, until only a shell remains. And then that shell is put to what are deemed good uses."

Volf charitably refrains from current examples of these malfunctions, but examples aren’t hard to find: discourse that promises God’s condemnation if a particular party loses, or that claims prophetic vision when situations make clear the vision is far more pragmatic than prophetic.

Idolatric Substitution: Volf speaks of this only briefly, recounting the story of Moses, Aaron, and the golden calf, and asking his reader to imagine a scene in which Aaron waits patiently as Moses returns, not with tablets of stone, but with the golden calf:

 “The prophet himself would have now engaged in idolatric substitution. He ascended the mountain to meet with God, but he has returned with an idol. Impossible? It happens every day, and to the best of ordinary prophets.  . . 'Take up your cross' morphs into 'I'll bring out the champion in you,' or the cross itself becomes a symbol of destruction and violence rather than of creative love that overcomes enmity." (12)

from Faith in Public Life

Again, Volf doesn’t offer contemporary examples, but my mind goes back to the procession last fall of Occupy Wall Street supporters carrying a golden calf through the streets of the Manhattan financial district, lamenting the way love of profit has replaced concern for the common good. False idols are rampant. Party, profit, country, security: all are held high by those claiming to speak for God himself.

Coerciveness of Faith: Volf devotes a chapter to this, and explains that while simply speaking of our faith may seem coercive to those who don’t share it, it is possible to speak of faith in ways that respect the other. He talks of 'thick faith' and 'thin faith,' suggesting that a zealous, unthinking Christianity can promote godly goals in immoral ways. Adherents of 'thin' faith 'have used and continue to use their faith to legitimize violence they deem necessary, and they have done so on a massive scale"(53). As Volf makes clear, coercive behavior has no place in the legitimate "thick" expression of Christian faith:

“Whenever violence was perpetrated in the name of the cross, the cross was depleted of its 'thick' meaning within the larger story of Jesus Christ and ‘'thinned' down to a symbol of religious belonging and power – the blood of those who did not belong flowed as Christians transmuted themselves from followers of the Crucified to imitators of those who crucified him."

Volf’s restraint in not offering examples is admirable; again, it’s not hard to find coercive expressions of Christianity, both past and present. Violence, hinted violence, abusive speech, scapegoating: all are tolerated, even encouraged, by those who claim identity with the prince of peace.

Idleness is a less visible malfunction, but possibly more widespread. Some people are stuck in an idle faith because they "pick and choose, as in a cafeteria, filling their tray with sweets but leaving aside the broccoli and fish." Others "find themselves constrained by large and small systems in which they live and work . . . they feel that they must obey the logic of those systems, not the demands of the faith they embrace." Yet others deem faith irrelevant to contemporary issues. "With these three reasons for faith’s idleness combined, no wonder people misconceive faith and treat it as  performance-enhancing drug or a soothing balm rather than as a resource to orient their life in the world." (23-24)

For those with "idle" faith, there seems no reason to connect faith and politics: faith is irrelevant to the challenges of the day; the systems that govern economics, education, polity have their own demands impervious to spiritual concerns.

Volf posits "engaged faith" as the alternative to the malfunctions. His ideas on this are well worth reading, especially in light of his willingness to talk about avenues of respectful engagement in a pluralist world where we begin from different places.

My own growing concern is not with the malfunctions Volf outlines so convincingly, but with another: what I’ll call "silent" faith.

I know many faithful followers of Christ who are alarmed at “God-talk” that promotes partisan ends, who are not convinced by the equation of faith with patriotism, capitalism, or party politics. I know faithful Christians who shake their heads at coercive Christian speech, and sacrifice time, resources, creativity to serve and love those they know and don’t know.

Unfortunately, many of those faithful followers I most admire are silent on political matters. They don’t want to be offensive, they don’t want to stir up anger, they are advocates of peace, and draw back instinctively from conflict.

Yet, in their silence, they miss an opportunity to give voice to those who can’t speak for themselves, and allow angry factionalism to shape our public discourse.

In a thoughtful chapter on "Public Engagement," Volf advocates a public square that makes room for all to speak.

"Encounters with others don’t serve only to assert our position and claim our territory; they are also occasions to learn and to teach, to be enriched and to enrich, to come to new agreements and maybe reinforce the old ones, and to dream up new possibilities and explore new paths. This kind of permeability of religious individuals and communities when they engage one another presupposes a basically positive attitude toward the other – an attitude in sync with the command to love the neighbor and, perhaps especially, to love the enemy."(133)

Professor of theology at Yale Divinity School and director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture, Volf has been modeling public engagement himself in an ongoing conversation on his facebook page, introducing values he considers worth discussing, offering rationale and avenues for debate, and suggesting questions we might ask of political leaders. While his page is private, it’s possible to subscribe to posts, and read the issues and responses. Just a sampling:

• Which candidate is more likely to give the destitute effective access to healthcare? Which candidate is more likely to reduce the number of people who need to seek medical help?
• Is the candidate firmly committed to reducing the number of abortions performed?
•  Has the candidate unequivocally condemned use of torture?
• Has the candidate supported or advocated ending of unjust wars in the past? Has the candidate condemned significant forms of unjust conduct of war?
• What policies does the candidate propose to help encourage meaningful employment for adequate pay for all people? What will the candidate do to encourage people to work not just for personal gain but for the common good?
• Is overcoming extreme poverty a priority for the candidate? What poverty reducing policies is the candidate prepared to fight for?

We can practice both faith and politics in ways that demonize the other and make barriers more and more difficult to cross, we can withdraw into our own safe cocoons and hope it all ends well, or we can see the political arena as one more opportunity to love God with our whole hearts and minds and our neighbors as ourselves. My prayer is that we choose the latter.

This post is part of the October Synchroblog on Faith and Politics. Other bloggers writing on faith & politics this month:

• We The People by Wendy McCaig
• Five Ways to Make It Through the Election and Still Keep Your Friends, Kathy Escobar
• Plumbers and Politicians by Glenn Hager
• Conflating Faith and Politics by Maurice Broaddus
• You Cannot Serve Two Masters by Sonja Andrews
• Would Jesus Vote by Jeremy Myers
• A Kingdom Not Of This World by Jareth Caelum
• I am a Christian and I am a Democrat by Liz Dyer
• Why There's No Such Thing as the Christian Vote by Mart Layton
• God's Politics? by Andrew Carmichael

This is also part of my own continuing series about faith and politics: What's Your Platform? Join the conversation.  Look for the "__ comments" link below to leave your comments.