Christians: Yes, Let’s Vote Our Values
Image
On the whole, I’ve written a lot less about the voting choices before us in this particular election cycle. From my point of view, it’s pretty much 2020 all over again, only with more clarity about the cultural and character factors.
More clarity? I’m sure many don’t see it that way. I’m not saying people are seeing more clearly. Subjectively, things seem more muddled than ever. Objectively, though, the character and positions of the candidates are even more clear than in 2020.
In this post, I’m reacting a bit to Kevin Schaal’s post over at P&D the other day, and many others like it (e.g., Jerry Newcombe’s similar list over at Christian Post). I don’t disagree with much in that post, but I would differ in emphasis.
First, I fully agree with this:
Some Christians do not live or vote by biblical values. And some Christians have not been taught how their faith should impact their voting choices.
Then we read, “These are the values that are at stake in this election.” The list that follows isn’t bad. I’m all for freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, sanctity of life, individual stewardship, biblical marriage, and just balances.
My own full list of values to vote for would include those things. There are some values at stake in this election, though, that are upstream of several of the above.
My own short, prioritized list of values to vote for would look more like this:
1. Vote for the gospel.
I’m not in favor of expansive and ambiguous uses of the term “the gospel.” The gospel is the good news that Jesus died for sinners and rose again. But this news has far-reaching implications. What do I mean by “vote for the gospel” here? Vote with the goal of helping churches and ministries retain or regain their understanding of what their focus should be in society: effectively adorning (Titus 2:10) and proclaiming the gospel.
The conflation of political tactics, policies, and candidates with Christian belief, practice, and mission is a serious problem.
I anticipate an objection: “We can’t vote for gospel clarity. It’s not on the candidates’ agendas.” I’m not sure it isn’t, indirectly, but let’s say that’s true. My recommendation, across the political spectrum, is to look at candidates’ stated agendas, remove everything they are not actually capable of achieving (because Congress would have to do it, or an amendment would be required, and every state would have to do it). Then look at what’s left and ask, “How much of this is just pandering?”
After that couple of filters, there might not be much agenda left!
Assuming something remains, it’s time to ask: If results are so important, what are some likely unintended results of the candidates’ agenda? What kind of backlash policies—or, more importantly, cultural shifts—might we see?
We really didn’t think overturning Roe would result in “abortion rights” becoming an issue that is not only actively supported by one party, but now passively supported by the other as well. But here we are.
Voting for results is a tricky thing, none of us being prophets.
But if we’re going to vote for results, surely increased clarity about what Christianity really is, and is not, should be a result we prioritize.
2. Vote for rule of law.
We live in a system of governance that, by design of its founders, has law at its center. When the colonies decided to part from the authority of England, they created a document with representative leaders as signers.
Later, they experimented with the Articles of Confederation and insisted on a ratification process. Why? Because of the conviction that the best way to govern a society is for the governed to create law that then has authority over those who made it.
Eventually, the Constitution was ratified in place of the Articles. Every office and branch of the U.S. government now derives its authority from that legal document. Lesser roles and requirements derive from the laws passed through the representative-legislators legal framework this Constitution authorizes.
In short, in a republic, the law is king, and all other rulers are its deputies.
If we’re going to vote for results, we should vote for candidates who seem likely to respect and nurture the rule of law.
3. Vote for truth in public discourse.
In the U.S., we have a long tradition of messy public discourse. For as long as I’ve been paying attention, that has included a fair amount of misrepresentation, exaggeration, and outright lying about political opponents.
And that’s not even including the candidates’ claims about themselves.
I’ve occasionally been accused of idealism, but I don’t expect “honesty in political rhetoric” to become a real thing.
That said, before 2021, did the U.S. ever have a sitting president try to hang on to power on the fantasy that the election had been stolen from him? I may have read that something similar has happened before in U.S. history, but at best, it’s been a very long time.
For Christians, does anything matter more than truth? We could make a case that several things are equally important. Of course, we’d insist that the God of all truth is more important than truth itself. It ultimately has little importance without its connection to Him.
That established, Christians, of all people, ought to treasure truth anywhere and everywhere it can be found. We ought to despise lies, useful or otherwise. We should loathe the kind of exaggeration, distortion, and sloppiness that ends up being little better than outright lying. We should be repulsed by the intellectual laziness that lumps dissimilar things together, overgeneralizes, and prefers increased vehemence over increased accuracy. That doesn’t promote truth either.
Surely we ought to be people who value truth more than tribe and who refuse to reflexively accept or reject claims based on what leader, pundit, or group they are coming from.
If we’re going to vote for results, we should prioritize whatever votes might help us, as a society, value truth more.
Final thoughts
I’d be first the admit that this short list of core values to vote for could be used to argue for whatever candidate one “likes.” That doesn’t make it objectively true that they are an equally good, or equally poor, fit for both candidates (or all the rest, down-ballot).
No, I’m not trying to tell people who to vote for (or “vote against,” if they look at it that way). But I do want to encourage us to have the gospel, the rule of law, and truth on our minds as we make these difficult choices. I want to encourage us also think in terms of our culture as a whole, not just the slice that is regulated by policy.
Important policy is at stake. Bigger things than policy are also at stake.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 2837 views
Those who think that there isn't vote fraud going on need to watch what's going on in Pennsylvania, where election officials in four counties-three strongly Democratic--are counting ~110,000 ballots despite the state supreme court having ruled that they were inadmissible in an effort to get Bob Casey back into the Senate.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Meanwhile, California is STILL counting ballots. We are nearly 3 weeks out from the election.
It takes longer when you have to figure out how many to count twice.
Here is a post directly from the White House official page following the latest trend of ASMR videos. For those who don't know what ASMR is, here is the definition from the VOX website: ASMR is the term for the sensation people get when they watch stimulating videos or take part in other activities — usually ones that involve personal attention. Many people describe the feeling as “tingles” that run through the back of someone’s head and spine. Others say the feeling is deeply relaxing, and can even cause them to fall asleep.
If this is representative of the values that Christians voted for, I find that incredibly sad...and distinctly un-Christian.
Here is a post directly from the White House official page following the latest trend of ASMR videos. For those who don't know what ASMR is, here is the definition from the VOX website: ASMR is the term for the sensation people get when they watch stimulating videos or take part in other activities — usually ones that involve personal attention. Many people describe the feeling as “tingles” that run through the back of someone’s head and spine. Others say the feeling is deeply relaxing, and can even cause them to fall asleep.
If this is representative of the values that Christians voted for, I find that incredibly sad...and distinctly un-Christian.
Ken S, are you even aware of the terrible crimes that these people have committed? Are you aware that those being "rounded up" were rounded up because they had committed crimes in addition to being in the United States illegally? BTW, please keep posting. It is valuable for people to see how progressives view the world and thus vote accordingly.
I am so thankful that criminals are being taken off our streets and that the poor and minority communities will now be much safer. As a conservative, I do care about those communities. I also realize that these criminal aliens have had a much greater detrimental effect on those places than they have on middle and upper class neighborhoods. I am not willing to buy the middle upper class argument that we need cheaper labor at the expense of minority and lower class neighborhoods.
JD Miller, what I am aware of is that immigrants commit violent crimes at a lower rate than native-born citizens. I support deporting violent criminals. But what Trump proposed during his campaign and what is currently happening is not just deporting the violent immigrants (though I'm sure some of them have been included too). The "deporting violent criminals" line is a red herring. If you like the White House post then just say so. Don't hide behind the violent criminals line.
JD Miller, what I am aware of is that immigrants commit violent crimes at a lower rate than native-born citizens.
That may be true of immigrants, but there is a huge difference between the statistics involving legal immigrants and illegal aliens. I know of no elected republican that is opposed to legal immigration. I know of plenty of elected democrats that are in favor of illegal immigration.
The data on violent crime by illegal immigrants compared to legal immigrants and native born US citizens has been a source of controversy over the past several years. From Cato Institute's demographic studies of Texas (which has some of the most comprehensive statistic regarding violent crime and immigration) they allege that legal immigrants commit the least amount of violent crimes, then illegal immigrants, while native born US citizens commit the most violent crimes. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found that the Cato study was flawed because it didn't use a certain updated data site, but then CIS's study to counter the Cato study was also found to be flawed because it periodically double-counted illegal immigrants There have been other studies done by academics that confirm Cato's research, even accounting for its initial error.
Often times, mainstream news media will undercount the number of violent crimes by illegal immigrants combining stats of both legal and illegal immigrants because it significantly drops immigrant crime way below native born violent crimes. But to be honest, the data isn't as clear about what is going on throughout the entire US. Alot of lies have been told to scare conservatives by their leaders and alot of lies have been told to progressives by their leaders keeping them in their state of ignorance and naivity as well.
By the way, I have no problem building a high wall and creating a real border. However, there are better solutions than creating all the chaos that would take place by sending everyone back (if that's what actually happens with this administration). I believe that extra taxing/fining those who came over illegally for 10 years as restitution for breaking the law is both just and loving. If you fined/taxed the 6.3 million families units that are here illegally for a decade at 3,000 a year, you could generate 180 Billion dollars (+9 billion) that it is estimated to pay for a wall. Sending non-violent illegal immigrants back, especially those who come from war ravaged countries will create even more crazy economic and social chaos than we've had, which can end up being unloving to everyone due to the social and economic instability it would cause due to the law of the unintended consequences. IMHO, you can show both compassion and justice (upholding the rule of law). You don't have to choose.
I agree Joel. I am also all for tougher border controls and removing certain illegal classes out of the country. But I am also in favor of a path to citizenship for those who are here, who are contributing. I would like to see a one time amnesty program. Immigrants are so incredibly powerful for our country. The vast majority work hard, they can contribute significantly to our tax base. They buy goods which create jobs for all Americans and they typically have more kids than native citizens which helps with programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Kicking them all does nothing. It returns us to a nation that is has a diminishing young population, loose millions of consumers, loose the taxes they do pay....
I love this idea:
By the way, I have no problem building a high wall and creating a real border. However, there are better solutions than creating all the chaos that would take place by sending everyone back (if that's what actually happens with this administration). I believe that extra taxing/fining those who came over illegally for 10 years as restitution for breaking the law is both just and loving. If you fined/taxed the 6.3 million families units that are here illegally for a decade at 3,000 a year, you could generate 180 Billion dollars (+9 billion) that it is estimated to pay for a wall. Sending non-violent illegal immigrants back, especially those who come from war ravaged countries will create even more crazy economic and social chaos than we've had, which can end up being unloving to everyone due to the social and economic instability it would cause due to the law of the unintended consequences. IMHO, you can show both compassion and justice (upholding the rule of law). You don't have to choose.
We can debate all day (and some do) about whether illegals have, outside of immigration offenses, higher crime rates than the rest of the nation. What I can say for sure, though, is that crimes committed by illegal immigrants wouldn't happen if they weren't here.
Well, they might occur in their native countries, but maybe those countries know their schtick better than we do and can deal with them better. Love immigrants--as an engineer I work with a ton of them--but U.S. citizens have the right to ask the courtesy of background checks, visas, health checks, and the like.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert nails it.
China has the right to deny me entrance if they choose, or put me under increases scrutiny as a foreigner.
No one debates that.
But for some reason, when it comes to the US, a lot of people suddenly don't believe in borders anymore, and our laws can be ignored.
But for some reason, when it comes to the US, a lot of people suddenly don't believe in borders anymore, and our laws can be ignored.
The phrase "Open Borders" means something different to people in America. Even the Biden administration claimed they weren't for open borders. They would use phrases such as "the border is closed to irregular migration." Only a small minority of far-left progressives, sprinkled in with some libertarians, desire the anarchy of a classic open border policy. However, because the border was so overrun, especially with so many folks claiming (legitimately or illegitimately) asylum, and because there was such an overrun system that could not properly vet asylum situations and because the laws take so long to process, bad policies and reactions such as "catch and release" orders given to border patrols (this is just one example of how messed up our system is in dealing with immigration) created a De Facto Open Border, IMHO.
Of course there are those on the far-right who believe that democrats such as the Biden administration and those in congress purposely created the border chaos as part of their nefarious plan to overrun the country with minorities as a plot to replace white people (replacement theory). Therefore they really secretly held to a classical open border belief, But the older I get, I see it more as progressive incompetence from holding to a more unconstrained worldview as Thomas Sowell so eloquently observed in A Conflict of Visions.
Discussion