For faith voters committed to bringing the whole of Scripture to their political choices, selecting the right candidate and party can be challenging.

Voting by faith

October 22, 2020

With upcoming presidential elections in the United States and a provincial vote in British Columbia this weekend, Christians are faced with a perplexing question – how can I bring my faith to the ballot box?

It’s a question that’s not as easily answered as you might think. In the Unites States, for example, many evangelicals are single-issue votes, determining their choice by which candidate or party claims to be pro-life. Often, that means voting Republican. But abortion is not the only driving issue for some faith voters. Evangelical voters may include a narrow set of other moral priorities as primary determinants of how (and for whom) they vote. These imperatives include pro-Christian policies on gay rights and euthanasia, among others.   

While Christians are well within their rights to bring these considerations to their political decision-making, it poses problems when they become the overriding faith factors at the ballot box. For example, in the United States, historical evidence shows the party in power has had little effect on abortion numbers and is unlikely to do so in future. In fact, abortions have tended to decline under Democrats so evangelicals may need to be more thoughtful about solutions beyond legislation and which party holds political power. And because there were even more abortions in the U.S. before Roe vs. Wade was passed, repealing it will not necessarily take America to a better era of fewer abortions. In other words, focusing largely on legal change may be a distraction from other important steps that people of faith need to take.

In addition, single-issue voting, or the tendency to make legal and political change in a handful of areas a major preoccupation (the moral litmus test) in evangelical circles, poses at least two other troubling problems. The first is an ethical one. It results in a dangerous teleological argument—the determination that a predetermined moral good (or Biblical outcome in this case) is so high and worthy of attainment that the methods we use to achieve it no longer matter. So, a leader’s behaviour or character may be overlooked, so long as they can deliver one or several of these morally superior priorities. Although Christian history appears to show some teleological ethics in the past (e.g. the Crusades, or slavery as an opportunity for evangelism), this ethical framework does not conform to the example of Christ. Jesus would never affirm or accept un-Christian or ungodly behaviour, even if it advances the Kingdom of God in some way.

The other weakness with assigning an inordinate amount of weight to a set of moral issues and declaring them to be the ultimate criteria for faithful voting is that it strips the Bible down to a set of essentials that fail to do justice to the breadth and complexity of Scripture. By default, this leads to exclusion of other no-less-worthy biblical concerns and priorities. Furthermore, the Biblical issues that get lost or relegated through the evangelical litmus test should be very worrisome to people of faith—the struggles of the poor and those living on the margins of society. To use British Columbia’s provincial elections as illustration, should I, as a faithful voter, consider policies to address the homelessness and opioid crisis on the streets of Vancouver and other major cities? What about the high rates of suicide in indigenous communities and the debilitating poverty and despair that feeds this? Does God (and Scripture) demand that I care about programs for immigrants, refugees, and their families struggling to settle in Canada? How about social supports for those facing difficulties during the pandemic? These are all issues you are more likely to prioritize in Scripture if you are less economically advantaged and either black, indigenous, or a person of colour. But in most cases, they are conspicuously absent from the evangelical litmus test of what God wants people of faith to consider when they vote. So are these priorities being set by God, or by the political traditions of men?

There is one simple but critical step that the community of faith must take to fix this skewing of moral and biblical priorities and the dangers it poses to our ethics and Christian witness. We must end the confusion of ideology with theology. The line between these two has become so increasingly blurred (especially in evangelical America) that what often passes as Christian political engagement is right-wing, conservative ideology adorned in the clothes of theology. Anything that fails to meet the ideological checklist of conservative politicians is automatically eliminated from Scripture and the concerns of good, faithful voters. If the truth must be told, it is ideology, not theology, that is exerting the greater influence on the votes of many evangelical voters. And when this happens, we become willing to sacrifice theology (or parts of biblical teaching) to reach “loftier” conservative, ideological goals.

As I vote this weekend in British Columbia’s provincial elections, I will not by applying a litmus test based on a narrow set of issues rooted in one ideological position or the other. Although this will make my decision much more difficult, I will do my best to apply the whole of Scripture to my decision. In doing this, I acknowledge that I will find values that align with my faith in more than one party. Deciding which party and candidate to vote for will require prayerful, open-minded consideration of not just what’s best for Christians, but what policies will lift up all citizens, regardless of their background, because God’s love and care extends to everyone. Isn't that what voting by faith should be really about?

Yours faithfully,

Div