Walk by Faith, Vote by Sight?

Some reflections on the relationship between faith, voting, and political action
The purpose of this piece is to look at the role of Christian faith in making political judgments. Many
of these points will apply to various religions, but I want to speak from what I know. I am not trying
to marginalize others, so much as emphasize the aspects of Christianity that I think most directly
relate to citizenship and its obligations. There are times when we are faced with the unimaginable
becoming actual. A quick sampling of the phrases being used by Americans across the political
spectrum reveals a strong streak of apocalyptic visions for what will befall the country should their
candidate lose in November. I have strong concerns of my own, but I will save those for another time
and focus on what I know, rather than things I cannot possibly know, such as the future. A brief look
at the past, however, reveals there have indeed been times in which the worst possible scenario has
happened. People have had to make sense of it and reconcile their faith with their radically changed
reality.
One such instance was in 410 AD when the Vandals sacked Rome, the Eternal City. Consider that
Rome had been one of the mightiest empires in history and had lasted with a distinct political and
social culture for over 900 years. How could God allow Rome to fall, when it had converted from
paganism to Christianity? Was Rome suffering because it had turned its back on its ancient traditions
and had been made soft by Christianity? How should Christian Romans respond to military duties?
Responding to questions such as these, and then adding a lengthy book of other topics for good
measure, Augustine offers a simple, yet powerful metaphor for understanding the relationship
between Church and State. His book The City of God lays a vision of the present world as one in
which Christians are citizens of a heavenly city or City of God, but also physically living in the earthly
city. The important thing for Christians, he argues, is to remember where your primary citizenship is.
Sure, you can be a Roman, a good citizen of Hippo Regius (the town in modern-day Algeria where he
was acting as bishop), or any other place, but you are first and foremost a citizen of the heavenly
city, subject to the rule of God. So far, there is nothing terribly surprising about this argument. The
interesting part of this idea is trying to navigate the inevitable times when your dual citizenships
compete, or even conflict with each other. How can people judge when they are supposed to
submit to rulers and those in authority (Romans 13:1) versus when they should stand firm for their
faith and risk being brought before the rulers and authorities (Luke 12:11)?
Augustine addressed this conflict on a number of levels, but some of the most important ideas to
come out of this discussion include things like Just War theory, which continues to be one of the
cornerstones of international law and says, amongst other things, that war can only be just when it is
defensive, proportional, and conducted from motives of reconciliation and love, rather than fear or
hatred. Loving war might seem like an oxymoron if there ever was one, but his example illustrates
what he means. Rome, even at its height, was always afraid of losing its power, and so it always had
to be at war expanding its empire to protect its borders, increase its supply of goods, and so on. Of
course, the more it conquered the more people there were to feed, the larger the borders were that
needed defending, the larger the army had to be, and on it went. In contrast, just war only seeks to
right a definite and declared wrong and would only occur as a last resort. Once the harm has been
rectified, the war is to stop. The Christian value of love thy neighbor is obviously not in the acts of
warfare, instead it is found in the limits of war and the reconciliation that aims for lasting peace

afterwards. Whether or not politics is a sort of non-violent substitute for war (as Clausewitz
supposedly suggests), the idea that it should aim for a conclusion of peace, reconciliation, and
constructive action is one which should always guide our political conduct.
Thankfully, we dont need to look back 1600 years for examples of Christians being forced into these
types of difficult choices of knowing what battles to fight and when. The US Civil Rights movement is
one of the most obvious moments where it became painfully clear that beyond the division of the
Church into mostly single-race congregations, in itself a shameful reminder of centuries of hatred
and enslavement, the Church was also divided into groups that passively supported the goals of Civil
Rights but objected to the movements methods, and those that passionately participated in the
marches and protests that aimed to turn these goals into real genuine gains. If you havent read it, or
if you havent read it recently, take a minute to read Martin Luther Kings Letter from a Birmingham
Jail. 1
Writing to a group of ministers who called his actions unwise and untimely, King directly confronts
the question How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer is found
in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would
be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey
just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St.
Augustine that An unjust law is no law at all. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly,
lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law
that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect
for law. This is how we square the circle of simultaneous obedience to Gods just law and to the
authorities that sometimes promote or require unjust actions. Fight injustice, submit to judgment,
and in so doing heap (the) burning coals of an awakened conscience upon those who sustain the
wheels of oppression (Proverbs 25:21-22, Romans 12:20).
The question for American Christians now is what these Scriptures; from the story of the Good
Samaritan, to the declaration that the old identities of Jew/Gentile, slave/free, male/female have
been superseded by a oneness in Christ, and what these examples; from the martyrs slain in the
Colosseum to the muscular defense of justice found in Bonhoeffer, King and many others; mean for
us today. Specifically, whatever we do in support of those causes we feel most moved by, how are
we to consider our votes? First of all, lets dispense with this idea that there are only equally bad
options to choose from in this election. There are different options, all with their own set of good
and bad, but the nature and gravity of the imperfections at hand are not morally equivalent, nor are
they equally dangerous for the stability and safety of the United States. Claiming there is just a
lesser of two evils is an excuse to avoid taking uncomfortable positions in the face of possible
ridicule or even hatred from other Christians, friends, and family. I completely understand the
discomfort and I am guilty of staying quiet on occasions where I should have spoken. (Doubtless I
have also spoken when I should have listened.) For a moment, put aside nationality, race, wealth,
and all the other things that define us. The only thing that should be left for a Christian (literally, a
little Christ) is the person of Jesus. If we say we are willing to sacrifice everything, our possessions,

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

our relationships, our very lives for our faith, then we must know what makes Jesus worthy of this
offering.
Read the Gospels and the thing that stands out, regardless of whether someone accepts them as
true or accepts Jesus as a messiah, is that he is, as CS Lewis might put it, not a tame lion. We see a
series of real scenes from life, situations that are still recognizable. There is a young newly married
couple whose wedding celebration is threatened by a lack of wine. Jesus is called to the scene and
not only turns water to wine, but its apparently the good stuff. (John 2:1-12) Why on earth is this
passage in the Bible? Are we being encouraged to be party animals? Probably not, but Jesus is
showing us that joy and celebration are part of a perfect and holy life. Not only that, but faith is the
only path by which that joy is made to grow with the course of time, rather than diminish.
Furthermore, based on my own brief time living in the Middle East, this passage highlights the
importance of hospitality. Whenever I visited my colleagues I was almost invariably offered
something to eat and something to drink (usually dates and Arabic coffee). This couple and their
families would be shamed by running out of food and drink for their guests. It would have been not
just impolite, but unthinkable to run out of provisions for ones guests. In other words, Jesus
understands culture, understands how people come together around a table in a way that is unique,
how the wedding and the feast are foreshadows of the ultimate Feast that is yet to come.
Christians should follow this example and rejoice with those who rejoice. (Romans 12:15) Dont
just share the Good News, share good news and share in the celebration of good news. Sometimes
being loving is simply being present. If you want to make a difference for your country, start by going
to a PTA meeting, a sporting event, a wedding, especially with friends who disagree with your
politics. It is hard to dismiss the feelings and thoughts of people whom we care enough about to
miss. This same verse tells us to mourn with those who mourn. When you invest in friendships you
earn the privilege of sharing times of mourning and suffering. You can be the person who walks
alongside another in their time of grief, or who is supported through your own times of sorrow.
Again, Jesus lives this example in his suffering alongside Mary and Martha at the death of Lazarus. As
recounted in John 11, it is no secret that he plans to raise Lazarus from the dead, so why weep? He
weeps when he sees Lazarus sister and her companions crying, and when he sees the dead mans
tomb (see verses 33-35).
Platitudes about salvation and heaven are not usually what grieving people and grieving societies
need. Simply pointing to the fallen nature of humankind or the presence of sin is no comfort either.
When people are dying of AIDS or cancer, when earthquakes and hurricanes strike, when children
are gunned down at school, the Christian response is not to ask who sinned, but how can we
bring hope in this tragic situation. (John 9:2-3) Acknowledge the pain, accept the person, extend
your hand. This might mean donating blood, marching for equality, rebuilding homes, keeping vigil
at a hospital bed, demanding better laws, or any number of actions, but the point is to do them with
love and empathy. Even your posts on social media and your conversations and texts should
conform to the two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:37-39). You cannot love God and hate
the people made in his image, or favor some people over others (James 2:1-13).
This brings me, at last, to the issues facing Christians in this election. How can we read the story of
the Good Samaritan, bearing in mind that they were seen as fundamentally other and outside the
faith by the Jewish people of Jesus time, and yet support subjecting Muslims to discrimination,

suspicion, and immigration bans? They have lived and died for the United States like many other
Americans of all faiths. Islam not only draws upon the traditions and Scripture of Judaism and
Christianity, it shares many of the same moral concerns and family values that are espoused by most
Christians. It might surprise Christians to learn that most Muslims even believe that Jesus will return
at the end of the world, just like orthodox Christians do. Of course, there are extremists. Of course
there are real and important theological differences and disagreements. Yes, Muslims and Christians
have killed each other in wars and some people who claim these titles continue to kill. Sunni and
Shia, Catholic and Protestant, we each have our own planks to deal with before attending to other
faiths specks (Matthew 7:3-5). Does this mean the overwhelming number of the rest of us should
simply surrender to the hate and fear these few wish to stoke? Who is my neighbor? My neighbor is
the one who shows mercy, who does what is inconvenient and costly, who cares. My neighbor is my
former boss, a practicing Muslim, who saw that we were running out of money when we arrived in
the UAE and pushed money into my hands insisting that he could not sleep knowing my family
would go without. What kind of repayment would it be for this kindness if I was to slander all the
people who share his faith as terrorists, woman-haters, medieval, and the like? We are better than
that. God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2
Timothy 1:7) If you are secure in your faith, then you will not be threatened by another persons
faith. In fact, you might find yourself challenged to grow and deepen your own faith like I was when I
saw people in shopping malls stop everything to go and pray because that is what they believed God
wanted them to do. How many of us commit to stopping five times a day to just be still, pray, and
reflect? Some of you may do this and more, but for my part I know I have room to grow.
How can we read Exodus, the story of Ruth, or Esther, even the flight of Jesus family to Egypt and
not have compassion for the refugee? People are right that we should be upset about the number of
Syrian refugees possibly being increased by 550%. This number, which increases the United States
intake of refugees from 10,000 to 65,000 is far too low! There are well over 300 million people in the
United States. It is the richest country on earth, with the worlds most powerful military, the most
prosperous companies, the most respected universities, and one of the highest rates of church
attendance amongst rich countries. People talk about stories of German women being harassed by
refugee men as some sort of proof that the US should do even less. Aside from the fact that these
numbers are miniscule and actually the rate of such crime is lower amongst the refugee and
immigrant population than it is amongst native born people, the obligation to look after the least of
these to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend to the fatherless and widows is not negated by any
risk, whether real or exaggerated. (see Matthew 25:31-46, a passage which is challenging to all and
either comforting or terrifying depending) Again, I am not saying this in judgment of other
individuals so much as a reminder to myself and the people like me in the Church who mean well,
but dont perhaps do enough good, that if we do not do these things, we are denying acts of love not
just to fellow human beings but to the God whom we claim to worship. In this present time, who are
the hungry, naked, fatherless, widows, if not people fleeing war and famine and wanton destruction
in Syria and other places like it?
How can we read Psalm 139, claim its mantle of being fearfully and wonderfully made as a call to
arms to protect life, yet deny the protection of life to those already born? I dont like abortion and as
the product of a teen pregnancy I am eternally grateful that my mother did not abort me. However, I
am not a single issue voter. Do I prefer to vote for people who encourage adoption over abortion,
who speak of the fundamental value of every human life, who talk about babies and not fetuses?

(Because, lets face it, those of us who are parents dont hear that first heartbeat and think, Aw
thats our little fetus in there. No, it is our baby.) Of course I prefer that! Do I believe simply
declaring oneself pro-life is enough to earn my vote with no other considerations? No I dont. If faith
without works is dead (James 2:14-17), then my faith that a single political party will actually deliver
on their promises regarding abortion is also dead. Not to be conspiratorial, but from a purely
strategic viewpoint, evangelicals are amongst the safest GOP voters and that is largely down to this
one issue. If you take abortion off the table, then there are plenty of Christians who would find a
number of causes they identify with in both parties and who might be willing to at least occasionally
switch their votes to another party. It is in the electoral interest of the GOP to make gestures toward
restricting abortion, but not to the extent that it becomes de-politicized.
Heres the crazy thing, abortions have gone down more during the pro-choice presidency of Barack
Obama than they have in decades. Since Roe vs. Wade, abortion numbers have gone up or stayed
flat when Republicans were in the White House, even during the years when George W. Bush was
working with a Republican-controlled House and Senate and a Supreme Court that was 2/3
conservative. (For more on this, see Rachel Held Evans article at
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/pro-life-voting-for-hillary-clinton.) The reason this is the case is
that being pro-life should mean being willing to do the things that promote a good life. Access to
good education, healthcare, alleviating poverty; all of these are tools to fight the root causes of
abortion. If I could choose between overturning Roe vs. Wade and actually reducing the number of
abortions, then to me its a no-brainer. If every life counts, then every life counts. Overturning Roe
simply allows states to outlaw abortion. Many of them would not do so and even if they did, there
would be people undergoing illegal, and presumably dangerous, abortions. There are places in this
world where governments actually force women to abort their babies. In other places, people abort
girls, and in still others women have no access to good medical care and face a high risk of death in
the process of childbirth. Thankfully, the United States is not a place where anyone is forced to have
an abortion, nor are people encouraged to privilege boy babies, and many people choose to
continue pregnancies where the child will being developmentally challenged in some fundamental
way. Although there are many instances of people choosing abortion as a form of late birth control,
which I do not support, the fact remains that there are numerous cases where women and their
families are faced with the tragic fact of a genuine threat to the mothers life, or a baby that is
already lifeless or is missing vital organs and so not viable. In these cases, who can decide if the
mother should sacrifice her life or not? What about her partner and possibly other children? There
are many variations on this theme, but the point is that there are times when it is one of lifes sad
realities that an abortion is necessary and might even be undertaken in order to preserve a life.
This brings me to another issue about life, the life and death obsession with guns that blights
American culture and fills its coffins with untimely deaths. I may say more about this in my upcoming
piece about gun rights from a constitutional perspective since I am a scholar of constitutionalism and
have written extensively about the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and so on. For now, lets
go back to this issue as a theological one. Even if we argue that Christians need not be defenseless or
pacifist, which I think is a reasonable argument to make, we would still be bound by the types of just
war and just law ideas that people like Augustine talk about. If you want to have a gun for sport or
hunting, then that is something clearly allowable under most understandings of Christian teaching.
People who live in rural areas may very well need rifles for protection from predators. People in
urban and suburban areas may have a justifiable fear of being attacked in some way and feel like a

gun will give them more safety and security. Personally, based on a vast and long-running body of
evidence, I do not think guns make most people safer. Everything suggests they make you much less
safe. If you own a gun you are likelier to die in an attempted suicide, you are likelier to be killed by
your own weapon during a robbery, you are likelier to have a child or other family member
accidentally killed. The simple logic of these types of arms races is that the more people have
weapons, the more unsafe other people feel, so more of them get weapons, then people feel they
need more powerful weapons that fire more bullets faster, and before you know it even accidental
gun deaths become more likely and horrific, let alone all the cases of people who have legally
purchased military grade weapons and ammunition and then used them to slaughter innocent
people. If you support Blue Lives Matter, or Black Lives Matter, or any lives mattering, then it should
be obvious that having more armed people makes life more dangerous for police, especially when
cop-killer bullets that can pierce armor are still legal. This threat makes police feel less safe and
likelier to respond with lethal force in situations that might very well turn out to be non-lethal. One
family is left to bury someone killed with no trial, who may have simply committed the crime of
being autistic or bipolar or black, while an officer has to live with the emotional and psychological
fallout of taking a life. This love of guns is a poison and hurts everyone, minorities, cops, kids, and
everyone else.
Despite all this, I understand people voting to support constitutional gun rights. What I do not
understand is people who oppose common sense laws about how guns should be purchased, what
types of people are safe to own guns, how old people should be before they are allowed to use
them, what types of weapons and bullets are available, or whether they should be allowed in places
known to contain particularly vulnerable groups, like schools. I am a practical pro-lifer. Save lives
first, argue gun rights semantics later. Did Jesus say, Peter put away your sword and pick up your
semi-automatic? Do we see any examples in the New Testament of Christians being encouraged to
defend themselves with arms, to take up arms against their government, or to resort to vigilantism?
If an ideology has no basis in your theology and leads to outcomes which clearly endanger life, then
how is it pro-life? You can vote to oppose all gun restrictions, but please dont claim to do so based
on Christian values.
There are many many other issues that touch this intersection of Christianity and American politics
and I am happy to discuss them on the wall, in chat, or on the phone. In the meantime, I have likely
tested your patience enough by now. The question we are left with, whether we agree on politics or
not, is how we come together on November 9th. I want to end with one example from the recent
past of the political parties coming together to create a policy that has done a tremendous amount
of good, The Earned Income Credit. This tax credit has been one of the single most successful tools
for lifting families out of poverty. Since it is a tax credit, it incentivizes work, even low-paying work
and targets its support to families, which is in line with more traditionally Republican goals. At the
same time, it aims to reduce poverty and make society less unequal by promoting the idea that fulltime work deserves a living wage, which is more associated with Democratic policies. In crafting
something which values both parties priorities and builds upon their strengths, the government also
managed to do real tangible good for a multitude of families. We need more of this type of
pragmatism and unity and less partisanship, particularly once an election is over. When the votes are
counted, the only thing that should still count is results, not simply scoring points for ideological
purity or denying victory to the other side through obstruction or scorched earth tactics. On that
note, I think it appropriate to end with the words of my favorite US President, Abraham Lincoln, who

near the conclusion of a war in which roughly half a million Americans killed each other over the
question of whether it was legal to enslave and own a fellow human being, nonetheless had the
grace and wisdom to say this: With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the
right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the
nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan,
to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all
nations.