Christian Guidelines For Voting?

 In keeping with the season, I thought I would review a Christian article that gives Christians advice on voting. Such an article appeared on the Reforemation21.org website. It was written by Brian Najapfour (click here for a very brief bio). I saw his article on Reforemation21.org but is also appears on his own website.

In the article (click here for the article), Najapfour provides 10 guidelines for Christians to use in determining how they will vote. Only 2 of those guidelines will be covered here because only 2 of the guidelines pertain to the qualifications of the candidates. 

The first of Najapfour's guidelines that pertains to the candidates states the following:

Vote for a candidate who upholds Christian principles.

What Najapfour has in mind is that we use biblical principles to judge each candidates positions on certain important issues including:

1. Religious freedom
2. Sanctity of life
3. Marriage
4. Racial Injustice
5. Violence
6. Economic Crisis
7. Health Care

Though Najapfour makes a legitimate point here, there is also a legitimate problem. Should what serves as a Church guideline for Christians also serve as a state guideline for unbelievers in society? It appears that either Najapfour overlooked the problem being cited here or he did not see it as a problem.

So for marriage, Najapfour asks if the candidate supports same-sex marriage. It is obvious that the Church should prohibit its members from being in same-sex marriages. That is clearly a biblical principle. The question is whether such is a New Testament principle for the state? Does the New Testament prohibit the state from sanctioning such marriages?

There is no clear biblical answer to that specific question, but there are two things we must consider. First, regarding the New Testament, Paul clearly states that he is not concerned with the sexual purity of society while talking about church discipline for a case of sexual immorality in the Church (see I Corinthians 5:12-13). Though we should call all to repent, should it be our position as Christians to insist that the state prohibit marriages that the Scriptures do not condone?

So there is no strong answer to that question from the Bible though what Paul said in I Corinthians 5 indicates no. But there is another consideration to take into account. How much should we impose our Christian values on fellow citizens who do not share our faith in a democracy? If we consider what a democracy is as a state of being, the answer is 'no' in most cases. Why? It is because a democracy as a state of being requires that all citizens have an equal share in society. Not promoting or defending equality for those in the LGBT community, for example, violates that principle of democracy. And as we insist on imposing more Christian guidelines on our fellow citizens who are unbelievers, we are moving our nation from being a democracy to that of being an ethnocracy where we Christians seek a privileged place over unbelievers.

The same could be said regarding what Najapfour says about the economic crisis. Najapfour quotes a passage from Ephesians that prohibits the thief from continuing to steal. Instead the thief should work for a living so that he/she has something to share. But how is that linked to our nation's economic crisis without accusing those on unemployment of stealing? Actually, Najapfour could have quoted 2 Thessalonians 3:10 that says that those not willing to work should not eat. But that principle applied to believers and how the Church should treat them.

In either case, how does Najapfour want those who cannot find living wage jobs to be treated? Should the government just let people starve indicating that the government should only represent those who are self-sufficient.

As we move on to the other issues, we see a certain encouragement for Christians to be self-absorbed. For one of those issues is religious liberty. And Najapfour only talks about that issue as it pertains to Christians. For he says:

Will the candidate hinder you from exercising your faith in Jesus Christ, or will he/she protect your liberty as a Christian?

The question then arises whether we should vote for a candidate who will protect the rights of us Christians to exercise our faith in Jesus but will not protect those who express and try to live out other faiths? There are some areas in the world where Christians have supported autocratic leaders because those same leaders are protecting them but are violating the rights of others.

In addition, when Najapfour talks about voting for the candidate who protects the sanctity of life, it is clear that the only lives whose sanctity Najapfour is referring to are the lives of the unborn. And though we should all seek to protect the lives of the unborn, life does not end at birth. We should be concerned about the sanctity of life of those who have been born as it is threatened by poverty, affordable access to health care, war, and the environment. That is because those other conditions can contribute to the premature deaths of many who are born as well as some who are unborn.

As Najapfour briefly discusses the other issues of violence and racial injustice, there is reason to agree with him  on those issues though his statements are very brief.

The other issue Najapfour says we should keep in mind is which candidate will 'lead the country with justice.' Here he mentions the judicial system and we should support what is fair. But the question that arises is which candidate recognizes the problems that exist from the disparity seen in how privileged are generally treated by the judicial system from how the marginalized and fiancially vulnerable are treated. So this guideline is just to generally stated to do much good.

Najapfour's article is well-intended. At the same time, it shows its conservative bias as well as that it lacks any depth to provide help for the thinking Christian who is struggling in choosing for whom to vote.