We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.
I hope to vote the way I pray, sensibly. Prayers are often for the ideal, but politics functions in the fallen world as it is.
My prayers inspire me to hope, but my vote must go beyond hope to deal with a fallen reality. I can pray for the not-yet, but must vote for the can-be-now.
It is this possible-now that guides my voting.
It seems bizarre to pray for a thing that is possible and then vote against it. If you pray that unborn children are saved from abortion, and then vote for more children to die, then I question the sincerity of your prayer.
Of course, voting is complicated and no candidate is perfect . . . one good position can cancel out another.
A vote for a candidate who would protect unborn children might also be a vote for a candidate incompetent in the administration of justice. In the real world, before the return of King Jesus (which can neither be hastened nor brought about by human action), we shall always have to vote as best we can . . . balancing better against worse candidates.
I shall not be voting for Jesus next year since He will not be on the ballot, but I can try to vote for the most Christ-like candidate.
If we should vote as we pray, then the prayer that heads this blog post is a good place to start. It has been prayed by Christians of all backgrounds and for generations. Christians in both the Eastern and Western churches have approved its use.
Christian Rulers
First, we pray for “all Christian rulers.” There is something offensive about the very phrase to modern ears, even modern Christian ears!
Part of that offense comes from a central claim of Christianity: Christianity is not merely an opinion, but true. That shocks the multicultural sensitivities of our age.
Most moderns like their religion light on facts and heavy on feeling. By contrast, traditional Christianity is heavy on history and emotion. Traditional Christianity is bold enough to say that it is reasonable and not just emotionally comfortable.
I adopted Christianity based on reasons that could (in principle) be accessed by non-Christians.
Many people of good will are not Christian, but my reasonable religious beliefs are not less “secure” or “inaccessible” to non-believers than atheism or secularism is to me. Atheism is a philosophy that depends on assumptions, arguments, and has its own difficulties, but I can follow them . . . just like Christianity can be understood by the atheist.
Differences in religious values need not lead to war or endless arguments even if they enter public discourse.
A Christian persuades without a bludgeon. He gives his reasons publicly and is ready to debate his point of view peacefully. He also tries to draw broad area of agreement in his community between as many as possible.
Coercion makes reasonable religious choice impossible. I must allow the conscience of my neighbor to be free. I cannot impose Christianity, even if the truth, on anyone. A theocracy would defy the very freedom of choice that God Himself gave men and women in the garden.
This side of Paradise, it is also quite possible that I am wrong. Any reasonable person approaches the world with as much humility as he can muster. The fewer the laws, the more they allow for liberty of conscience. Because my neighbor may be right, I should learn and listen as much as possible. .
At the same time, there are basic Christian moral principles on which a just society must be based.
Rights come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence points out, and include the right to life, liberty, human flourishing (or happiness). Government should be limited as much as possible to the protection of these basic rights (to avoid as much as possible harming the conscience of people who dissent from truth).
Fortunately in most cases, there is little dissent about these basic human rights. In fact, if I were of a different religion or point of view it is perfectly possible (using natural law and reason) that I could come to many of the same conclusions. Oddly, this means a bad Christian could easily be a worse ruler than a good atheist.
After all being a Christian is no special pathway to political acumen. A Christian need not be better at the art of ruling, than a very competent non-Christian.
I believe that in the end the Christian religion is necessary to maintain these rights intellectually and culturally. However, an atheist (for example) that shares these values and wishes to protect life, liberty, and the ability of humans to be virtuous can govern. He may be inconsistent with his atheism at some deep intellectual level (which is not good), but on a practical level we agree.
Too intimate a relationship between religion and government does not allow for the personal checks and balances intellectually that should exist between the different intellectual areas of my life. My religious views are the most important part of my life, but I have made mistakes in them. By keeping a space (based on humility and function) between the two . . . but not a water-tight compartment . . . the less important area (politics) can teach me where I have over-reached or made errors in charity in the most important area (religion).
Some people want to ignore religion . . . other people want it to just be politics (theocrats). My goal is to live a consistent life, but to change my mind when I am wrong. If my “big ideas” are allowed too much governance over my practical ideas (religion over politics), then the data from the ground of the “real world” will not be allowed to change my mind.
There are so many mistakes I can make! For example, I might believe a man is not a Christian and discover that he is. More likely is to confuse a theological idea that is part of the job of the church for a justice issue appropriate for the state to handle. The real world has a great way of fixing that!
All of us live life in some manner inconsistently with the world-view we claim to believe. This is not good, but we are not perfect reasoners. In some cases, the intellectual inconsistency is beneficial . . . after all some atheist may think the world is meaningless (really), but still live by a tight code of conduct inherited from his grand-mother! I would rather be governed by such a gentleman, than by a person who professes all my beliefs, but has the opposite problem and refuses to live by his true view of the world!
Sometimes critics suggest that religion must be excluded from public debate, because religious belief is based on emotional or subjective experiences. Experience of this sort can only be accessed by the individuals having them and so cannot be used as evidence in the public square. . . you cannot argue with someone’s feelings. If you cannot argue about it (it is too private), then it cannot be part of politics.
Despite this criticism, religion can be used as part of a public argument. First, if I am a citizen the private experiences of the supernatural world I have had count as a kind of evidence. If I believe that God would not wish a thing done based on my experience of holy things, then it does not count for much culturally, but it counts for something. Depending on my credibility it might even persuade some people that there is “something to all that.” When millions of persons share the same religious intuition, then that counts a great deal. Does anyone believe that even a secularist never votes or begins his political thinking on a “gut feeling?” These gut feelings, emotions, or subjective reactions to reality may not have great value as evidence for me (when it comes as a report from someone else), but they have some.
Second, Christianity is not just based on experience, but also on reasoning from evidence that is open to everyone.
Third, many Christian ideas are compatible with other religious beliefs and are defensible on “natural law” grounds.
The religious person must be willing to defend all his personal presuppositions regarding religion. He cannot use his religious beliefs to make public policy decisions (on issues like marriage) and then protect those beliefs from public scrutiny.
One cannot cry “bigot” every time a candidate is asked about his religion, though bigots do exist.
The impact of a candidate’s faith on his public policy is relevant to voters. It is even possible that this impact would disqualify him as a candidate, but that would be rare. If a candidate belongs to a religion that thinks slavery is good, then I could not vote for him . . . if he admits that his religion forms his politics.
As we pray that God direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian rulers, then we are left still with a nagging question.
If we pray for a ruler who is “Christian,” must the good ruler actually be a Christian?
Since my own church has been governed (in its home region) by Islam for hundreds of years could this prayer be meaningfully prayed there?
Could I ever vote (really) for an atheist?
Should traditional Christians vote for a member of the LDS church if they consider it non-Christian?
The answer to all these questions is “yes.”
If Christianity is true, then it has nothing to fear from truth or competence . . . even if it comes incarnate in a man outside the Faith. In an election, we are looking for someone to rule: a person who has the skills and virtues of a ruler. Just as a Christian hiring a plumber wants a competent plumber and not just a pious one . . . even though he might wish for both. . . the Christian voter should find the person most like Christ as ruler and leave the politicians more complicated inner life to his wife, friends, pastor, and God.
Traditionally, rulers do not teach theology, but to punish the wicked and reward the good. As a result a good ruler might not be a good Christian in terms of his theology, but know the skill and art of learning.
A Christian naturally wishes to vote for someone who is also Christian (family ties!), but must vote for the person who has the ability to govern well. The most competent ruler is the most like Christ (as ruler), even if the candidate is an atheist.
Should religious beliefs be taken into consideration before I vote?
The answer is “yes,” but only within certain limits. It is only rational to question a religion when :
1. A candidate makes it an issue. (He runs as the “Christian candidate.”)
2. The candidate’s religion is very small (numerically) and there is no attempt to rationally defend the faith to outsiders.
3. The religion should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant. No group is perfect, but the Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings.
If the person belongs to a religion that is theologically false, but not in a way that reduces his chances of governing well, then his being more like Christ as ruler than the “Christian” should matter
The recent reaction to the partial birth abortion decision is instructive. Romney, who is not a traditional Christian, strongly supported it. Rudy Giuliani who claims to be a traditional Christian was tepid to it. Hillary Clinton who is a traditional Christian was strongly opposed to it. As a ruler, who is more like Christ in supporting justice?
Isn’t Romney the better bet to behave as a Christian ruler should . . . whether or not he is Christian?
Having done our best, we can trust God. We ask him in this old prayer “so to direct and dispose” . . . and God does. The ruler’s heart is in His hands and He can turn it any way He wishes. This is the security of God’s sovereignty. Nothing can “take Him by surprise” or thwart his ultimate will.
As I struggle to vote well, that security is comforting.