CAN GOOD CHRISTIANS VOTE DEMOCRAT?

This week's radio show will focus on the brewing theological battle between Republicans and Democrats. Here are some articles we will be referencing:

"Democrats trying out a more soulful tone" - Time Magazine
"The Jesus Question" by Rudy Takala
"God's Politics: The Religious Left" by Ryan Lizza in NY Times
"God's Politics" by Jim Wallis in NY Times
"First Things First" - Touchstone Magazine Editorial

UPDATE: Chuck Colson makes a point similar to ours in this commentary.

Comments

[Dan]

Don:

I listened to your show of last Saturday and I question what I believe to be the core of your argument against the Democrats' religious renaissance. You and Brandon raised two arguments against the Democrats'position. First, you argued that the social justice issues the Democrats believe to be the preeminent moral values are disputes not about whether one society should pursue social justice (the ends) but rather about how society
should pursue social justice (the means). Second, you argued that the social justice issues, in light of the moral ambiguity surrounding the public discourse of those issues, are not of the same caliber as the abortion and homosexuality issues that form part of the Republican platform.

The problem with both of these arguments is that they fail to address thefundamental question of whether the Republican platform violates a Biblical principle. If the Republican platform contains an inherent violation of a Scriptural commandment or an underlying Biblical principle, then I would be hard pressed to defend a vote for either the Republican party or the Democratic party. That would force me to argue that I voted for one or the
other because that party is less immoral than the other. The Bible provides us no guidance in discerning which commandments are more preferable to violate than others and a Bible-believing Christian would struggle to theologically articulate why one set of Scriptural commandments are necessarily more important than any others.

The proper response to the Democrats, I believe, is to accept fully the centrality of caring for the poor and avoiding war in the Biblical worldview, but then to challenge them on their belief that the Republican
party's platform violates any moral principle in any of those respects. With respect to the Democrats' challenge that the Republican party's platform immorally shuns the poor, our response could be that Republicans endorse a whole host of assistance to the poor, including both private and governmental assistance. The Democrats' main contention has long seemed to be that if there are poor, then there must be something wrong. This, though, is not the Biblical approach to the poor. The Biblical worldview does not infer anything from the number or the state of the poor in society, but rather from the activity or the inactivity of those equipped with the
means to assist the poor. I do not accept Brandon's contention that the government is completely devoid of any responsibility to the poor because assistance to the poor is matter of private charity. Indeed, private
charity is an important component of any Christian's world outlook, but in constructing a moral government, there are some forms of basic assistance that one would be hard pressed to deny the poor. A trip through any poor, third world neighborhood would suffice to make that point. But Republicans do seek governmental assistance of the poor, including basic forms of
welfare. It is just that Republicans also understand that the strength of the economy largely defines how generous our society can be towards the poor
and that, no matter how well intentioned, bureaucracies will ultimately exist to perpetuate themselves. Therefore, I reject the Democrats' claim that there is something inherently immoral about the Republican position on poverty.

Further, with respect to the Democrat's challenge of the Republican party's platform on the Iraqi War, there is an excellent article in the January edition of First Things that explains the history of the "Just War"
doctrine. In it, the author challenges many of the recent developments in the doctrine. In short, we strongly believe that the Iraqi War is a just
war, one that does not violate any Biblical principles.

But if the Democrats were correct, and the Republican platform were immoral in some respect, then I for one would not seek to defend that platform on some qualitative judgment that it is less immoral than the other available platforms. I would be pressed either to reform the immoral characteristic of the Republican platform, or to abandon it altogether. Nothing else, in my view, would satisfy Biblical scrutiny.

Keep up the good work.

In Christ,

Dan

[Don]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your response to the show.

Let me start by clarifying what we were trying to do with the show and then I’ll address some of your points specifically.

The main point of the show was to try and get people to see that homosexuality and abortion are foundational, black and white, non-negotiable issues when it comes to sound theology and that, according to sound theology, they are wrong. It is important to understand that we were basically trying to make a theological point, not a political one. I’m not sure how well we succeeded, but that was our purpose. Instead of discussing religion only as the subtext of the “all important” political debate, which is usually the case in the media, we were trying to discuss politics as a subtext of the truly all-important religious debate. This was not about getting people to vote a certain way; it was about getting them to think about God and ethics a certain way.

With that as a frame of reference, we pointed out that the Democrats are rushing to tell religious voters that “Hey, we are religious, too!” by highlighting all the moral issues they fight for – issues such as fighting poverty, saving the environment and world peace. We agreed that these are indeed Biblical moral issues, but that they should not be enough to swing voters for two reasons:

1. They are not the unique concerns of the Democratic Party. Republicans also agree that fighting poverty, saving the environment and world peace are moral goals. They simply disagree on how to go about achieving those goals. For instance, they would argue, as you have eloquently, that Republican economic structures help the poor even more than Democratic ones do. And they would argue that world peace will only be achieved when tyranny is defeated through just wars, also as you said. Republicans also would say that the environment is best protected through reasonable management of resources, not radical, hands-off nature worship or economy destroying over-regulation. As such, the debate on these issues is not over the ends to be achieved, but the means to that end.
2. The Democrats still refuse to budge on homosexuality and abortion, and these are non-negotiables. Here the debate really is about the means to be achieved. Biblically, there is no ambiguity about whether killing babies is wrong or whether homosexuality is against God’s design.

So that was basically the extent of our show. You said we missed “the fundamental question of whether the Republican platform violates a Biblical principle,” but we were not debating whether all the planks of the two party platforms were completely moral, we were just trying to point out that homosexuality and abortion are not. As such, the question was not “Does the Republican Party have sound theology and completely Biblical ethics?” but rather “Does the Democratic Party have these things, particularly in regards to abortion and homosexuality?”

That concludes my response to your basic objection, but you brought up some other great points and I’d like to address them briefly, just for fun J

>>>>If the Republican platform contains an inherent violation of a Scriptural commandment or an underlying Biblical principle, then I would be hard pressed to defend a vote for either the Republican Party or the
Democratic Party. That would force me to argue that I voted for one or the other because that party is less immoral than the other. The Bible provides us no guidance in discerning which commandments are more preferable to violate than others and a Bible-believing Christian would struggle to theologically articulate why one set of Scriptural commandments are necessarily more important than any others.>>>But if the Democrats were correct, and the Republican platform were immoral in some respect, then I for one would not seek to defend that platform on some qualitative judgment that it is less immoral than the other available platforms. I would be pressed either to reform the immoral characteristic of the Republican platform, or to abandon it altogether. Nothing else, in my view, would satisfy Biblical scrutiny.<<<<<

I hope I have shown that we were not trying to compare platforms, only to point out that the Democrats are wrong on at least two counts. I also have argued that even if the Republican Party has imperfections, if I found them to be the lesser of the evils I would vote for them. However, I absolutely agree with you that we should press to reform any immoral aspects of the Party. Of course, I would say the same about attempting to do that with the Democrats.

Thanks again Dan,

Don

[Dan]

Don,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Let me outline for you some of my basic presuppositions that I bring to the table on these issues. Whereas government cannot be perfect, government as constituted can violate basic moral principles. The Bible does not directly address this question because in the Old Testament God established a government and the New Testament directly addresses the individual and congregations of believers. But that does not mean that government is devoid of any moral responsibilities and it is the job of theologians and moral philosophers to evaluate what basic moral principles govern governments and what things governments cannot do and what they must do if they are to conform to those principles. In that respect, the test is not perfection, but whether government violates basic human dignity and basic behavioral standards. Thus, when one says that Roman government, as such, was immoral, it is not to say that it was imperfect but that the rampant disregard for human life and dignity displayed by slavery and world conquest violated any semblance of moral order.

It is, I believe, this question to which the conservative Christian community becomes so agitated when addressing the questions of abortion and homosexuality. With respect to the question of abortion, government, I believe, has the duty to minimally protect the value of human life through outlawing murder (i.e. any wrongful killing). Our government has not only stripped the unborn of any such protection, but the government has actually condoned the practice. With respect to the question of homosexuality, the issue is that the government cannot condone or recognize as legitimate the practice of homosexuality. In addition, government cannot pervert the definition of marriage to allow for a man to marry a man. When Christians become passionate when discussing these issues, it is that Christians believe that government cannot interact with these issues in that way and continue to be a moral government. If that is not what we mean, then what else could we mean?

It is in this context that we discuss the recent Democratic religious renaissance. Their claim, if I understand it, is not just that they adhere to moral values, but that the Republican platform implies a form of government that is immoral. In this respect, they accuse the Republican platform of immorally shunning the poor and of immorally engaging in warfare. These social justice accusations are serious accusations and the Republican response needs to clearly repudiate those accusations. On the poverty issue, I am reminded of Ravi Zacharias's story that when Mother Teresa first began her ministry in Calcutta, India, the local Hindu clergy opposed her efforts because the poor and downtrodden were, in their paradigm, paying for their deeds from prior lives. Governments that engage in that type of behavior towards the poor are, simply put, immoral. Our country finds itself surrounded by states that abuse, neglect, and oppress the poor. These governments violate some of the clearest and most fundamental moral principles that govern governments; there is, I believe, little ambiguity to them at all.

Likewise, the immoral engagement of warfare is an all-too common pastime of governments. The question is one that St. Thomas Aquinas and other able souls have long dedicated their efforts to defining when a government may morally engage in warfare. To immorally engage in warfare is a serious accusation, which, again, must be repudiated in the strongest terms by the Republican Party. What constitutes a just war remains one of the most significant issues surrounding the Iraqi war. In his recent article in First Things, James Turner Johnson argued that the traditional formulation of the "Just War" doctrine was composed of three elements, (1) a sovereign authority acting pursuant to (2) a just cause (which is a cause intended to maintain the public order) motivated by a (3) right intention. Johnson noted that the recently discussed additional elements of the doctrine that have been included in the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church and into the more common understanding of the doctrine originate perhaps as recently as 1978 and do not formulate part of the traditional doctrine. This issue, thus, is the core and heart of the moral debate surrounding the war.

What is really happening, though, is that post-modernism is lurking its ugly head. Post-modernism is the intellectual foundation by which the Democratic Party is attempting to redefine what are moral values and how they apply to governments. It is this redefinition of moral values that has led the Democratic Party to embrace abortion and homosexuality, and it is this redefinition of moral values that is the intellectual basis by which the Democratic Party challenges the Republican treatment of the poor and its conduct of the Iraqi war. We must challenge the Democrats to define their moral values and to substantiate them. As is the case with virtually all expressions of post-modernism, there is no basis at all to the post-modern construction of morality. This makes it all the more important to challenge the Democratic Party both when it attempts to redefine moral values impacting abortion and homosexuality and when it attempts to redefine moral values impacting the poor and the engaging in war.

In the context of this larger philosophical debate, I think that you and Brandon have to be presupposing that the Republican platform satisfies these basic moral thresholds. I do not think that you or Brandon believe that the Republican platform engages in any material violation of social justice. As such, if my assumption is correct, then I believe that the correct tact is to engage the Democrats on the merits of their accusations. That is, the only correct and persuasive manner to address those questions is (1) to clearly state what moral principles govern governments in these respects and (2) to explain why the Republican vision of government does not violate these basic principles. Then, we can articulate why the Democratic vision of government violates basic moral principles in its treatment of abortion and homosexuality. I do not know if it is theological, political, or philosophical, but we cannot let the Democratic political machine accuse the Republican Party of serious moral violations and then to dismiss those accusations as either not of equal moral imperative or as implicating issues shrouded in ambiguity. We must defend the Republican positions as not violating these basic moral principles.

Dan