The Republican presidential candidates are but a few weeks away from the all-important first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, the first step in securing the presidential nomination on the road to the White House. But there is one candidate who is having trouble courting some evangelical voters, experiencing the same dilemma as he suffered four years ago when he ran for the nation’s highest office in Iowa. The man’s name is Mitt Romney and one of the reasons he is having trouble garnering support is because of his religious beliefs. Romney, you see, is a practicing Mormon. Even after four years of trying to woo middle-America supporters, Romney’s “Mormon problem” simply won’t die.
Iowa political director for former Speaker of the House and presidential candidate Newt Gringrich, Craig Bergman, told a McClatchy Newspaper focus group that “a lot of evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon.”
Bergman’s comments do not seem to be that far removed from reality (yet, ironically, he was fired the following day for his assessment).
The Ethics and Public Policy Center has been studying this very issue and report a large number of voters “refuse to vote for a Mormon.” And the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life pointed out in a recent poll there are “really high negatives for Romney among white evangelicals” because of his religion. David Lane of Iowa’s Pastors and Pews—an evangelical who is instrumental in mobilizing like-minded Christians—said bluntly, “Eighty percent of evangelicals will not vote for Romney in a contested primary, and 20 to 30 percent will stay home or go third party in the general election because of the Mormon issue.”
Then there are others who lament the other imperfect candidate, Newt Gingrich, who is currently on his third marriage and publicly admitted to an extramarital affair during his tenure in the 1990s as Speaker of the House. Conservative evangelicals openly wonder how they can cast a vote for someone who has had multiple wives.
But are these legitimate concerns, troubling enough to disqualify someone from the nation’s highest elected office? Are evangelicals prohibited from voting for Romney because of his religious views? Should evangelicals not vote for Gingrich because of marital infidelity? Should Christians only vote for . . . the perfect candidate?
I say no, and here is why. For starters, King David.
David was an extraordinary man gifted by God, whose life included a number of highs and lows. He was singlemindedly committed to Yahweh, an author of sacred scripture, a man after the Lord’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14). Yet despite all of these positive qualities, David was guilty of some of the most flagrant and egregious sins in the bible, including adultery and murder. Fortunately for David—and for the rest of us, for that matter—the Bible does not do away with morally compromised people. For example, consider the life of the apostle Paul (formerly, Saul of Tarsus), the chief of all sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). Here was a man whose life’s work and mission included the zealous persecution and murder of Christ-followers, yet his life was transformed and he even became an author of two-thirds of the New Testament. Not only this, his new-found zeal for Christ following his conversion resulted in the establishment of countless churches throughout Europe and Asia. So does God give up on sinners and limit what they are qualified to do because of personal transgressions? No. So that should not be our mindset either. The message and good news that Christianity carries is redemption and restoration for those who repent.
But what about someone who does not believe in the God of the Bible? Can we vote for someone who is a non-Christian?
To begin with, I believe it is good to proceed cautiously through this issue since none of the Bible’s authors lived in a society like the one we now enjoy. However, we can use Scripture, as much as practical, to address this question, even though there is no explicit command or example to follow. That said, I believe there is some scriptural warrant for Christians to vote for the individual who upholds policies that will be for the societal good—good as defined by the Bible, of course. This divinely structured “common good” presumably includes adhering to laws and policies that reflect the righteousness, love, and justice of God. With this in mind, it would seem that Scripture provides us with principles by which we are able to evaluate candidates and their role in providing justice for citizens under their realm of influence. Here, then, are seven ways in which justice is to be achieved personally and through the state:
1. Love of neighbors. Christ commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. And neighbors, according to Jesus, include all those who likewise are fashioned in the image of God. We are to love all mankind and are to treat everyone as our neighbor (Luke 10:27–37).
2. Help others in need. Everything we possess is on loan from God. He shares with us temporal blessings in order that we, in gracious love, help the less fortunate, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort the weary (Matt. 25:31–46). Both church and state play a role in accomplishing that end.
3. Exercise righteous judgment and ensure justice is served. As mentioned previously, the civil government is to ensure righteousness prevails, and the Old Testament is just as adamant with calls for justice and condemnations of injustice directed to the state (Deut. 24:19–22; Prov. 31:8–9; Isa. 58:6–10).
4. Ensure religious expression prevails. King Darius in Daniel 6 serves as a striking example of what to do and what not to do. He should be applauded for having Daniel as one of his administrators, but he was wrong for surrounding himself with foolish advisors that eventually convinced him to pass laws suppressing religious expression and condemning Daniel to the lion’s den. The lesson here is that everyone one of us must surround ourselves with wise friends and advisors so that we do not make similar foolish choices. Politically speaking, presidents have this power through appointing God-fearing judges to courts who will uphold Judeo-Christian principles and not seek—like so many secular activist judges of today—to overthrow religious freedom as Darius’ advisors tried centuries ago.
5. Be financially responsible. The Proverbs are filled with advice regarding the wisdom of working diligently and saving compared with laziness and reckless spending (Prov. 6:6–8; 10:4; 13:11; 21:5; 24:3–4; etc.). Our elected leaders have a moral responsibility to their citizens to use resources wisely, just as we are responsible to God to use the money prudently that he has entrusted to us (Matt. 25:14–30; Rom. 12:5–8).
6. Exercise dominion over God’s resourceful earth. The Lord placed Adam and Eve in the Garden and charged them with ruling over the entirety of his creation (Gen. 1:26). All resources and materials in the earth were deliberately placed there by God to provide shelter, food, medicine, and other advancements we discover daily in order to improve living conditions around the world. Part of exercising dominion includes the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the earth (Adam and Eve were required to work the Garden before the fall) and help other nations utilize their natural resources to benefit their citizens as well.
7. Obey the commands of God for an orderly society. The Ten Commandments—a summation of the moral law—contain, in addition to our duty towards God, our duty towards each other. What this essentially says to us is that there is a right way and a wrong to function in a society. The Lord outlined the basic social fabric for civilizations that we must esteem and maintain. In political terms, this means respecting the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, family values, honesty, and the rule of law.
The candidate who embraces these principles and strives to maintain them is the leader whose behavior the Bible supports, even if that person is not a believing Christian. So can a believer in good conscience vote for a candidate who is not a practicing Christian? I believe it is permissible for a Christian to vote for someone who will uphold the dignity of all life, respect the divine institution of marriage, promote Christian values, exercise fiscal restraint, and appoint biblically-minded men and women to serve as just judges. In fact, I would go beyond merely suggesting it is permissible and argue that it is our duty to vote for someone who will champion these fundamental truths. When we elect the president into public office, we are not casting a vote for Theologian-in-Chief, but, rather, for Commander-in-Chief.
Our overriding concern should be for the advancement of the common good of the society, and that necessarily entails someone who will uphold and advance Christian ethics and principles. Whether that individual truly understands what he or she is doing or the true reason behind their worldview is an entirely different issue altogether. So long as Christ’s commands are obeyed and carried forth, we can in good conscience know a vote for biblical principles is a vote for righteousness. And in that, Christians should take comfort.
