[1] What's a Lutheran to say about Mark Noll's essay "None of
the Above: Why I'm not Voting for President"? Noll says he's
not voting. In fact, he hasn't voted in years — not because
he's too lazy to go to the polls or because he doesn't care about
the issues, but because American politics has gotten so bad that
not voting is the best he can do as a Christian. The crisis,
apparently, has to do with the political parties. Noll holds
a set of political positions, positions shaped by his Christian
convictions, which he can't find represented by the political
parties. Or more accurately, Noll can't find his positions
represented by any one party. Certainly the parties together
address the issues which concern him. The problem is that
Noll's collective positions are not held collectively by any one
party. Noll is pro-life (Republican), but he thinks we need
to improve race relations (Democrat); he favors progressive
taxation (Democrat), but also free trade (Republican); he wants
aggressive advocacy of religious liberty (Republican), but also
more comprehensive health care (Democrat). Since Noll's
political convictions are represented sometimes by Republicans and
sometimes by Democrats, he can't in good conscience vote for either
of them. On election day he does nothing!
[2] What's a Lutheran to say? First, as a Lutheran, I
would like to express my sympathy with Noll's anguished conscience,
paralyzed into inaction as it is by the inescapable claims of
conflicting duty. But second, as a Lutheran, I want to
admonish Noll to take more seriously his obligation under God to
fulfill his civic duty. Christians, after all, are obliged in
conscience to obey the governing authorities, and, in a democracy,
that political obligation includes the obligation to vote.
[3] The real problem may have less to do with the parties and
more to do with the Noll's political expectations. Noll seems
not to recognize that politics, as a postlapsarian enterprise,
naturally involves compromise. From a theological perspective
we can say that politics is constituted in the Noachic Covenant by
God's compromise with an obdurately sinful creation; from a natural
perspective we can see that politics is constituted by the
compromise between competing interests. Noll, however,
insists on all or nothing. He's got a set of positions on
seven political issues, each equally paramount from his Christian
point of view, and since neither party has taken up these issues in
their entirety, Noll feels compelled as a Christian to drop out of
the political process.
[4] Perhaps we can get at the heart of things by considering a
distinction, not original to me, between the Christian as a member
of the church and the Christian as a member of the body
politic. As a member of the church, the individual Christian
represents together with the church the cause of the church, which
is nothing other than the proclamation of the gospel. Since
the gospel addresses the human being concretely, it addresses the
human being in his or her time and place. Thus the
proclamation of the gospel sometimes has political
implications. It can point to concerns which arise only in a
particular historical setting. For example, because the
gospel calls Christians to love their neighbors all and equally,
its proclamation may have implications for how Christians in a
particular time and place think about issues like abortion or race
or poverty. Nonetheless, the proclamation of the gospel by
the church should not be confused with politics. The gospel
addresses the individual first, who, by hearing the call to
faithfulness together with others, brings forth a new community in
the midst of a world that knows it not. As a member of this
new community, the Christian represents the cause of the gospel
without compromise. At the same time, she does not mistake
the spiritual ends of the church with the temporal ends of the body
politic.
[5] The Christian knows, in a way others do not, that politics
is a limited enterprise. Its purpose is not to solve the
human condition, but to provide that space in which the church can
proclaim the gospel to the individual in his or her entirety, as a
person claimed by God with needs and aspirations that transcend the
political. For this reason the political enterprise is
rightly described as autonomous — not autonomous from God's will or
the demands of justice, but autonomous in the sense that its end is
separate from the spiritual end of the church. The end of
politics is to maintain order and justice so that the members of
the body politic may hear the call of the church. This work
of preservation, while essential to the mission of the church,
necessarily takes on its own form, a form different from that of
the church's work. Whereas the church is ruled by the uncompromising grace of
the gospel, politics is ruled by the law of compromise, itself grounded
in God's compromise with rebellious creation and symbolized for the ages
by the rainbow.
[6] Because politics is an autonomous enterprise built on
compromise, the church never contributes directly (except in times
of crisis) to the political task. Sound political action
requires assessing complex dynamics and interrelationship, a task
that depends on the light of reason not the light of the
gospel. Consider a few examples suggested by Noll's own list
of political priorities. Noll favors "sharply progressive
taxation." This Christianly inspired moral imperative most
likely follows from a conception of justice that favors the
needy. But the ability to help such people depends upon
economic prosperity, and a system of taxation too sharply
progressive might stunt the economy in a way that renders helping
the needy impossible. Noll favors free trade, but free trade
leads to outsourcing and the shutting down of American factories,
which hurts the same needy Noll would help with progressive
taxation. In short, the imperative to help the poor stands in
tension with economic realities, and determining a course of
political action requires recognizing the competing realities and
compromising between them. A well-intentioned but uninformed
Christian unwilling to compromise on his moral commitments might do
more harm dealing with such questions than a hard-nosed heathen who
understands the social and political dynamics. When does
progressive taxation undermine economic growth? When does
economic growth produce unacceptable social costs? These
questions have no clear Christian answer; they must be answered by
natural reason. What foolishness, then, for a Christian to
insist on particular answers to these questions as a condition of
his political participation! How much better for a Christian,
who knows that politics is an alien but necessary work of God, to
accept his political responsibility cheerfully!
[7] The Christian, as a member of the body politic, knows that
politics will never achieve what in the fullness of time will be
achieved through the church and its gospel. For this reason
the Christian is detached from the game of politics, and, in a
democracy, his orientation toward the parties is fundamentally
neutral. Political parties by their nature are a
conglomeration of constituencies seeking to advance their interests
by seizing the levers of power, but forced repeatedly into
compromise by the competing claims of other constituencies and
interests. Even political platforms, couched in lofty and
noble language, reflect the compromise between competing interests
within a party. Thus the Christian does not look to the
parties to advance a "Christian political program." Rather he
seeks to judge between the parties by asking himself which
conglomeration of interests is more likely, in this place and
moment of time, to further the common good. Casting a vote,
of course, means compromising. The Christian must "dirty his
hands" by supporting a party that does not share all his political
convictions. But what comfort he takes in the knowledge that
before God his vain efforts count for nothing! Even if he
votes poorly, God can bring good out of it!
[8] What's a Lutheran to say to Mark Noll? How
about: Sin boldly! Go vote!
Helmut David Baer is an Associate Professor of Theology and
Philosophy at Texas Lutheran University.
© November 2004
Journal of Lutheran Ethics
Volume 4, Issue 11