Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
The question of a candidate�s faith�how it informs his or her public behavior and voting, whether it�s right or wrong for a Christian to reflect his Christianity in public life�has been a big topic this year.
I remember when I was first elected to the Virginia Senate in 1988, it was well known that I was an evangelical Christian. Since I spent two years in the Philippines as a missionary, everybody knew they were voting for a born-again Christian.
I don�t remember if anybody worried that I would impose my beliefs as a senator. But if they did, they worried for nothing. I didn�t see my job as trying to fulfill biblical prophecy or �impose� Christian views on people.
Indeed, I think a Christian in public office is to work for sound public policy and the common good, which is exactly how I felt. Of course, for a Christian, actions are always going to be informed by a biblical understanding about life. If you believe humans are created in the image of God, it�s going to lead you to vote to respect human life�particularly for the voiceless, the vulnerable, and those with no advocate. From the earliest stages of life to the latest stages of life, it will lead one to defend human rights and human dignity. That�s why Chuck Colson and I are in prison ministry. We believe that life is created in the image of God and every prisoner is precious in God�s sight, regardless of how society may feel about him.
The argument that Christians want to impose their views�and all of the venom that has been heaped upon Christian candidates this election cycle�is born of a terrible misconception. Indeed, the first time that argument was made was in the 1860 presidential campaign when Lincoln�s opponents argued that he wanted to �impose his views� in abolishing slavery. But, he didn�t impose his views. He worked for a public consensus, and though a civil war followed, in the aftermath of that war, the Constitution was amended to reflect what is true. Thank God Lincoln took a strong stand that was consistent with his faith.
In order to avoid the charge of imposition, some politicians say, �I�m a Christian, and I believe in the sanctity of life, but I won�t do anything to stop abortion.� That�s like saying that your faith is central to your life, but when it comes to your actions in public office, other considerations override it.
I don�t know how people try to justify that, and I don�t think that you could get away with that in any other era besides our present one. People today believe that �all truth is relative, and all truth claims are merely preferences.� So even though that statement is self-contradictory, it goes right into the public debate, and no one notices, and no one says a word.
It�s analogous to the discredited defense in the Nuremburg trails after World War II. There some of the Nazi leaders said they personally opposed Hitler�s policies, but they were just following orders.
In reality, they were violating the moral law, just as taking unborn life is violating the moral law. You can�t excuse it by saying you�re personally opposed.
So as you look over all the candidates for office, from county assessor to president, look for consistency in behavior between a person�s professed deepest convictions and his or her actions. If it�s not there, that should set off warning bells.
|
