In
this year of presidential elections, I decided to summarize key values
that guide me as I make the decision for whom to cast my vote. It takes
knowing three basic things to choose a candidate for public office
responsibly:
- values we hope the candidate will stand for and the order of
priority among them (which requires of us knowledge of faith as a whole,
rather than just a few favorite topics, and how it applies to
contemporary life);
- ways in which and means by which these values are best implemented
in any given situation (which requires of us a great deal of knowledge
about how the world actually functions and what policies lead to what
outcomes—for instance, whether it would be economically a wise decision
to try to reintroduce the gold standard);
- capacity—ability and determination—to contribute to the
implementation of these values (which requires of us knowledge of the
track record of the candidate).
Most important are the values. As I identified each value, I (1)
named the basic content of the value, (2) give a basic rationale for
holding it, (3) suggest some parameters of legitimate debate about it,
and (4) identify a key question for the candidate.
I write as a Christian theologian, from the perspective of my own
understanding of the Christian faith. Whole books have been written on
each of them, explicating and adjudicating complex debates. In giving a
rationale for a given value, I only take one or two verses from the
Bible to back up my position, more to flag the direction in which a
rationale would need to go than, in fact, to strictly offer such a
rationale.
0. Christ as the Measure all Values
Value: The ultimate allegiance of a Christian is to Jesus
Christ, the creative Word (become flesh), which enlightens everyone, and
the redeeming Lamb of God, which bears the sin of the whole world. A
Christian ought not embrace any practice, no matter how prudent it may
seem from the standpoint of national security or national competitive
advantage, which conflicts with her or his allegiance to Christ.
Rationale: “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11)
Debate: For Christians, the debate should not be whether
one’s allegiance to Christ trumps one’s allegiance to the nation. The
debate should be what key values for national life follow from their
allegiance to Jesus Christ and what the proper relation is between the
universal claims of Christ and the particular claims of the nation.
Question to Ask: To what extent is the candidate merely
seeking to serve the “goddess nation” and to what extent is what he
stands for compatible with the Christian conviction that Christ is the
key to human flourishing?
1. Freedom of Religion (and Irreligion)
Value: All people are responsible for their own life, and
they have the right to embrace a faith or a way of life they deem
meaningful and abandon the one with which they no longer identify
without suffering discrimination.
Rationale: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will
be saved” (Romans 10:9). "When many of his disciples heard it, they
said, ‘This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?’... Because of
this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with
him. So Jesus asked the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’” (John
6:60, 66-67).
Debate: The debatable issue should not be whether people
should be free to choose and exercise their religion (or irreligion)
without discrimination; that’s a given. Public debate should be about
which way of life, including its public dimensions or implications, is
more salutary, and whether there are ways of life so inimical to human
flourishing and common life that their exclusion doesn’t represent an
act of discrimination but is a condition of humane social life. We
should also debate the moral foundation of a state that is “neutral”
with regard to distinct faiths and secular interpretations of life as
well as the precise nature of political arrangements required to keep
the state “neutral.”
Questions To Ask: Does the candidate respect the right of
all—Christians and Muslims, fundamentalists and secularists,
conservatives and progressives, to name a few groups often at odds with
one another—to take personal responsibility for their lives and to lead
them as they see fit? Does the candidate think of America as a Christian
nation (so that, in one way or another, all others have to fit into a
Christian mould) or as a pluralistic nation (in which a way of life is
not imposed on anyone without their endorsement)?
2. Education
Value: It is important for all citizens to understand the
world in which they live, to learn to reflect critically on what makes
life worth living, and to acquire qualifications for jobs which
increasingly require complex skills. We should strive for excellent and
affordable education for all citizens.
Rationale: “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our
image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creeps upon the earth’” (Genesis 1:26). "To you, O people, I call,
and my cry is to all that live. O simple ones, learn prudence; acquire
intelligence, you who lack it. … Take my instruction instead of silver,
and knowledge rather than choice gold; for wisdom is better than jewels,
and all that you may desire cannot compare with her" (Proverbs 8:4-5,
10-11).
Debate: The debate should be about what families and
government must do to improve the educational system, what exactly
improvements in education look like, and what proportion of the budget
should be allotted for educational purposes (as compared to, for
instance, defense). The debate should not be about whether we should
have an educational system that is both excellent and affordable for
all.
Question to Ask: What will the candidate do to ensure that
all citizens—the poor no less than the wealthy—are taught to make
intelligent judgments about what makes life worth living, acquire skills
necessary for functioning in modern societies, and have an adequate
understanding of the world?
3. Economic Growth
Value: Economic
growth is not a value in its own
right because increasing wealth and money are not values in their own
right. They are means—indispensible means, but only means—to human
flourishing, which consists more in righteousness than in possessions.
Rationale: “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will
either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and
despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. … But strive first
for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will
be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:24, 33).
Debate: We can abandon the old debate about whether
efficient wealth creation or just wealth distribution is more important;
both are important, for we cannot distribute what we don’t have and we
should not possess what is given to us to pass on to others. Instead, we
should debate about what are morally irresponsible (wall-street
gambling!), inhumane (child labor!), and unsustainable (deforestation!)
ways of creating wealth and how to create wealth in humanly and
ecologically sustainable ways; what kind of wealth contributes to human
flourishing; how to make wealth serve us instead of us serving wealth.
Question to Ask: Which candidate is reminding us that we
diminish ourselves when we turn into money-making and consumption
obsessed creatures and that we flourish when we pursue truth, goodness,
and beauty, that we are truly ourselves when we reach to others in
solidarity and enjoy one another in love?
4. Work and Employment
Value: Every person should have meaningful and, if employed
for pay, adequately remunerated work. All able citizens should work to
take care of their needs and to contribute to the wellbeing of others
and the planet.
Rationale: “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat” (2
Thessalonians 3:10). The prophet Isaiah envisions a time when all God’s
people “shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards
and eat their fruit” (Isaiah 65:21). Jesus said, “It is more blessed to
give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
Debate: The debate should be about what are the required
economic, cultural, and political conditions for people to have
meaningful work, and who is mainly responsible to create and maintain
these conditions. How can we best fight unemployment and
underemployment? Given the present state of economy and future economic
developments, how can we stimulate the creation of jobs that pay
adequate wages?
Questions to Ask: What policies does the candidate propose
to help encourage meaningful employment and adequate pay for all people?
What will the candidate do to encourage people to work not just for
personal gain but for the common good?
5.
Debt
Value: As individuals and as a nation, we should live within
our means and not borrow beyond what we can reasonably expect to
return; we shouldn’t offload onto others, whether our contemporaries or
future generations, the price of our over-reaching or risk-taking;
instead, we should save so as to be able to give to others who are less
fortunate then we.
Rationale: “It is more blessed to give than to receive”
(Acts 20:35). “Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labour and
work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share
with the needy” (Ephesians 4:28).
Debate: We should debate about what are responsible levels
of debt for households, businesses, or a nation; what constitutes
predatory lending practices and how to prevent them; to what degree, if
at all, spending on consumer goods should be promoted as cure for a
faltering economy; and what might be public significance of contentment.
Questions to Ask: What will a candidate do to bring and keep
national debt under control? What will the candidate do to encourage
individual saving and living within one’s means?
6. The Poor
Value: The poor—above all those without adequate food or
shelter—deserve our special concern. (‘The moral test of government is
how it treats people in the dawn of life, the children, in the twilight
of life, the aged, and in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and
the handicapped” [Hubert Humphrey])
Rationale: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you
shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings
of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the alien: I
am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 23:22). “There will, however, be no one
in need among you, because the LORD is sure to bless you in the land
that the LORD your God is giving you as a possession to occupy”
(Deuteronomy 15:4).
Debate: There should be no debate whether fighting extreme
poverty is a top priority of the government. That’s a given. We should
debate the following: How to generate a sense of solidarity with the
poor among all citizens? In poverty alleviation, what is the proper role
of governments and what of individuals, religious communities, and
civic organizations? What macroeconomic conditions most favor lifting
people out of poverty? What should the minimum wage be?
Question to Ask: Is overcoming extreme poverty (rather than
fostering the wellbeing of the middle class) a priority for the
candidate? For what poverty reducing policies is the candidate prepared
to fight?
7. The Elderly
Value: Those who are frail on account of their advanced age
deserve our special help. They need adequate medical assistance, social
interaction, and meaningful activities. (The humanity of a society is
measured perhaps especially by how it treats those no longer capable of
doing “useful” work.)
Rationale: “Father of orphans and protector of widows is God
in his holy habitation” (Psalm 68:5). (In today’s world, the “elderly,”
arguably, belong to the categories of the “poor” and “widows.)”
Debate: The debate here is about the extent of the
responsibility for the wellbeing of the elderly. How much resources
should a society set aside for the care of elderly, and what are the
best ways to manage those resources?
Question to Ask: What will you do to help honor the elderly and attend to their specific needs?
8. Unborn
Value: Unborn human life, just like fully developed human life, deserves our respect, protection, and nurture.
Rationale: “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you
knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13); “You shall not
murder” (Exodus 20:13).
Debate: There is a legitimate debate about the point at which life that can plausibly be deemed
human
begins and whether the best way to reduce abortions is to criminalize
abortion or to improve the living conditions of the poor (for instance,
through fighting poverty in inner cities, providing education for women,
making available affordable child-care).
Question to Ask: Is the candidate firmly committed to
reducing the number of abortions performed, to make it not just safe
when it is legal, but also rare?
9. Healthcare
Value: All people—poor or rich—should have access to
affordable basic healthcare, just as all are responsible for living in a
way conducive to physical and mental health.
Rationale: “Jesus went through all the cities and villages,
teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom,
and curing every disease and every sickness” (Matthew 9:35).
Debate: There is a legitimate debate as to how best to
ensure that all people have access to affordable healthcare—but not as
to whether the destitute should or should not be left to fend for
themselves when faced with serious or chrnic illness. We roughly know
what it takes to lead a healthy lifestyle (exercise, minimal intake of
sugar, no substance abuse, etc.), but we can and ought to debate most
effective ways to help people lead such a lifestyle (for instance, how
heavily should the food industry be regulated).
Questions to Ask: Which candidate is more likely to give the
destitute effective access to healthcare? Which candidate is more
likely to reduce the number of people who need to seek medical help?
10. Care for Creation
Value: We are part of God’s creation, and we must seek to
preserve the integrity of God’s creation as an interdependent ecosystem
and, if possible, to pass it on to the future generations improved.
Above all, we should not damage creation by leading lifestyles marked
by acquisitiveness and wastefulness.
Rationale: “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed,
it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). “The Lord God took the man and put
him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15).
Debate: The debate here should be about the extent of
present ecological damage (for instance, whether or not we are barreling
toward a climate apocalypse) and about the appropriate means and
sacrifices necessary to preserve God’s creation.
Question to Ask: Which candidate shows a better
understanding of the ecological health of the planet and has a better
track record in preventing the devastation of what God has created and
pronounced good?
11. Death Penalty
Value: Death should never be punishment for a crime. Since
out of love Christ died for every human being (“the world”), no one
should rob a human being of a chance to be transformed by God’s love,
and no one should put to death a human being who has been transformed by
God’s love.
Rationale: “Jesus straightened up and said to her [the woman
caught in adultery, an act for which the Old Testament proscribes death
penalty], ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said,
‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way,
and from now on do not sin again’” (John 8:10-11). “For God so loved the
world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him
may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3:16).
Debate: Notwithstanding the Old Testament endorsement of death penalty, for Christians, there is no debate on this one.
Question to Ask: Will the candidate push to abolish capital punishment, and if so, how hard?
12. Criminal Offenders
Value: Mere retributive punishment is an inadequate and
mistaken way of dealing with offenders. We need to find creative ways to
reconcile offenders to their victims and reintegrate them into the
society.
Rationale: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to
himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation”
(2 Corinthians 5:18). “For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made
both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the
hostility between us” (Ephesians 2:14).
Debate: We should debate viable alternatives to
incarceration (of which the U.S. has the highest rate in the world!) and
how best to achieve the reintegration of offenders into the society. We
should also debate the extent to which ethnic and racial prejudices are
influencing our practices—more specifically why it is that Hispanics
and African-Americans make up the largest proportion of the prison
population—as well as the effect of the privatization of prisons on the
increase of the prison population (the U.S. has the highest per capita
prison population of any country in the world!).
Question to Ask: What does the candidate propose to do to reduce the number of incarcerated people in the U.S.?
13. World Hunger
Value: Given the world’s resources, no human being should go
hungry; as individuals and a nation we should be committed to complete
eradication of hunger.
Rationale: “[The Lord] executes justice for the oppressed …
gives food to the hungry” (Psalm 146:7); “Then he [the Son of Man] will
say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me
into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was
hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to
drink” (Matthew 25:41-42).
Debate: The debate should not be whether the eradication of
world hunger ought to be one of our top priorities but what are the most
effective ways to achieve that goal, including how best to fight
corruption in countries in which hunger is widespread.
Questions to Ask: Is the candidate committed to the
eradication of world hunger, and if so, what means will he use toward
that goal? Is the candidate prepared to set aside a percentage of the
Gross National Product for the eradication of hunger?
14. Equality of Nations
Value: No nation represents an exception to the requirements
of justice that should govern relations between nations. America should
exert its unique international power by doing what is just and should
pursue its own interests in concert with other nations of the world.
Rationale: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
Debate: The debate should not be whether America is somehow
exceptional (and therefore permitted to do what other nations are
not—for instance, carrying out raids on foreign soil in search for
terrorists). The debate should, rather, be about what it means for the
one remaining superpower to act responsibly in the community of nations.
Question to Ask: At the international level, would the
candidate renounce a double moral standard: one for the U.S. and its
allies and another for the rest of the world? Even when the candidate
considers an American perspective morally superior, will he seek to
persuade other nations in the moral rightness of these values rather
than imposing them on other nations?
15. War
Value: War is almost never justifiable, and every successful
justification has to show how a particular war is an instance of loving
one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies.
Rationale: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love
your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies
and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of
your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the
good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you
love those who love you, what reward do you have?” (Matthew 5:43-46).
Debate: There is a legitimate debate about whether acts of
war can ever be a form of love of neighbor and of enemy and, if they
can, about what are causes that justify war (rule of a tyrant?) and what
constitutes just conduct of war (drones?).
Questions to Ask: Has the candidate supported or advocated
ending unjust wars in the past? Has the candidate condemned significant
forms of unjust conduct of war?
16. Torture
Value: We should never torture. It dehumanizes both the
detainee and the interrogator by violating the dignity of the one and
degrading the integrity of the other, [1] and it erodes the moral
character of the nation approving it. (For a definition of torture, see
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html.)
Rationale: “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).
Debate: There is no debate on this one—at least not a debate
that, from my reading of Christian moral obligations, is legitimate.
Even if torture were effective (which, according to most knowledgeable
sources, it is not), it would be morally unacceptable.
Question to Ask: Has the candidate unequivocally condemned the use of torture?
17. Honoring Everyone
Value: We should honor every human being and respect all
faiths (without necessarily affirming them as true). As citizens, we
have the right to mock another religion, but as followers of Christ, we
have a moral obligation not to.
Rationale: “Honor everyone” (1 Peter 2:17).
Debate: The debate about one’s relation to other religions should not be whether we have the
right
to mock what others hold to be holy; we do have that right. At the same
time, the debate should not be about whether we have a moral obligation
not to make use of that right; we ought not mock what other people hold
to be holy. Instead, the debate should be about what the authentic
teachings and practices of individual religions are, to what extent the
claims of their teachings are true (or false), and in what ways each
religion fosters (or hinders) human flourishing.
Question to Ask: Will the candidate promote respect for all
religions, including Islam, while at the same time affirming the need
for honest debate about how true and salutary they are?
18. Public Role of Religion
Value: Every citizen, religious or not, Christian, Jew, or
Muslim, has the right to bring his or her own perspectives on human
flourishing and on the common good to bear upon public life and to do so
on equal terms with everyone else.
Rationale: “But seek the welfare of the city where I have
sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its
welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7). “In everything do
to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the
prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
Debate: The debate should not be whether religious voices
should be excluded or not. It should be about what kind of political
arrangements will ensure the equal access of all to participation in the
political process on equal terms and what might be the limits to
legitimate pluralism.
Questions to Ask: Does the candidate support the
participation of every person in public life, encouraging them to do so
on the basis of their own specific motivations and reasons? Does the
candidate seek to protect the voices of ordinary people from being
drowned out by powerful interest groups (like lobbies and Super PACs)?
19. Truthfulness
Value: Those seeking public office should foreswear spin and
contempt, being truthful with the public and civil to one another. You
can “advertise” but not fabricate; you can criticize but not disrespect.
Rationale: We should all “[speak] the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) and seek to “honour everyone” (1 Peter 2:17).
Debate: While the line between advertising and spinning is
not always clear, the main debate should be about effective means to
diminish the spin and contempt that have became part of our democratic
system of elections.
Questions to Ask: Do the facts about the candidate’s own
performance as well as those of their opponent match with the
candidates’ words? Is the candidate attempting to correct rather than
seeking to benefit from the spin that others, without his direct
endorsement, do on his behalf.
20. Character
Value: Competence (technical expertise, including emotional
intelligence), though essential, matters less than character because
knowledge, though crucial, matters less than love.
Rationale: “If I … understand all mysteries and all knowledge … but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2).
Debate: The debate should be about what dimensions of
character matter most and what blend of virtues and competencies is most
needed at this time.
Questions to Ask: Whom does the candidate strive to be like?
To whom does he most resemble in character? Will the fear of losing
power corrupt him?
[1] See Jennifer S. Bryson, “My Guantanamo Experience: Support Interrogation, Reject Torture” (
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/3934/)
--
Ryan Bell has another tool to help Christians filter the teachings of Jesus in political discussion
here. Enjoy!!!
