I was asked to speak at an event this past weekend at Wittenberg University in Springfield, OH, just up the road from Cedarville. The topic was the relationship between my faith and my vote. I was given ten minutes to present my reasons. I am including them here.

Mark Caleb Smith, Ph.D. Cedarville University

Comments to Faith and Politics Forum Wittenberg University October 26, 2008

I am humbled to be here this afternoon, speaking about a topic that is overwhelming all others, one that is marching toward what seems an inevitable conclusion. Yes, I am here to speak about the condition of Ohio State football and the reality, it seems, for the first time in years the Buckeyes will not play for the national championship. As a fan and graduate of one of those southern schools, I cannot say I am disappointed, but I hope you will not hold that against me.

I would like to thank Dr. Percicepe for his invitation to speak to you this afternoon. When he called to ask me to discuss my faith and how it relates to my support for McCain, I expressed some chagrin. Most people, though I am sure Dr. Percicepe is not one of them, assume there is a bright line that exists, connecting faith to political outcomes, particularly for conservative Christians. The expected argument is: I am a Christian, therefore, I am a Republican. Being a Republican, naturally, should yield an undying love for John McCain. While I am here to explain why I will vote for McCain, my level of enthusiasm, as well as the reasons behind my vote, may be different from what you expect. When I look at the two major party nominees, my first inclination is to quote the great scholar and sage Jay Leno, who said, "If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."

In order of importance to me, as I look at the political landscape, I am an evangelical Christian and an ideological conservative. As a conservative, I am most often comfortable with Republicans, though I am finding out the party is not all that comfortable with ideological conservatives. There is a difference between a party and an ideology. Parties exist, in my mind, to win elections, to bring people together so the party might become more powerful. A party's relationship to ideas, then, shifts depending on what is most likely to win votes. There are very few core beliefs inherent to a party, then, and even when those become politically problematic, they will be jettisoned. I keep my party at arm's length, always willing to critique it, often holding my nose as I vote for it.

I am an evangelical Christian. I believe that God's grace, through his son, Jesus Christ, has saved me from my sinful condition. I cannot earn that grace, nor can I resist it. I believe that all humans, like me, are sinners in need of God's redeeming work in their lives. For those who doubt the sinfulness of humans, let me make two recommendations: have children or pay attention to the news. In both cases, what is observed will shake anyone's belief in inherent human goodness. I believe the Bible is God's Holy Word and that it is authoritative in all it affirms. I also believe that as Christians we have both a spiritual and social responsibility as we interact with our surrounding culture. I believe the flaw of fundamentalism is its willingness to ignore our social and bodily needs, while the flaw of a more liberal Christianity, one that sees salvation as simply met physical and economic needs, is that it fails to recognize our basic spirituality and our need for redemption.

I grew up in a religious home, a charter member of what some might call the Christian right. I had a conversion experience when I was quite young, though I did not really grasp the meaning of that event until I was about eighteen years old. I was a product of religious education and frequent church attendance, but I was not seized by God's plan for my life until well into my college years. Since then, I have been consumed with learning more about my faith in general, but in particular, how my faith is supposed to change the way I look at the world. Given my profession, I have drifted into the political arena.

As I have wrestled with my faith, I have done my best to be open to a clearer understanding of political reality. I have tried to examine my own attachments and preferences, always seeking to filter them through Scripture when appropriate. I am attempting to avoid what natural law philosopher J. Budziszewski calls projective accommodation. This occurs when individuals approach scripture in an effort to justify their political positions. Under this method, Scripture becomes whatever it needs to be in order to confirm our own ideals. This is a common problem on the political right and the political left, members of which regularly wrap themselves in Scripture, abusing the Word of God in the process. This is especially true when Christ is used as a political tool. I am reminded of Tod Lindberg, who wrote recently:

"Jesus was neither a progressive Democrat bent on income redistribution nor a neo-conservative Republican promoting a radical democracy agenda. It is impossible to determine from the Gospels whether Jesus would favor or oppose private accounts for Social Security. Jesus did not address the question of what the optimal rate of taxation of capital gain is. In my view, mining the New Testament for insight into such questions is anachronistic--and worse than useless. In how many cases has someone with a political agenda consulted scripture only to have scripture reveal that his or her agenda is all wrong?" [Tod Lindberg, The Political Teachings of Jesus, 2007.]

In this spirit, then, here are some of my relevant political beliefs and how they may or may not relate to Scripture.

The Bible does not teach a particular political ideology, nor does it endorse a form of government or an economic system. When people argue that it does, they are almost always abusing Scripture for their own purposes. Let's take one quick example. Often, people on the religious left argue that Christ's Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 5, where he says "blessed are the peacemakers," and later his admonition to "turn the other cheek," requires Christians to be strict pacifists. This would be like building an understanding of war on the book of Joshua, where God tells the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman, child, and beast because they occupied the Promised Land. Both are only parts of the whole of Scripture and the whole of Scripture must be examined before a doctrine is developed.

Christ's ministry was not inherently political. Christ came to right our relationship with God. While there may be serious political ramifications that flow from Christ's ministry, to equate him with a political figure is to ignore most of Scripture. If Christ had come to establish a political realm, why would Satan, when he tempted Christ, offer him political power? In other instances, when Christ was given the opportunity to make political statements, he refused to do so. To make Christ purely political is to demean his divinity.

Human beings, as I mentioned earlier, are inherently sinful. Sinfulness does not mean, however, hopelessness. Government can curb human behavior; it serves to make our world safer and better than it could be if government did not exist. The great mistake of many modern conservatives is their persistent belief that government is the problem behind our ills. At the same time, government cannot save souls. Those who think it can are guilty of the great mistake of modern liberalism, which is the persistent belief that government is the solution to our ills.

I am a conservative, but not only due to Scripture. I distrust government as a tool for social and economic change. Government is as likely to be a problem as it is to be a solution. This is because of human nature. James Madison, in Federalist Paper #51, wrote, "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Our founders understood the potential and pitfalls of government. When I make political decisions, I lean toward candidates who share that understanding.

This has implications for my understanding of government and economics. We know from Scripture and our study of history that governments have a tendency toward despotism. This should influence our approach to dealing with other governments, via foreign policy, as well as our understanding of what government might accomplish domestically. I distrust any effort to pass policies aimed at changing the human condition. Efforts to rid the world of poverty, for example, are doomed to failure. Poverty exists due to sin in the world, so the poor will exist as long as humans remain sinful. This does not mean that poor people are sinful, but it does mean that the existence of poverty, of some being in want or in need, is a consequence of the fallenness of human nature.

Does this mean that we as Christians should wash our hands of this problem? Of course not. Scripture makes it clear we should be concerned with poverty. Scripture does NOT, however, determine how we should deal with it. Some Christians believe we should rely on government to intervene, particularly through poverty programs. Others are convinced that free markets, in combination with voluntary efforts, are the most effective way to help the poor. I favor the latter approach because of my study of history. However, it would be unwise, and without biblical support, for me to argue that Scripture requires this approach. This is a political question, not a doctrinal one. The doctrinal matter is clear: we should care for the poor. The best method to do so is one of politics. With that said, I do believe that capitalism assumes that self-interest is a driving force in human behavior. I think capitalism properly accounts for human nature far more than more centralized systems--like socialism or communism--or even softer forms of statism, like we have seen in Europe in the recent past.

Finally, I am also conservative socially. Scripture makes it clear, and civilizations throughout human history have agreed, that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Scripture also teaches that human beings are created in God's image. Not even sin changes that. I prefer policies, then, that recognize this basic sanctity of human life.

On the whole, John McCain comes closer to my preferences, and for these reasons, and a host of others, I will vote for John McCain.