John Piper has written publicly about how he will probably vote. I’ve shared my voting “philosophy” with friends but now Piper’s statement prompts me to make my own on this site.
Of course, whenever you get in a political discussion with others, you find that they don’t just disagree with you on one point, but on a host of points. They are convinced of many things that you “know” are not true. And they think the same of you.
So I will just remark at the outset, without offering argument or expecting readers to agree with me, that I interpret some of Piper’s statements far differently than he intends. For example:
Actually, this is a long-overdue article attempting to explain why I remain baffled that so many Christians consider the sins of unrepentant sexual immorality (porneia), unrepentant boastfulness (alazoneia), unrepentant vulgarity (aischrologia), unrepentant factiousness (dichostasiai), and the like, to be only toxic for our nation, while policies that endorse baby-killing, sex-switching, freedom-limiting, and socialistic overreach are viewed as deadly.
The reason I put those Greek words in parentheses is to give a graphic reminder that these are sins mentioned in the New Testament. To be more specific, they are sins that destroy people. They are not just deadly. They are deadly forever. They lead to eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
They destroy persons (Acts 12:20–23). And through persons, they destroy nations (Jeremiah 48:29–31, 42).
I assume Piper thinks this is a condemnation of Trump. If so, then it sounds like an obvious whitewash of every President we have had in this century and the last. Yes, Democracy promotes cheerleaders, including among professing Christians. That’s a sick fact. But it is not unique to Trump. And Piper would come across as more principled if he found a way to discourage such cheerleading in a more even-handed manner.
It also sounds like a whitewash of the DNC’s assemblage of candidates. Is he trying to say that we must choose between destructive character and destructive policies, as if we all agree that the Democratic Party is run by really virtuous people who support baby killing and hormonal abuse of children to stunt their sexual development while Trump is such a bastard that it is sad he is protecting the Church? That will come across as a delusional glorification of Biden’s character to many Christians.
I also note that it should be obvious why Christians are more concerned with policies than personal sins, no matter how flagrant. The New Testament is full of positive statements about pagan civil magistrates and how Christians should thank God for the good things they do. It is not obvious that those pagans were better than any American president.
So, on the face of it, Piper is arguing against the Apostle Paul, when he writes, “In fact, I think it is a drastic mistake to think that the deadly influences of a leader come only through his policies and not also through his person.” This is followed by texts that aren’t actually about civil rulers in a non-Christian society. Romans 13 is entirely missing from this post. Basically, Piper is morally repulsed by the current President and found Scriptures to support his repulsion but did not seriously look at the Bible for input on how Christians should view secular governors.
Piper may have a counterargument, but he didn’t feel the need to include it in his post on voting.
My View of Voting
I think that one of the weird things that is going on here is that Piper is enchanted with a kind of civil religion. Oddly, as much as self-admitted Christian Trump-voters are characterized as cult followers, the refusers (like Piper) strike me as the ones who turn voting into a a sacrament or confession of faith. Voting for the bad man will somehow taint you before God.
But if you find one of two bad possible futures preferable to the other, you don’t prefer the bad in that future by preferring the good. David wasn’t guilty of wanting his people to die when he made his preference known to God and chose plague over famine and war (2 Samuel 24:10-13). Likewise, if an Israelite chose to side with Jehu over the house of Ahab, that doesn’t necessarily make him guilty for Jehu continuing in the sins of Jeroboam by worshiping at the golden calves.
And the act of voting changes nothing about that. It does not make you a participant in someone’s sins. You are simply acting consistently with your preference in the context of your interpretation of God’s providence. Because, otherwise, voting in a national election is one of the most inconsequential things you ever do.
Mathematically, voting is stupid. Remember all the science fiction stories about time traveling and the dire consequences that occurred when the past was changed? If you changed every ballot I ever filled out throughout my life to the opposite, nothing would be different about the present. Voting, for an individual, is inconsequential to political outcomes.
But God does answer prayers, sometimes affirmatively. Lines of causation can be obscure just like any case of one friend asking another for a favor. But praying to God for a better future is not stupid, but wise.
But all prayer is not equally wise. Praying for a job promotion is usually superior to praying to get a million dollars in the next month. This is because, while prayer does involve wishing for a better future, it also involves interacting with God and how you see him working in the world.
So while I pray for a better political society in general, my more specific prayers are usually informed by foreseeable possible outcomes. Just like I pray for my current car to not break down rather than for a new car to appear in my driveway tonight, so I pray for a better candidate to win rather than a perfect candidate who I know would not win, even if he existed (and he doesn’t).
And if I’m really praying for a candidate in my district to win, why not express that by voting for him or her? This gets to what might be called my version of civic religion. It seems inconsistent to tell God I want someone to win an election and then not bother to express that preference in that election. (It certainly seems crazy to pray for a candidate to win but refuse to vote for him merely because he’s evil and stupid. If you’re worried that God might impose a worse ruler on you, and yet think you’re too “good” to vote for a better–if only less destructive–candidate, how are you not claiming to be holier than God?) So voting, in my mind, can and should be a kind of prayer that complements the more regular verbal prayers. It isn’t really about math.
Yes, we’re on the road to judgment and perhaps on the road to ruin. The northern Kingdom of Israel was headed for invasion and exile. But God made distinctions, sent prophets, and offered people choices in which he clearly wanted them to serve him by opposing great evil even if the new ruler was not completely repentant.
(Originally posted at SolomonSays.net)
Makes a great deal more sense than Piper’s reverse argument ‘since I dont appreciate the candidate, God must be against him- and by the way I know more Greek words than you’.
To be fair, and with respect to the author, John Piper made it clear he was not imposing his convictions on anyone. My interpretation of his article was largely that it was an unburdening of his conscience. He instead was offering a school of thought, an unsentimental view of sin, if you will. It cannot be denied he is a man of great influence, though he has ample critics, he weathers it well.
I read his recent article as being far more nuanced than many have given him credit for. I do not believe he is a man who is so glaringly ignorant of the ramifications of his statements. He is old and full of years. I cannot help but respect his wisdom as being impartial and sincere, regardless of how it comes off to some as “pious and self-righteous” or politically ignorant and unreasonable. I’m inclined to think he understands the hour of judgment America is under and chose to bear a great responsibility by 1) sounding a warning, 2) listing a reproof to pastors, and 3) reminding Christians of a better hope, come what may.