Why we wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ

Most of us are at EMU as opposed to a secular university because we believe our faith is important outside of church services and Sunday school. We approach issues as Christians. As suggested by Dr. Mark Thiessen-Nation during the "Christian Vote Debate," our primary allegiance is to the church, and this shapes all the decisions we make.

Why is it then, as Dr. John Roth pointed out in the same forum, that Christians discussing the presidential election sound just like any pundit we might hear on the radio? We argue about which candidate served more honorably during the Vietnam War. We argue about which candidate will hunt down terrorists more effectively. At what point did we decide that the issues discussed on TV or in the debates are our issues?

Some of us are willing to give a year or two of our lives to do service and preach the gospel around the world. Some of us are willing to risk our lives with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) in the West Bank in the name of peace and justice. Some of us have chosen to study Religion, Missiology, or Justice, Peace, and Conflict Studies to further God's kingdom. But how many of us are willing to give our vote to a presidential candidate that promotes a Christian outlook? How many of us have found a way to bridge the gap between religion and the ballot box?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Jesus himself would not get our votes. Yes, laugh, scowl, stop reading, say what you will, but I really don't think you can honestly say otherwise. Here's why:

First, it's a wasted vote; Jesus is not going to win, because he's not affiliated with a major party. The idea that a vote is only good if cast for the winner is deeply ingrained in us. This is the most common reason people don't consider a third-party candidate.

Second, a vote for Jesus is going to take votes away from the better of the two major party candidates. We can't help the worst major party candidate get into office. Pragmatically, we just can't justify voting for anyone outside a major party, regardless of the candidates or what they stand for.

You can tell me it's just not that simple and that Jesus is not running. This is true, and you should understand that my argument is neither that it's a simple matter nor that there is a candidate that looks much like Jesus. My sole point is that we must question our pragmatism.

At what point will we decide we won't vote for someone willing to kill civilians on the way to knocking out a possible terrorist? At what point will we decide we can't vote for someone who gives corporations billions of dollars in tax breaks while letting social programs go unfunded? At what point will we decide we can't vote for someone who goes against so much of what we struggle to promote almost every day of our lives?

If you insist on being a pragmatist in this situation, ask yourself if it's worth being pragmatic if it actually hurts your cause in the long run.

Picture yourself as a candidate for the presidency. If you know that all the environmentalists, pacifists, and advocates of civil liberties are going to vote for you no matter what you do, are you going to pay any attention to them or their issues? I wouldn't, and obviously John Kerry wouldn't either.

Kerry sounds more hawkish all the time; he's trying to take some of the conservative vote away from Bush, and why not? "Anyone-but-Bush Democrats" made it clear that they'll vote for him no matter what he says.

In this way we give away the little political power that we do have. So now the question arises: Is selling out on your issues pragmatic?