I’ve been recently reading a book where the author made a distinction between embedded and deliberative theology. Embedded theology is our implicit understanding of God and the way the world works—our rooted awareness and perceptions, whether we can fully articulate them or not, that shape our day-to-day decisions. We don’t engage in much contemplative thought to arrive at these ideas, for they are largely inherent and presuppositional. Contemplative thought is the function of deliberative theology … the understandings that emerge after going through a process of carefully weighing and reflecting on these embedded convictions. Typically, a crisis happens and our embedded theology is found lacking. So, we press in and explore our beliefs in hopes of developing an understanding capable of addressing those concerns. Our beliefs become more fully established, and more uniquely personal, as a result of this process.
As humans we are inherently theological—i.e., we live and act out of innately held understandings of God and the surrounding world. Even though we may think theology is an enterprise best suited for scholarly individuals and/or the academic arena, we make judgments and do what we do on the basis of personal theological convictions. We choose between options—we act in a certain way and not some other way—because of these beliefs. Even if we deny God’s existence and believe that our actions have no impact beyond their immediate consequences, that is a theological statement!
I say that to say this—the most recent presidential election put before me a problem that exposed the insufficiency of my embedded theology in relation to how I, as a follower of Jesus, should vote. I always thought I should vote for the candidate whose positions most closely aligned with the values that accompany my faith. But this past election provided a real conundrum. Should I support the candidate whose position on abortion and religious liberty resembled mine but whose pettiness, bullying, and schoolyard name calling I found reprehensible? Or should I vote for the man who, as best I could tell, was trustworthy, honorable, and decent but didn’t align with me on some important public policy matters? Should I vote for a guy whose narcissism, boorish behavior, and penchant for lying caused me to doubt His moral integrity and personal credibility? Or should I vote for an individual with a discernible sense of empathy borne out of more than his share of personal tragedy? Should I vote for the candidate who kowtowed to the political preferences of the evangelical community but whose incessant Twitter rants, denigration of national heroes, and conspiracy mongering I found abhorrent? Or should I vote for the man who appeared to have a vital Catholic faith and conduct himself morally and relationally in a way that was consistent with it? Should I vote for a man whose emulation of foreign dictators and perpetual search for loopholes he could exploit so he could stay in power was deeply disquieting? Or should I vote for a man who, in over four decades of public service, has demonstrated that power is a privilege to steward responsibly and not an advantage to be used for personal or exploitative purposes?
Because my embedded theology didn’t have a ready-made answer for this situation, I had to engage in some deliberate thought. And here’s where I landed: I voted for Joe Biden. Let me walk you through the issues I had to work through.
First, I had to address my pro-life sensibilities. I am unapologetically pro-life. I believe life starts in the womb and the well-being of unborn children should be protected. At the same time, I also believe there’s more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion. To reduce pro-life to a single issue is to simplify and, in some ways, distort a multifaceted issue. Being pro-life is not just about protecting the unborn—it’s about creating conditions where every human being can flourish and realize his/her God-given destiny.
Certainly, there are a number of issues that inhibit human flourishing. The disproportionate access to a quality education and health care … the proliferation of nuclear weapons that have the potential to eradicate all of human life … the curse of racism and plague of poverty—all these affect people’s quality of life and their ability to flourish. But so do issues like separating children from their parents at the border … ignoring science and downplaying the threat of global warming … and dividing our country into adversarial and competing ideological camps that disparage each other so much that their most ardent members will engage in violence against supporters of the other side. To be pro-life is to care about all these matters—not just one. I concluded that to allow a single issue to control the way I voted was to overlook some significant issues that my faith called me to thoughtfully consider.
In addition, most anti-abortion sympathizers seek to get Roe v. Wade overturned—a Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in 1973. I believe this is a fruitless endeavor as overturning this ruling, I fear, would not cause abortion to cease. It would instead send abortion underground and create the kind of social unrest in relation to abortion that prohibition did with alcohol during the 1920s. A much better approach, I believe, is to provide a measure of support to those who typically seek abortions to where they are less motivated to do so. The reality is most abortions are not the result of indiscreet couples who conceive out of wedlock and want to be rid of the inconvenience. Most abortions are sought by women in poverty who don’t think they can adequately support a child. I believe providing a modicum of support for such people, as opposed to criminalizing abortion, is a better deterrent for reducing the number of procedures. Pro-life sympathizers need to ask themselves what’s a better strategy—making abortion illegal or trying to create conditions to where it’s not as needed or necessary, thus causing the numbers to go down. As one who is solidly anti-abortion, I believe a better option is to pursue the kind of social change that makes abortion a less enticing option for women who find themselves in desperate circumstances. If anti-abortion advocates truly believe in the sanctity of life, they ought to agree to explore any thoughtful approach that can actually reduce the number of abortions that take place.
A second issue I had to work through had to do with the division and political partisanship in our country. While there has always been disagreement between the political parties, I don’t recall that the polarization has ever been as tense and acrimonious as it is today. While many of us tend to try to discern who’s responsible, a much better question to ask is, “Who can help end it?” “Which candidate can heal the division and bring a measure of civility and healthy bipartisanship back to our country?” This is an area where I believe Mr. Biden far exceeds Mr. Trump. During Mr. Trump’s four years in office, I can’t see any evidence of how things have toned down—if anything, his personality and approach to the presidential role has only amped things up and made for a more contentious and combative atmosphere. I know there are people on the other side of the aisle who have contributed greatly to the problem, but as president you’re the leader of our country … and as a leader, that means you go first when it comes to addressing the national culture and initiating a change. When the Bible calls for people to be respectful of others and committed to peacemaking, I have a hard time seeing how Mr. Trump is going to be an agent of healing the partisan divide. His bluster and bravado, coupled with his blatant egotism, has only intensified the partisan divide … to the detriment of our country. We need someone who can bring us together as Americans in spite of our different and varying beliefs—not someone who will further tear us apart.
Third—I had to think through the characteristics and qualities I’m looking for in a leader. As we know, the Bible gives us guidance as to the expectations and standards for leaders—1 Timothy 3 provides a list of qualities we should look for. While the passage is specifically addressing leadership in the Body of Christ, I believe these guidelines spell out a standard I, as a follower of Jesus, should seek to identify in every arena of leadership. I had a number of people explain their support for Mr. Trump by saying, “I’m not voting for a pastor or a Sunday School teacher; I’m voting for a president.” To embrace a different standard of leadership for a spiritual and political leader is hypocritical. While some unique and particular skills may be required in one setting versus another, the character qualifications should not vary. If an individual lacks the integrity, compassion, and moral decency necessary to be a Sunday School teacher, then he/she lacks the qualifications for national leadership. While having an extramarital affair may not be as exclusionary for serving in a political office as it is for pastoral ministry, I believe the character expectations spelled out by the Bible should be viewed as an appropriate leadership standard by all of us who view the Bible’s words as authoritative—regardless of the sector or setting in which that leader is serving. It should provide an important framework we consult when making this all-important choice.
And this is an arena where Mr. Biden had a clear advantage over Mr. Trump. When it comes to the issue of moral integrity and personal decency, the choice between the two couldn’t be more stark. As a parent who tried to instill character in my boys and teach them how to become God-honoring men, Mr. Trump is everything, from a moral and behavioral standpoint, I didn’t want them to be. How the evangelical community as a whole could give him a pass on his character while being so enthusiastic and unrestrained in our support of him (particularly after being so fierce and vocal in our denouncement of Bill Clinton on moral and behavioral grounds)—it’s no wonder the world doesn’t take us seriously. When we sacrifice our professed ethical and behavioral principles on the altar of political influence and/or convenience, we shouldn’t be surprised when the surrounding society dismisses us—they come away thinking, “If that’s what it means to be pro-life/Christian/politically conservative, I want nothing to do with it.” I fear, because of the evangelical community’s fascination with Mr. Trump, we’ve tarnished the credibility of our witness for years, if not decades, to come.
When those who voted for Mr. Trump are asked to explain their decision in spite of their awareness of his deficient character and unhealthy pre-occupation with power (an impression that has only become more entrenched in the wake of his numerous post-election lawsuits that have been deemed baseless), the response was typically, “But the Democrats …”. Yes—there are a number of positions the Democrats hold that give me great cause for concern. I don’t for a minute embrace some of the ideas held by the more extreme members of the Democratic party—they would be a catastrophe, in my mind, if they were ever implemented. But at the same time, I am just as concerned about those on the extreme right—an audience Mr. Trump seemed to coddle. A politics chocked full of grievance, resentment, and fear—an ideology that, pushed to its logical extreme, would lead to anarchy and lawlessness—is every bit as foreboding as anything the Democrats have to offer. We need someone who will govern from the center—a moderate who will try to find common ground, forge positive compromise, facilitate bipartisan cooperation, and carry himself with decency and dignity while relating to people in a respectful and humble manner. And that’s something I believe Joe Biden brings to the table. That’s why I voted for him. It’s the vote that my Christian faith and my personal theology, that has been shaped and sculpted by a great deal of reflective and deliberate thought, required me to make.