COMMENTARY: Morality Not Determined by an Election

c. 2004 Religion News Service (Tom Ehrich is a writer and computer consultant, managing large-scale database implementations. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C. Visit his Web site at http://www.onajourney.org.) (UNDATED) Religion and politics seem inseparable in this election season. They seem more intertwined, in fact, than in any election in living memory. Not […]

c. 2004 Religion News Service

(Tom Ehrich is a writer and computer consultant, managing large-scale database implementations. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C. Visit his Web site at http://www.onajourney.org.)

(UNDATED) Religion and politics seem inseparable in this election season.


They seem more intertwined, in fact, than in any election in living memory. Not even the 1960 election of the nation’s first Roman Catholic president stirred the religious to greater heights of activity and angst, gloomy forecast and line-in-the-sand bravado, than the current Bush-Kerry contest.

Conservative Christians stepped up to the plate first and aligned themselves wholeheartedly with the Republican Party. Belatedly but no less passionately, liberal Christians discovered their stakes in this race and started making their voices heard.

The issue isn’t the religion of the candidates, but what their candidacies mean for the balance of religious power. After decades of splintering along many fault lines, Christianity in America seems to be working its way toward a “two-party” system, in which former competitors find common cause on a few passionate issues and put aside centuries of doctrinal antagonism.

Whether these strange bedfellows include more than a few ambitious leaders remains to be seen. Church memberships tend to be inconveniently diverse in every respect, including political affiliation. Also unclear is whether Christians will maneuver themselves into shouting about a single issue, rather than the usual potpourri of mutual disrespect.

One thing is clear: denominations, congregations and pastors are under unusual pressure to take sides in this election. With all that is at stake, some argue, we must abandon our usual reluctance to mention politics in church. Just the opposite, others argue, we must position ourselves to be healers after Nov. 2.

Preachers must endorse candidates, some say. No, say others, that would violate their unique role. What, ask some, about tax-exempt status? With both their personal integrity and paychecks on the line, many clergy feel trapped. Lay leaders engaged in their annual fall stewardship campaigns dread the chilling impact of political divisions. Aren’t we conflicted enough?

In my opinion, religion and politics have gotten dangerously intertwined, not because key political issues lack religious and ethical components, but because religious passions don’t get resolved by counting ballots. They rage on long past election days and obstruct the healing of political differences.

No election can bear the weight of today’s apocalyptic expectations. As important as this election might be _ perhaps the most critical in more than a century _ it won’t decide the future of Western civilization, or the future of American morality, or the future of American values. The 2004 election will shift several balances, among them a few that have religious overtones. Most key ethical issues will remain untouched. Will we have any energy to address them?


Nor can democracy easily survive the politicization of faith-based ethics. The ballot box can never decide right and wrong. It can only determine whose version of right and wrong will hold sway for a time and get enacted in certain laws and court decisions. In the end, ethics is a private matter that works its way up to a community consensus. Trying to compel ethical standards through the political process is a sure pathway to oppression.

We must remember that when Jesus set his face toward Jerusalem, he walked through Samaria and Galilee but took no side in their ancient religious conflicts. And when he reached Jerusalem, he offended both the religious establishment and the political establishment. To their clever gotcha questions, he spoke ambiguous parables. To their demand that he display power, he remained silent. For the Son of Man came not to seek worldly power or to confer worldly power, but to invite humankind to repentance.

Believers have political opinions, just as politicians sometimes say prayers when no one is looking. It could be useful for churches to sponsor political forums. We certainly should take candidates’ ethics into account in our voting decisions.

But repentance takes us far beyond party platforms, and forgiveness depends on God’s grace, not on election results November 2.

MO/JL END RNS

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!