Response to John Piper's article on faith & politics by Neel Woods

John Piper recently published an article entitled Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin PONDERING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE 2020 ELECTION. It's very thought-provoking, especially for Christians who are seeking to vote with Godly integrity. I am obliged to respond but I must preface by saying that I have long held Dr. Piper in the highest regard, and I certainly still do. 

 

What I understand Piper to be challenging in his article is the tendency of many Christians to make a false delineation between "blatant, unrepentant sins of character (e.g. sexual immorality, boastfulness, vulgarity, factiousness)" and "policies that endorse baby-killing, sex-switching, freedom-limiting, and socialistic overreach." While he respectfully declines to call out candidates or parties, the implications are apparent. 

 

Piper is baffled that some people find character sins to be "only toxic for our nation" while policy sins are viewed as "deadly." His counter-argument is hard to refute: "My allegiance to Jesus set me at odds with death — death by abortion and death by arrogance.” What I hear in that statement is that as Christians, we have a higher calling than to descend into choosing between the lesser of two evils in the upcoming election. I would call that a conscientious objection. Piper rightly reminds us that one day, we who are Christ-followers will be called to account for how our decisions and actions in life were aligned with our higher calling. 

 

While I heartily concur with everything that my revered spiritual shepherd has laid out, our nation's two party duopoly has created a generations-old dilemma. After all, how many American families have argued internally that not voting Red or Blue is essentially casting half a vote for each? Our ballot choices do not present an either/or scenario (i.e. evil character vs. evil policies). Past and present history shows that both presidential candidates possess woeful character flaws, and both party platforms are partially at odds with the sanctities of life and liberty. If there were a 3rd-party candidate this election year who stood morally head and shoulders above the major candidates in terms of character and policy, I would still struggle over the fact that a third-party candidate is, unfortunately, unlikely to ever win an American presidential election. In the last 100 years, only Ross Perot (1992) came remotely close with 19% of the popular vote (that's half of the second-place candidate's popular vote). And even then, he didn't capture a single electoral vote.

 

What I find missing in Piper's perspective is that in this election year, we are each faced with a Sophie's Choice. Arriving as a prisoner in Auschwitz with her son and daughter in tow, Sophie is forced by a guard to choose which child will live and which will die. She tries to take the conscientious objector route but the guard says if she doesn't choose, both children will die. In desperation, she opts to sacrifice her daughter, presumably because her son would have a better chance of surviving in the concentration camps than her daughter would. One has to conclude that Sophie didn't choose to have her daughter killed. Rather, she chose what she saw as the best possibility for one of her children to live.

 

Albeit less dramatic, our choice on November 3 isn't altogether different. We can choose not to vote, but a less-than-desirable outcome will occur regardless. Or, we can choose which option we think affords our country the best possibility to thrive going forward.

 

Piper's bottom line, however, is undeniable: "My calling is to lead people to see Jesus Christ, trust his forgiveness for sins, treasure him above everything in this world, live in a way that shows his all-satisfying value, and help them make it to heaven with love and holiness." Amen, sir.