My Issue with One-Issue Voting

In Christian circles this election cycle, one of the common topics has been that of "one-issue voting." Typically this has been tied to the issue of abortion, and it can be seen no more clearly than in John Piper's 1995 article "One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society." Piper contends:

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public
office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor,
or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a
person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed
bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no
matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed
corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter
what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could
hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or
a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue
would end his political career. These examples could go on and on.
Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a
candidate for office.

Piper relates his argument against abortion by telling a story of adopting an animal at the Humane Society:

Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems
that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a
cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to
animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to "maim,
mutilate and kill" a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an
animal?

With this he concludes that he must disqualify anyone who is not anti-abortion from office. This is an interesting but inherently flawed argument. Because, while trying to argue against those who devalue humans, he may very well be opening the door for other devaluations of humanity. Simply put, abortion is only one of many "issues" that cause the devaluation of humans on an individual level. Consider:

- laws "outlawing" poverty, including those that ban feeding the homeless in public areas
- the death penalty
- war that results in the death of innocent civilians (yes, let's talk about the atomic bomb)
- forced separation of citizen children from their illegal parents

While all of these issues, including abortion, can be defended or explained from a political/patriotic level, they all involve a dehumanization of a sacred child of God. 

Piper does not explicitly say that, because he must not support a non-anti-abortion candidate, he will support that candidate's opponent, but I believe it is implied. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it is not. What then, are you to do?

I believe your options are as follows:

- vote against every dehumanizing policy, even if that means you write-in a candidate

- try to weigh out which candidate(s) dehumanize the least and support them

- don't vote

Either way (I have made my decision), we have to remember where our citizenship truly lies. As Greg Boyd writes:

We who follow Jesus must always remember we belong to a radically
different country with a radically different King who offers radically
different solutions to the problems of life. We are missionaries in
whatever earthly kingdom we happen to find ourselves in. We are
citizens of heaven before we’re citizens of any earthly kingdom (Phil.
3:20). It’s therefore unwise and unbiblical for us foreigners to think
it our job to try to run the government of this alien land.

 

Whether our mission field happens to be democratic, socialistic,
communistic, totalitarian or libertarian makes no difference. We’re to
keep our focus on carrying out the will of our Lord. We’re to obey laws
insofar as they’re consistent with our Kingdom call and to disobey them
insofar as they’re not (Ac 5:29) — all the while being willing to
graciously suffer the consequences of doing so (I Pet 2:13-25). We’re
to pray for our leaders and sacrificially serve our neighbors. But we
must never buy into the world’s “power-over” way of solving social
problems.

So follow your conscience on political participation, but be careful, and never put your trust in it.