No one said it would be easy

I have taught ethics and moral theology to university students for more than a decade. In that relatively short time, I have lived long enough to see ethical dilemmas that I once presented as hypotheticals become reality. As a graduate assistant during my doctoral studies, I once had to grade an essay exam that presented a scenario about a person who had undergone “gender reassignment surgery” and who had subsequently converted to Christianity. How would you counsel and disciple this new believer? At the time (around 2008), I thought the question was an intellectually stimulating but ultimately outlandish thought experiment compared to what most of the students would face in life and ministry. It wasn’t the last time I was proven wrong.

Another hypothetical that seemed far from the realm of possibility has now also become actual. What should Christians do if neither major political party or presidential candidate represents their views on the sanctity of all unborn human life? Of course, brothers and sisters in certain parts of the country and in other Western nations have already faced a similar dilemma. But now that the Republican Party platform has excluded (for the first time in 40 years) a call for a federal ban on abortion and has softened its position on same-sex marriage, many evangelical Christians are wondering what comes next in terms of their political engagement. To be sure, there is still a significant distinction between the two major parties on the issue of abortion, but pro-lifers are understandably disappointed in the direction taken by the Republicans.

I would not presume to dictate precisely how Christians should steward their civic responsibilities in these complicated times, but I do want to suggest a few ethical principles that might guide us as we navigate this new territory.

First, consider the age-old dilemma of conflicting moral absolutes. What happens when one moral duty seems to oppose another? What would you do, to pick a standard example, if the Nazis knocked on your door asking if any Jews were hiding in your home? The moral obligation to tell the truth seems to be bumping up against the moral obligation to protect life. One typical answer suggests that Christians must sometimes choose the lesser of two evils. That reply runs aground, however, when we consider our ultimate moral exemplar: Jesus Christ. If life in this rough and tumble world means that we are sometimes forced to commit a so-called lesser evil, then was the same thing true for the sinless Son of God incarnate? Does life in a fallen world really mean that we are sometimes forced to sin? This seems theologically problematic.

The better option, it seems to me, is to frame our obligations in terms of the greater good rather than the lesser evil. We are never free to sin or to commit evil. Of course, every election involves a choice between two (or more) sinful candidates. There is obviously no impeccable politician. Making relative moral judgments between flawed candidates is unavoidable. But if a vote for a candidate implicates the voter in actual sin, then it would be better to abstain than to vote for that candidate.

This brings me to a second principle that provides some added nuance to the first, namely, the principle of double effect. Roman Catholic moral theologians have often expounded this principle with more rigor than Protestants, but all Christians would do well to become familiar with its parameters. The principle of double effect states that it is sometimes permissible to engage in an action that has a predictable evil effect, provided the moral actor does not intend that evil effect and that the good he intends outweighs the bad that results. The criteria are fairly strict. The good you intend in the action must be demonstrably greater than the evil effected. You obviously may not provide formal support for evil (approving of it with your will), and any material support you provide for the evil effect must be indirect and at a far remove from the evil itself. You might vote for a candidate with some morally objectionable policies, provided you have proportionate reasons to do so (again, does the good outweigh the bad?) and no non-negotiable principles are violated. But great care must be taken that we don’t abuse this principle by providing moral cover for our predetermined political preferences.

A final principle can be stated succinctly: One should never violate one’s conscience. Conscience matters more than consequences. There are times when the long-term preservation of one’s principles is worth a short-term political setback. Of course, we also have to acknowledge that some actions run the risk of very serious long-term developments.

I have no easy answers for where evangelical political engagement should go from here. But however we engage and in whatever relation to the political parties, these principles should guide our thinking. And if some choose to remain officially within a major political party, they have a moral obligation to stand firm on the issues that matter most and to steer the party toward principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.