Change occurs so often in our lives, and we are seldom responsible for its arrival. Every four years, however, we Americans are afforded the chance to change our futures—either by continuing on the current path or by selecting an entirely different one—at our discretion, and by way of Constitutional right. I speak, of course, of the national presidential election. The importance of this decision is obvious; yet the number of Americans who actually exercise this right continues to decline. Politically-minded people find this statistic appalling, while the disinterested public accepts it as reality. Neither mindset invokes change; both merely reinforce stereotypes and fatalistic thinking.
Accolades should be awarded to evangelical Christians for breaking the mold on voter indifference: evangelicals compose just seven percent of the United States' population, yet they are one segment of the population found most likely to register to vote (84%) and to actually exercise the privilege of voting (88%).
Mostly Republican (62%) and conservative (75%) in their politics, evangelicals vote accordingly. Eighty-three percent of evangelicals voted for our current Republican president in the 2000 election (Tight Presidential Race Influenced by People's Faith, www.barna.org). Given the lack of political understanding found in all segments of America's population, one could ask, "Are evangelicals voting this way based on personal contemplation of facts, or are they operating under the assumption that this is the way they must vote?"
Informed voters or no, we could all use a crash course in politics, particularly in a year when our vote, and thus, our opinion, is so crucial. To make the right decision, we must understand each candidate's stance on key issues; issues such as health care, the war on terror, abortion, stem cell research and religious freedom are important considerations when deciding on a candidate. But perhaps the choice is much more fundamental.
Kevin Beckner, Government teacher at Pattonville High School in St. Louis, Missouri, advocates a rudimentary understanding of government as an essential step in making voting decisions. "[We could believe that] government is simply an administrative body that carries out functions in order to help society run smoothly, [wherein] the people running the government are of little concern. Instead, it appears that government sets the boundaries for what our country will tolerate on an ethical and moral level," Beckner said.
To Beckner, a candidate's worldview, the "lens through which people view the world around them and how their lives fit in the grand scheme of things", is more important than his stance on a particular issue. To paraphrase Beckner: a government runs based on a worldview; that worldview is collectively decided upon by the worldviews of those in that government; and the voting public chooses the people whose worldview ultimately makes a difference.
So what does this mean to voters; specifically, to Christian voters? "I operate under the assumption that people should act upon their worldview," Beckner explains, citing that this action is based on a person's understanding of truth. And, since Christians believe in the Truth (objective moral law handed to us by a God who cares for us), Beckner believes that "We need to put people in office whose worldview makes it easier for the people of God to act on their beliefs, creating an environment that is least restrictive to the presentation and acceptance of the Gospel."
Beckner's most compelling argument for voting on the basis of worldview is that of Supreme Court appointment. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president and serve a life term, meaning that "the worldview of the person selected to be on the Court will likely influence the course of our country for the next 15-45 years," Beckner said. "[Appointing a Supreme Court justice] is arguably the greatest legacy any president can leave."
Voting based on worldview has far-reaching implications: namely, that personal, time-consuming research must be done to figure out the worldview of a particular candidate. Additionally, one must give up the notion that a candidate and his voting public are required to hold exactly the same position on issues—moral or otherwise. If worldviews are, as Beckner suggests, tenets to be acted upon, then individuals decide how to project their beliefs onto the world around them. Even those holding the same worldview interpret and react to certain issues in different ways. In these situations, Beckner's idea of voting based on the amount of ease with which the Gospel can be spread and lived out is paramount.
That said, there are some concerns that seem to fuel this year's election. According to an article in September's Christianity Today, evangelical Christians are most concerned in six areas: promoting religious freedom (at home and abroad); promoting peace; expanding access to health insurance; fighting AIDS wisely (including the use of abstinence education); abortion; and standing up for traditional marriage ("Values-Driven Voter", p. 32).
Whether you choose to vote based on worldview, specific issues or a combination of the two, the fact remains that you must be informed in order to make a difference. Beckner recommends reading websites (see inset) and, of course, prayer.
"We must be the kind [of voters] who press forward, knowing that God really exists, and that we must elect candidates whose worldview is least restrictive to the proliferation of the Gospel. This will not happen by watching the evening news, and it will not happen by voting based on looks. It will happen by prayerful consideration and intelligent discernment of the issues, candidates, and worldview inherent in both. May He give us wisdom."