I was glad to see both iMonk and Justin Taylor express constructive criticism of John Piper's statement on the election, although they didn't express concern over some of the parts that concerned me. More about that in a minute.
I was also glad that iMonk expressed the need for critical engagement with Piper and explained why there hasn't been more. (I knew I couldn't be the only one with concerns, or with the concerns I have.) So I am encouraged, on many levels. I know I should also say how much I appreciate Piper, and am sure that if I read more of him, I could. Trouble is, most of what I've read have been his statements on gender issues, which I haven't been able to commend. But my lack of exposure to his other teaching should be rectified. I do appreciate what he says, in his statement on the election, about the sovereignty of God, the far-reaching evil of abortion, and the commendability of a black man being elected President of the U.S.
Here's what gave me pause:
a person with my view may very well vote for a woman to be President if the man running against her holds views and espouses policies that may, as far as we can see, do more harm to more people than we think would be done by electing a woman President and thus exalting a flawed pattern of womanhood. In my view, defending abortion is far worse sin for a man than serving as Vice President is for a woman.
Taylor reads this as putting the issues of womanhood and abortion on different levels, on which one is the greater evil and another the lesser, such that we may need to choose from the lesser of two evils. I agree that we must often choose between the lesser of evils, or less-than-ideal options. But what strikes me is the reason given here for one being lesser: it does less harm to less people. This is, essentially, a utilitarian notion. Not that utilitarianism is completely problematic -- sometimes an ethical choice can and must legitimately be made with utility in mind. But...not always, and not, I believe, in this case.
First, to make a utilitarian argument here is to make both abortion and a woman being Vice-President into black-and-white issues, which I don't believe they are. To explain: I am 150% against abortion as birth control or even in cases of rape or incest; this is a black-and-white issue in my mind. But I also recognize that occasionally there arise situations in which a terrible choice must be made, between the life of the mother and the life of an unborn child. However, when it comes to the issue of a woman being Vice-President, there are many factors which would determine whether or not this is a good idea, none of them being a "flawed pattern of womanhood."
There are women who neglect their children and husbands, or who dominate them. This is not flawed womanhood; it is flawed human-hood. Neglect and dominance are not gender-specific sins (though they may manifest in different ways, that are largely gender-specific). There are varying degrees of harm caused by different sins, several of which may play into any given situation.
Therefore, to even attempt to make a utilitarian judgment in this situation is to beg several questions: just what comes under the umbrella of flawed womanhood? And how do we know whether, in the long run, endorsing a woman as VP would not eventually lead to more empowerment of women to kill their unborn babies, or to neglect their children such that those children grow up to be aborters?
Third, this leads to the odd dilemma of a pro-life feminist leading the country: this representative of supposedly flawed womanhood, this woman of political ambition, this working woman, is...pro-life! I thought there wasn't supposed to be such a thing...? And it is not clear whether the problem is that Palin works full-time, is a government leader, or both.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, why are numbers important in this call? If it's wrong for millions of babies to be aborted, then it's wrong for one to be wrongfully aborted. If it's wrong for women to lead or for married mothers of young children to work full-time outside the home, then it's wrong for all of them, no exceptions. If it's wrong for Palin to be running for VP, then...it's wrong! Period.
Why support either presidential candidate, then, if they're both wrong? Because it's our duty to vote. What if both parties carry all-male tickets and both support abortion (heaven forbid)? We must still choose between two evils. But not by numbers. We must decide by the moral gravity of the wrong itself. Even if it's wrong for a woman to be running for Vice-President, or for a mother of young children to be running for VP (or governing a state, for that matter), such a wrong is not as wrong as killing, as taking a life. It's the nature of the wrong that matters, not how many are wronged, or how badly.
Wouldn't it be more wrong to kill one person (wrongly) than to cheat a million?
It should be noted that utilitarianism is not unrelated to consequentialism, in which the ends justify the means. If the end is the greatest good for the greatest number ("good" being somewhat arbitrary), then utilitarianism sacrifices a lesser good, or else turns a greater evil into a good -- that of being the means by which the lesser evil prevails. This is not good.
Further, it must be said that utilitarianism is the bedfellow of socialism. If consequentialism, utilitarianism, and socialism (in general) run contrary to gospel-transformed thinking, then, it follows that they ought not inform a Christian's judgments or actions.
