“I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk
than a foolish Christian.” Though that statement
is usually attributed to Martin Luther he almost certainly didn’t say it; at
least no one can find it in the many volumes of his writings.
Maybe it actually comes from Fritz
Luther, the Wittenburg baker who invested all his money in his invention “Day
you were born candles.” Unfortunately,
when he explained how they would be used, his customers invariably said, “Ach,
who wants to eat cake that children have blown on?” Fritz Luther, a man whose time hadn’t come.
Seriously, whoever said it, the
“wise Turk/foolish Christian” declaration gets people talking. Apparently, its
time has come. A popular writer invited readers of his blog to comment on the
statement. Many avoided the dilemma the
statement implies.
“I want to be ruled by a wise
Christian,” said one.
“I want to be ruled by Jesus,” said
another.
Still another reader said, “If
you’re not wise, you’re not a Christian.”
The very thought of endorsing a
wise Turk over a foolish Christian is so unnerving they cannot address the
point directly.
Of course, I think the point involves
more than the idea a Christian isn’t always the best person for the job.
There might be several ways to
understand the statement but I’m going to begin with Proverbs 1:7 as a
clue. In what may be the thesis of the
entire book, the proverb implies the foundation of wise living is “the fear of
the Lord.” The fear of the Lord means
recognizing the nature and character of God and ordering our lives accordingly.
So, the “wise Turk,” obviously a
Muslim, would order his life and rule in light of God’s character.
But what about the “foolish
Christian?” Whoever first opined a
preference for a wise Turk over a foolish Christian, may have had in mind a Christian
who was simply stupid. But, keeping
Proverbs 1:7 in mind, a foolish Christian may be that Christian who professes
faith but does not live or generate policies in the light of that profession.
If so, the anonymous pundit seems
to be saying we might have a better chance of living in a just society under
the wise Turk than under the foolish Christian.
Especially if the Turk recognizes that killing those who disagree is not
the most effective way to propagate the faith.
Because we don’t know who made the
“wise Turk/foolish Christian” statement we don’t know if he or she actually
faced the possibility of living under Muslim rule. Luther, safely ensconced in northern Europe
certainly didn’t, but the possibility of living under a foolish Christian was real.[1] It wouldn’t have been his choice but it could
have happened.
Now, the issue of choice is
significant, an important issue to keep in mind when evaluating political
philosophy voiced by Christians before the late-eighteenth century. Prior to that time, the notion of the ordinary
butcher, baker, and candlestick-maker sitting on the pew next to you having a
role in choosing the nation’s ruler was foreign. In fact, some Christian thinkers would have
quaked at the thought of our brand of democracy.
Luther would have been wary of a
system involving universal suffrage. Any
system allowing voters to choose a foolish Christian rather than a wise
Christian would have unnerved him. (The
thought of voters choosing a wise Turk over any Christian might have caused him
to throw an inkpot against the wall.)
But that is just the system we have.
And what would Luther have said of a system that asked voters to choose
between two foolish Christians?
Something like, “Just what they deserve for letting peasants get above
their station.” Of course, we could remind
him a third party can put forward a wiser Christian as a candidate. To this, Luther—that most pragmatic of
reformers—would likely reply, “Ernst?” (“Seriously?”)
I doubt few Americans voters have
reached my age without voting at least once for a candidate they disliked in
order to vote against a candidate they disliked even more. What percentage of voters will face this
challenge in the upcoming election? How
many of them will resolve to choose “the lesser of two evil” and, upon entering
the voting booth, still not be sure just who is the lesser evil?
Oh, if elections just involved
choosing between a good Nazarene or a good Salvationist? (Would we have “beer summits” then?) Can you imagine how quiet campaigns would be
if we simply had to decide if we wanted a good Charismatic or a good
Pentecostal in the White House? (Raise
your hands to show your choice.) Where
would radio’s conspiracy nuts go if choosing who would handle foreign policy
merely meant choosing between a good Baptist or a good Lutheran? (Fried chicken or hot dish at state dinners?)
But that’s not the way it works.
The US Constitution promises that
no one seeking office will face “a religious Test as a Qualification” for
service. (Article 7, Section 3)
The nation has surely benefited
from that clause. Without it neither
Jefferson nor Lincoln likely would have served in the White House. (Yes, I know the White House came after Jefferson
but you get the point.) As it happened,
some voters worried because Lincoln had never joined a church and some hid
their Bibles because they feared Jefferson would burn them if elected.
To be honest, if somewhat cynical,
requiring a religious test would have encouraged hypocrisy. Even without a test we observe some
politicians becoming noticeably more pious as elections near.
Consider this story about Huey Long
(1893-1935), fabled governor and senator from Louisiana. Long knew voters from the northern part of
the state tended to be Baptists while voters from the southern part of the
state were often Catholics. At a meeting
where voters from both parts of the state were present, Long told this story.
“Each Sunday when I was a young
boy, I would hitch up the mule to take my Catholic grandparents to seven o’clock
mass. After I took them back home, I’d
feed and water that mule and then hitch him up again to take my Baptist
grandparents to the eleven o’clock service at their church.”
After Long’s speech, one of his
advisors whispered to him, “Huey, you’ve been holding out on us. You’ve never told us you had Catholic
grandparents.”
“Don’t be a fool,” Long responded,
“we never even had a mule.”
Even though an increasing number of
Americans are claiming to have no religious preference, politicians know
ignoring religion can cost them votes. They also know religion may be used to malign
an opponent.
Maybe you knew Republicans who
worked hard to convince any who would listen that Barack Obama is a secret
Muslim.
According to journalist Ari Paul,
the recently hacked DNC emails suggest some key Democrats believed Bernie
Sanders’s campaign vulnerable to attack if someone could persuade voters in
Kentucky and West Virginia that Sanders is an atheist. In particular, DNC CFO Brad Marshall believed
his “Southern Baptist peeps” might not support Sanders if they learned he was
an atheist.[2] Efforts to use his religion to derail Roman
Catholic John Kennedy’s campaign happened over a half-century ago but only the
naïve believe religion no longer matters at election time.
Perhaps the wise Christian ruler/foolish
Christian ruler dichotomy doesn’t apply in the situation before us. Perhaps whoever first stated the preference
for a wise Turk over a foolish Christian never imagined a real democracy, never
imagined a time when ordinary people, rich and poor, educated and uneducated,
men and women, young and old might have a voice in picking their own
rulers. Perhaps the anonymous political
philosopher would suggest that in a democracy it is more important for each
Christian to be a wise voter, not a foolish voter.
This election, I suppose the most
foolish voter is the one who says, “I think I’ll sit this one out.” It is escaping a tough choice and that’s not
a character trait to nurture.
Not everyone will agree but I think
foolish voters say, “I’m going to vote for the third (fourth, fifth, sixth)
party candidate.” We’d all like things
to be different but the further we get away from the traditional two parties,
flawed as they may be, the more ineffective our votes become.
I think the “one issue” voter is a
foolish voter. Rejecting a candidate who
is “wrong” on your key issue may mean you are losing an otherwise fine
candidate. And supporting candidates
solely because they are “right” on your issue sometimes means you are supporting
candidates who have no hope of winning. Sometimes
it seems the one issue voter who happens to be a Christian believes the only
way to change the culture is through political power. That ignores a lot of Christian history.
Sure there are crucial moral issues
on which we should take a stand but I wonder if we ‘ve done that this election
cycle. Seems like folks who used to ask
candidates about their position on abortion are now asking about their position
on immigration or gun control. Of
course, maybe no one told me the moral high ground had shifted.
Naturally, the wise voter will vote,
relishing the God-given opportunity many around the world would love to have.
Wise voters will study the
candidates and issues, refusing to surrender their decision-making responsibility
to NPR or CBN. The wise voter will make
his or her decision only after carefully considering the options.
The wise voter will not be prompted
to panic by the rhetoric of radio pundits, either on the left or the right.
The wise voter understands a
less-than-perfect candidate will most likely be a less-than-perfect president: a
president who, nevertheless, will impact the nation’s future for decades to
come. If you can’t muster the optimism
to ask, “Who will do the most good?” at least ask, “Who will do the least harm?”
The wise voter will keep in mind
that in four years we will have another chance to get it right.
I confess I’ve moved from thinking
I would sit this one out to deciding I can vote for one of the candidates, however
reluctantly. The rationale for this
decision is my own. I hope it is a wise
one.
[2]
Ari Paul, How Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s
DNC Tried to Weaponries Bernie Sander’s Jewishness, http://forward.com/opinion/345892/how-debbie-wasserman-schultzs-dnc-tried-to-weaponize-bernie-sanderss-jewish/.
Accessed 1 August 2016.
