If you were to bump into a local reporter on your out of the polling station and were asked who you had voted for, how would you answer?

You might state the name of the candidate by which you marked your cross. You might say the name of the party that candidate belongs to you. You could even mention the leader of that party, after all you were voting for who you want to become Prime Minister.

Each of these answers would be legitimate, but each reveals a quite different approach to your vote. Local vs national. Person vs party. MP vs PM. Each one of these debates holds a place in our heads.

Now, technically we do not vote for the PM, rather we return MPs of one party or the other and the largest party is then invited to form a government by the Monarch and their leader appointed Prime Minister. And recent years show this by no means guarantees they’ll remain that position for the whole of the Parliament.

As Christians then, mindful of the call to be good citizens, how do we weigh up the different levels and questions at which our vote counts?

Firstly, we want to be mindful of the context in which we exercise our democratic vote. The British constitution, though unwritten, places great emphasis on the role of the local representative. That is, we appoint an MP to represent our constituency in the national parliamentary body.

That is not to say that the system is flawless, but we ought to be mindful of the system in which we operate and as Christians interested in the common good and good government, using the system well is important. There are so many questions to consider when it comes to politics, but given our system it would be prudent to ask will they be a good constituency MP? Will they serve their constituents? Will they advocate for the area? And will they scrutinise legislation for the good of those in their constituency?

In our global, 24/7, social media driven culture the local constituency can often feel small, unexciting, and insignificant. However, our system recognises the importance of localism as, I think, does Scripture.  

In Deuteronomy, when Moses looks to appoint leaders over Israel he does so by appointing leaders from amongst the different tribes, giving them responsibility at varying different levels. Of course this was a different culture to our own, but the relationship of the leaders with the people and communities that made-up the nation of Israel mattered.

Besides there is a great deal of sense in appointing people to positions of political influence, who are rooted in, and shaped by, the area they’re seeking to represent. Whilst we shouldn’t be closed off to the wider world, Christian theology has tended to focus in on the areas over which we do have control and influence as the places for which we should be most concerned.

Thirdly, when the Bible talks about appointing church leaders, great emphasis is placed on the hospitality of church leaders and the way their households are organised. They ought to be people whose lives are seen up close – and as we examine them up close it is character that matters more than competency.

In talking about character, the danger is we focus only on the Prime Minister, but I think we can see character determined at every level of the voting matrix, with the character of the party and the character of the constituency candidate also likely to have an impact on how the nation is governed.

Building on the principle about appointing church leaders, bad leaders of households will make bad leaders of churches and bad constituency candidates, will make bad MPs and government ministers. And put it in a biblical political context, 1 and 2 Kings chronicles what happens to a nation when led by leaders of good or bad character and moral fibre; With the history of Israel being an ever deepening spiral towards the bad.

Competency and effectiveness also matter, but they are behind character. David is appointed king not because he is the most handsome, talented, or strong but because his heart sought after the Lord. Yet, when appointing church leaders’ consideration should be given to whether they can teach, that is a professional skill. Furthermore, the cause of public justice, as outlined in Romans 13, will hardly be served by lazy misguided or incapable leaders. Nevertheless, being competent and effective is no guarantee of good political leadership, and one can be competent and effective at doing wrong.

At this point Christians can often get despondent and lament the fact that no one meets this criteria. In one sense, this is the correct response – only Jesus can fulfil the role of perfect justice and servant leadership that we crave from our leaders. Yet this should not lead us to despondency, because as the Psalmist said: “do not put your trust in princes [or politicians]”.

Christians should rightly look to elevate the standards of public life through our vote, but we also need to be mindful of not giving public life a place it does not merit. It is a way to serve the good of our neighbour, but it’s not the ultimate way. We should mind our expectations and recognise that we live in a fallen world.  

This is not a call to give up, but it is a call to engage with a flawed system with the weapon of hope to fight against disillusionment. It is also a reminder that however much we should work for justice in the here and now, Jesus is the way to the kingdom and so we should be wary of weaponising politics in the vain hope of creating heaven here on earth.

Finally, we should look into our own heart and recognise that the people we are voting for are people just like you and me. People with character flaws and failings, people with weaknesses, and limited capacities who will make mistakes. We shouldn’t accept low standards, but we should come to the ballot box with a humility that honours those that make sacrifices to serve in public leadership, and mindful that we aren’t perfect either.

There is much that needs to be weighed up but here are perhaps a few ideas that might help us discern how to weigh up the three dimensions of our vote.