Voting for Evil?

Thoughts on the Christian and Politics

Jun 19, 2024

If there ever was a post that would result in everyone disagreeing with me and unsubscribing, it’s this one. My church is currently doing small group sessions that revolve around discussing hot-topic issues and how we may view them within a Christian worldview. In our discussion, I noted that when it comes to politics, particularly American politics, there is a break in consistent theology or worldview. This arose when the question of whether you could be a Christian and affiliated with or vote for the Democratic Party. The reason was not to say that only the Republican Party is the correct one but that through discussion, one side (GOP) is Pro-Life while the other (DNP) is Pro-Choice.[1] And this isn’t an incorrect thought, to choose a primary topic or to vote with one that is representative of an ideology. However, I felt the group or the discussion to didn’t see the gray area of the topic.

While the presentation is that one group is Pro-Life while the other is Pro-Choice, does this reflect reality? Recent trends within the Republican Party detail that Pro-Life is not so strictly defined as an abolition of abortion but rather a restriction on it. What this means is that the Republican Party is more Pro-Life by name and not by action. Only 23% of those who identify as a Republican are for the complete abolition of the practice in any condition, against the 3% of Democrats. Is this statistic aligned with the group’s thought? No. Therefore, the question is whether we can knowingly vote for someone who is only Pro-Life by name. Or in other words, expanding the topic out further, can we vote for the lesser of two evils? Timely, Albert Mohler responded to this very question recently, in which he states the following.

“We’re going to have to act in ways that are consistent with Christian conscience, but we’re also going to have to recognize that that conscience is exercised within a limited ballot possibility. And so, in a fallen world, a part of what we have to recognize is that we have moral responsibility for the consequences of our vote, even if those consequences are secondary…. We take moral responsibility in a political equation, in a sinful world, we’re going to face all kinds of challenges, and there is a sense at which sometimes Christians honestly have to pick the lesser of two evils, and it’s probably healthy for us to recognize that even in situations that are say more comfortably clear to us. In any event, we are electing a sinner that is to say a sinful human being…. We have to uphold honor and to seek to avoid dishonor, we have to do what is right to the greatest extent possible. And sometimes we have to admit we don’t claim any infallible wisdom and knowing exactly what that is, but we do have to take into consideration the consequences of our vote. It’s not just a voting for, or sometimes a voting against. Sometimes it’s more complicated than that, and oddly enough have to take moral responsibility for that as well, which is to say not voting is another way of inflating the vote of others.”[2]

Now, Dr. Mohler is a far more learned individual than myself and has spent a great amount of time shepherding God’s people and guiding them where as I write a blog and do my best to keep myself out of the ditches. But I don’t think it is as easy as he summarizes nor do I believe that we necessarily have a moral responsibility to the outcome when the system is not designed to be so individualistic as we have been raised to believe. Basically, we’ve been taught that every vote counts but that can’t necessarily be true on both a statistical level as well as a sovereign level. Of course, it is good to walk through our personal thoughts and identify where we land on the issues but often, I think that we feel obligated to convince others to operate as we operate.

First, without getting into a lesson on civics and government, I think there are some realities we must take as fact. First, in a national election, not everyone’s vote counts. This is because of the electoral college and that the popular vote is not always representative of the outcome. The voices of the Republicans are not being heard in California and the same is true with the Democrats of Texas. The popular vote doesn’t always win the election and the margins aren’t proportional to the electoral votes. As the government becomes more localized that status changes but is not necessarily true of the President nor many positions of the national government. If it were true that every vote counts, then the candidates would campaign through every state instead of the standard 9 swing states.

Another fact or condition we need to recognize is that the majority of humanity was under the rule of monarchy. Democracy and its alternate forms have existed in various conditions and sizes from the ancient world to today. But on the level that we see in the modern Western world, it is a new form of government. So dynamic is this new form of government that church polity, particularly in the Southern Baptist denomination, has been altered so that the congregation of many churches elects the pastor. The sheep have primary control over the shepherd. Historically, government has primarily been recorded as a monarchy, and for Christians, the end goal of government is to return to the monarchy with Christ as King. In many ways, life would be easier if it was possible to focus on one individual to determine whether the nation was righteous or tyrannical but the lines are blurred and the government is massive. To be able to directly parallel Scripture with our way of life.

But the people are given a voice now and among the people is a growing percentage of Christians, whether new or mature believers. Therefore, when voting for the next President, is it then appropriate to take on one primary subject or talking point and cast your vote on it? Meaning, that if the Republican candidate is running on a Pro-Life campaign where abortion is based on the state’s choice instead of the national level, is it ok to vote solely on that condition? What if the “secondary” topic is the promotion or unrestricted access to pornography or sex work? Maybe the “secondary” topic is not as moralistic but is on making a law where making the statement that the Jews crucified Christ should be considered hate speech and is bound by law. When are these topics enough to deserve our attention? Especially if we consider that there are secondary effects, as Dr. Mohler mentioned, where he states that our abstaining from casting votes is still attributed to the moral consequence of voting against them.

I am not trying to muddy the waters or to push a position from voting abstinence. Rather, my point is that there isn’t an obvious choice or a clear-cut decision. We cannot simply pick a universal side of the aisle. A meme that has been making the rounds lately is to remind people of the actions of the government during COVID-19 and how many of these elected officials are still in office. I would also like to remind you that the President at the time was the Republican candidate at this point, who appointed and put trust in a particular organization (CDC) to mandate policy, and the current Governor of Texas locked down the state before doubling back as if he was a hero.

The consequences of voting and non-voting end up with the same result. Change doesn’t happen because we preach to the government and establish a Theonomy, but because we preach to the individuals and change the individual heart. Because it is the voice of the people, not the government, that enacts change. The voice of the people has not been historically in the polling boxes but in the actions on the street in between the elections. It is not to speak up once every 4 years but to speak continuously every day.

So then, can we vote for the lesser of two evils? It really does come down to one’s convictions. And that is my primary pushback to our culture. As Americans, many would push on each other that it is not a privilege but an expectation to vote. It is absurd to not take full advantage of a right given. However, I want to make a broad statement that stems from being a witness to 2016, when the election cycle was particularly polemic, and being immersed in the Southern Baptist influenced South. Many American Christians have lost some continuity with their eschatology and their belief on God’s sovereignty during the election cycle.

We may quote Calvin when he says, “When God wants to judge a nation, He gives them wicked rulers,” to try to explain our current officials while also believing that we can thwart His will during the next election. How does God work in this system? Is it His will that works through us as human instruments to select righteous rulers? Are we called to put faith in a government that is a representation of us so that we can alter the policy of a nation into a Christian one? Maybe not a complete ideological overhaul but to be a morally acceptable one through particular voting? Or maybe we believe that there are more Christians voting than non-Christians which means that we can change the world outside of the church.

Is our political worldview aligned with post-Millennialism though we preach a different reason for Christ’s return? Is it possible for the Christian to save the world through Christ’s already accomplished work or do we need Jesus to return to restore everything? I know I put a lot of hypotheticals out there but the purpose is to help see the dichotomy of individual thought regarding elections and eschatology. Many are consigned to the world getting worse and maybe their response is to stop the decline through a government. They see themselves as Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael, who is not worshipping a false idol by standing against a threat and voting. If any of these viewpoints makes sense, then that is good. But what I see is that there is a fracture of thought when it comes to politics from a theological standpoint. A false hope or faith in something that is not meant to be what we put faith or hope in.

So is it an obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils? While I would love to give you a sufficient answer to the affirmative, my personal convictions make it clear that you cannot. And if you hold these same views, we must remember that we aren’t to judge those who feel like we can. And the same goes in the other direction. If Dr. Mohler is correct and there is moral responsibility for any vote or lack of vote, then we must consider whether we are meant to bear that moral responsibility when it is so dynamically beyond our control. Instead, let us participate or not participate and not guilt the other side to move against their convictions. What we do need to do on a personal scale is to reflect on how politics affect our theological and eschatological picture and to ensure that it is consistent. Is God’s sovereignty dependent on your actions as an instrument of change and are we fine with the moral consequences of whatever the outcomes are?

The Pauper and the Pulpit

Discussion about this post