Christians: Yes, Let’s Vote Our Values
Image
On the whole, I’ve written a lot less about the voting choices before us in this particular election cycle. From my point of view, it’s pretty much 2020 all over again, only with more clarity about the cultural and character factors.
More clarity? I’m sure many don’t see it that way. I’m not saying people are seeing more clearly. Subjectively, things seem more muddled than ever. Objectively, though, the character and positions of the candidates are even more clear than in 2020.
In this post, I’m reacting a bit to Kevin Schaal’s post over at P&D the other day, and many others like it (e.g., Jerry Newcombe’s similar list over at Christian Post). I don’t disagree with much in that post, but I would differ in emphasis.
First, I fully agree with this:
Some Christians do not live or vote by biblical values. And some Christians have not been taught how their faith should impact their voting choices.
Then we read, “These are the values that are at stake in this election.” The list that follows isn’t bad. I’m all for freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, sanctity of life, individual stewardship, biblical marriage, and just balances.
My own full list of values to vote for would include those things. There are some values at stake in this election, though, that are upstream of several of the above.
My own short, prioritized list of values to vote for would look more like this:
1. Vote for the gospel.
I’m not in favor of expansive and ambiguous uses of the term “the gospel.” The gospel is the good news that Jesus died for sinners and rose again. But this news has far-reaching implications. What do I mean by “vote for the gospel” here? Vote with the goal of helping churches and ministries retain or regain their understanding of what their focus should be in society: effectively adorning (Titus 2:10) and proclaiming the gospel.
The conflation of political tactics, policies, and candidates with Christian belief, practice, and mission is a serious problem.
I anticipate an objection: “We can’t vote for gospel clarity. It’s not on the candidates’ agendas.” I’m not sure it isn’t, indirectly, but let’s say that’s true. My recommendation, across the political spectrum, is to look at candidates’ stated agendas, remove everything they are not actually capable of achieving (because Congress would have to do it, or an amendment would be required, and every state would have to do it). Then look at what’s left and ask, “How much of this is just pandering?”
After that couple of filters, there might not be much agenda left!
Assuming something remains, it’s time to ask: If results are so important, what are some likely unintended results of the candidates’ agenda? What kind of backlash policies—or, more importantly, cultural shifts—might we see?
We really didn’t think overturning Roe would result in “abortion rights” becoming an issue that is not only actively supported by one party, but now passively supported by the other as well. But here we are.
Voting for results is a tricky thing, none of us being prophets.
But if we’re going to vote for results, surely increased clarity about what Christianity really is, and is not, should be a result we prioritize.
2. Vote for rule of law.
We live in a system of governance that, by design of its founders, has law at its center. When the colonies decided to part from the authority of England, they created a document with representative leaders as signers.
Later, they experimented with the Articles of Confederation and insisted on a ratification process. Why? Because of the conviction that the best way to govern a society is for the governed to create law that then has authority over those who made it.
Eventually, the Constitution was ratified in place of the Articles. Every office and branch of the U.S. government now derives its authority from that legal document. Lesser roles and requirements derive from the laws passed through the representative-legislators legal framework this Constitution authorizes.
In short, in a republic, the law is king, and all other rulers are its deputies.
If we’re going to vote for results, we should vote for candidates who seem likely to respect and nurture the rule of law.
3. Vote for truth in public discourse.
In the U.S., we have a long tradition of messy public discourse. For as long as I’ve been paying attention, that has included a fair amount of misrepresentation, exaggeration, and outright lying about political opponents.
And that’s not even including the candidates’ claims about themselves.
I’ve occasionally been accused of idealism, but I don’t expect “honesty in political rhetoric” to become a real thing.
That said, before 2021, did the U.S. ever have a sitting president try to hang on to power on the fantasy that the election had been stolen from him? I may have read that something similar has happened before in U.S. history, but at best, it’s been a very long time.
For Christians, does anything matter more than truth? We could make a case that several things are equally important. Of course, we’d insist that the God of all truth is more important than truth itself. It ultimately has little importance without its connection to Him.
That established, Christians, of all people, ought to treasure truth anywhere and everywhere it can be found. We ought to despise lies, useful or otherwise. We should loathe the kind of exaggeration, distortion, and sloppiness that ends up being little better than outright lying. We should be repulsed by the intellectual laziness that lumps dissimilar things together, overgeneralizes, and prefers increased vehemence over increased accuracy. That doesn’t promote truth either.
Surely we ought to be people who value truth more than tribe and who refuse to reflexively accept or reject claims based on what leader, pundit, or group they are coming from.
If we’re going to vote for results, we should prioritize whatever votes might help us, as a society, value truth more.
Final thoughts
I’d be first the admit that this short list of core values to vote for could be used to argue for whatever candidate one “likes.” That doesn’t make it objectively true that they are an equally good, or equally poor, fit for both candidates (or all the rest, down-ballot).
No, I’m not trying to tell people who to vote for (or “vote against,” if they look at it that way). But I do want to encourage us to have the gospel, the rule of law, and truth on our minds as we make these difficult choices. I want to encourage us also think in terms of our culture as a whole, not just the slice that is regulated by policy.
Important policy is at stake. Bigger things than policy are also at stake.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 1340 views
Obviously I believe the Gospel, but I do not vote for it.
In my view, proper government should provide common grace, not special grace.
I explained what I meant by that. Suggest reread. It is not about what government should provide. It’s about what we empower politics to do to Christian witness.
But is there any area of life that should not be gospel centered for the Christian? If not “gospel centered,” at least “gospel-sensitive”?
I’ve never been for trying to compartmentalize the Christian life as though there could be pieces that are secular. I was against that when I was a school teacher, against it when I was an office worker, against it when I was a pastor, and I’m still against it as an office worker again.
One of the things that has been so weird about the new-right populism is how it conflates religion and politics for unbelievers but over-separates faith and politics for evangelicals. It’s an interesting paradox. Under Trump’s influence, we have lots more God-talk by likely unregenerate people, and a decline in Christian ethics and gospel clarity by evangelicals.
A pastor friend of mine texted me this morning: “God is sooooo good!” Yes, He is, but the goodness of God transcends a political victory.
I think we should consider T’s statement on the basis of common grace. We are promised victory, in the end. But in the meantime there will be losses. Hus was burned, Bonhoeffer was hanged, Stalin came to power, etc. God is good, even in these losses.
Well said! Totally agree.
In that temporal sense, was yesterday a win or a loss? Will this outcome increase or decrease common grace?
The answer to this is not obvious to me. Increase today, tomorrow, or next year? Common grace is really what God does, not what humans do, but the distinction may not be important in this context—because the good that humans do is a result of common grace. Will humans do more good because Trump won? There will almost certainly be cultural and political moderation on the left now. So that’s a good. But will there be trade-offs, absolutely.
The culture and the politics will almost certainly swing back the other way with gusto in 2028, for one thing.
But on the bright side, movements that rely heavily on grievance narratives and anti-elitism generally lose their steam after they gain power. (If you’re in the habit of blaming “The Man,” who do you blame after you successfully put your man in power?) So, maybe today is the beginning of the end of the Trump movement and new right. Time will tell.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It looks like Christians did vote their values to an extent. The party that had ads promoting pornography, masturbation, abortion, drug use, and transgenderism, did not have a good night.
It looks like Christians did vote their values to an extent. The party that had ads promoting pornography, masturbation, abortion, drug use, and transgenderism, did not have a good night.
And the party whose candidate was on stage five nights ago simulating masturbation and oral sex is now the president-elect. Not sure that electing this man speaks too highly of Christian values.
Prior to last night it was all about election fraud, stolen votes, illegal practices, lawsuits and teams ready to file lawsuits. This morning it was about fair elections. Was the election really fradulent as we were being told, or was it a cover? I would assume if it was fradulent we would still see a flurry of legal action and accusations this morning, because we want to be fair. And fair is fair. We shouldn't disenfranchise voters, regardless of who won.
Oh it will be a load of laughs over the next four years. Trump, Musk and RFK Jr. running things. I am buckling in for this ride.
>>I am buckling in for this ride.<<
I would have buckled up either way. The difference would be whether I’m buckling up for something that could end up being disastrous (like a car race) or probably will (like a demolition derby). Personally, I like my chances better with the former.
Dave Barnhart
My concern is that it will be a bit of a demolition derby. They both had issues. It will be interesting to see him deport 10 Million people.
I explained what I meant by [vote for the Gospel]. Suggest reread.
Ok. I reread. Not sure why that section was titled “vote for the Gospel.”
Do you mean, “Freedom of Speech and Religion”?
Prior to last night it was all about election fraud, stolen votes, illegal practices, lawsuits and teams ready to file lawsuits. This morning it was about fair elections.
A LOT of work was done to seek fair elections this time. I think we did better than last time.
Here’s a list of states that required No ID for voting:
Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine.
It will be interesting to see how that list matches with the final states-won list.
The big picture won over the small picture. Trump as a person falls far short of being an ideal president. But so does Harris. Only one of these two could win. However, the principles and practices of each party are poles apart. God mercifully gave us the party that will slow down transgender males in women's sports (and locker rooms), progressive judges and DA's, unregulated abortions, cancel culture, pro-Hamas and other terrorist groups, high gasoline, grocery, and housing prices, etc. Big picture? It looks like a win for historic constitutionalism and traditional Americanism to me. The real need is for genuine Holy Spirit generated revival, but short of that, I'm glad to see the progressive left shorn from the levers of power.
G. N. Barkman
>>A LOT of work was done to seek fair elections this time. I think we did better than last time.<<
No kidding. It’s amazing how much calmer things turn out when there are decisive results in a short time, with no lecturing about “red mirage” and similar, and no late night closings of the polls while sending observers home, or dumps of ballots >90% for one party days later. With the process as it took place last night, it is much more likely to generate no conspiracy theories (true or not) when nothing even looks like funny business.
Now, if we can just get to the place where election day becomes a federal holiday with all non-essential businesses closed so everyone can vote in person, with only people like military, first responders, and the disabled/shut-in allowed to absentee vote, where all voters are required to present ID, where voter rolls are actually allowed to be purged of non-citizens and the dead on a regular basis, we might really be able to have no drama or accusations of “insurrection” in the aftermath of the election.
I find it pretty sad when countries we might call “third world” have more secure elections than we do.
Dave Barnhart
When I saw the popular vote counts--I think it's currently about 72 million to 67 million--I got curious and looked up the vote counts previously:
2008: 131 million total votes cast, enthusiasm for Obama
2012: 129 million total votes cast, Obama enthusiasm waning
2016: 137 million total votes cast, Trump/Clinton mania
2020: 154 million total votes cast
2024: ~141 million total votes cast
2020 was a clear anomaly, one that IMO is not easily explained by the joy of voting for a guy "campaigning" from his basement. Part can be explained by a huge prevalance of mail in ballots, but I have to wonder if another part of it is old fashioned, Richard Daley ballot box stuffing.
Yes, the judges signed off on the voting changes, but the numbers suggest that there's something very interesting, and very likely illegal, going on. Hard to prove, but statistically, this is very different from the ordinary trend.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Just to expand a bit on what Bert just mentioned, how Joe Biden generated over 14 million more votes than elections before or after is a great mystery, especially considering the lack-luster campaign that he waged.
2012 -- D (65.9 million) R (60.9 million)
2016 -- D (65.8 million) R (62.9 million)
2020 -- D (81.3 million) R (74.2 million)
2024 -- D (67.2 million) R (72.1 million)
Stats from wikipedia
Hmmm. Perhaps Trump has some justification in refusing to concede that he lost in 2020? As the press keeps telling us, "there is no evidence of voter fraud", but there may be fraud that is impossible to prove because it was difficult if not impossible to trace. Just wondering. We know that several large minority precincts in PA kept GOP representatives from observing in 2020. They tried to do it again this year but were forced to allow entry. Why do they want to keep them out unless they plan to stuff the ballot box with fraudulent votes?
G. N. Barkman
Exactly. Now throw in some additional context.
We are supposed to believe that Democrat voter turnout decreased by approximately 10-15 million, despite the foreboding "Threat to Democracy (TM)," the dastardly villain of 1/6 on the ballot.
Kamala actually also campaigned instead of hiding in her basement the entire time.
Meanwhile, "Threat" received roughly the same votes in 2024 as 2020, despite a different demographic mix.
Given those factors, one would think that her voter turnout should have remained in the ballpark, but she lost because of a precipitous drop - somewhere close to 20%.
I've remained mostly ambivalent towards the concept of large-scale voter fraud, but what we just saw is eye-opening.
I don't think quality of the candidate had anything to do with it. Biden and Harris were both terrible, albeit in different ways.
I'm curious how those who pooh-pooh the idea explain the difference. Any ideas?
Ken S wrote:
And the party whose candidate was on stage five nights ago simulating masturbation and oral sex is now the president-elect. Not sure that electing this man speaks too highly of Christian values.
It saddens me that I even have to reply to something this disgusting. The context was that Trump was talking about the technical difficulties they were having with the microphones and how the microphones were also often at the wrong height. He ran his hand up and down the microphone stand to show that sometimes it was too high and sometimes it was too low and that it was annoying for him to have to lean up or down to get to the right place where the mic would pick it up. Those of us who do public speaking with a mic can understand such challenges. It takes a perverted mind to turn that into something else. Of course progressives have said for years that what Trump says is not what he means and that they have the secret code for his "dog whistles." When people claim to know another person's heart and claim that they have the right to tell you what a person meant when that is not what they said, that is injustice and even slander. We should never excuse anyone on SI promoting that sort of thing.
Discussion