Politics

Churches have no business addressing political questions. Their work is to proclaim the whole counsel of God. Christian individuals, however, are responsible to act upon moral and spiritual concerns before they address merely temporal ones. Matters of principle should take precedence over matters of preference. Therefore, part of the church’s business is to instruct the people of God in those moral principles that they must apply in their political decisions. In other words, while churches should not tell their members who to vote for, they should teach them how to vote.

In every political race, many issues will surface that are not moral in nature. Christians may certainly take account of these issues, but non-moral issues should never be allowed to take priority over moral ones. For example, a candidate’s religious beliefs and affiliation may be matters of interest, but they do not typically determine how well an elected official will govern. Christians might better vote for an unbeliever with just policies than to vote for a fellow-saint whose policies are naïve or misguided.

Governments have no moral duty to manage the economy (in fact, it is doubtful that they can ever do better than simply to get out of the way). Governments have no moral duty to create jobs. Governments have no moral duty to increase the wealth of their nations. Governments have no moral duty to supply the financial or medical needs of their citizens. Governments do not even have a moral duty to educate children.

Citizens may wish that their governments would do some or all of these things for them. Since these are (at best!) matters of convenience, however, they must not be the primary issues that Christians consider when they are deciding for whom to vote. Rather, such issues must take a very distant second place to genuinely biblical and moral concerns. The following are eight biblical concerns that Christian people should weigh as they consider their voting choices.

I know. It’s the wrong season for thinking about politics. Nonetheless, I’m thinking about it, and sometimes you have to serve up your ideas while they’re still warm.

A perennial (or perhaps biennial or quadrennial) question in the American political experience is “Should people of conscience vote for the lesser of two evils?” The question is of interest to all who care about right and wrong but carries special interest for Christians since their aim is to do all things in obedience to Christ.

My thesis is simple. In a vote between two evils, Christians ought to back the lesser of the two.

For the purposes of this essay, I’m assuming readers already believe Christians ought to vote. My aim is to present three arguments for voting for the candidate who is least evil, whether the office is President of the United States, U.S. Senator or Village Clerk.

1. Such a vote is the lesser of two evils.

The first argument for voting for the lesser of evils is in the proposition itself: less evil. Who can be against that? Here’s the argument one statement at a time: