We began to consider last time how Christians might approach elections where we are asked to choose between “the lesser of two evils.” Among other things, I suggested that in a fallen world, such a choice represents the norm rather than the exception. As we continue to think through the issue, I want to focus particularly on the presidential election, though there may be principles here that will help us at other levels of elections.
When we cast a vote for president, in a sense we are casting a vote on three different levels.
This is an insight I gleaned from Albert Mohler’s August 13 podcast. (His categories are framing the content of my thoughts here, but I do not intend to regurgitate his material. If you listen to that episode of his podcast, you may be helped by both broader and more specific insights on the election.)
First, by voting for a presidential candidate, we are voting for a person. What I would say about this has largely been addressed by the previous article. To be sure, a candidate’s character is of consequence. Yet, pagan cultures can be expected to put forth pagan candidates. To expect to always be able to vote for someone who could qualify as an elder at a conservative evangelical church is unlikely, as American history has proven. Still the characters of the respective candidates should be weighed.
Second, by voting for a presidential candidate, we are voting for policies. That is to say, it not just a person, not just the person’s character, but what that person says he or she will do. These policies will include a wide range of issues. So what does each candidate say he or she will do? Given past performance, how likely are they to do what they say?
Third, by voting for a presidential candidate, we are voting for a party. There is no way around this. An entire national political machine gains ground when that candidate wins. Therefore, the party, the individuals comprising it, and their collective priorities must be considered in tandem with the single name of the candidate at the top of the ticket.
The reality that we are voting for a person, their policies, and their party could be weighed against any number of issues, depending upon what is most important to us. We can certainly disagree about the relative importance of a host of issues, but I would suggest two issues that should be of supreme importance to believers.
First, the sanctity of life. God’s creation of humanity in His image gives value to human life that is distinct from all the rest of creation (Gen 1:26-27). We honor God by honoring the image of God in man. The image of God is the reason for the original prohibition against murder (Gen 9:6). Numerous biblical proofs extend this personhood and creation in God’s image to the earliest moments of life, even to conception (Exo 21:22-25; Psa 51:3-5; 58:3; Jer 1:5; Luke 1:15).
Given the leftward lurch of the culture on this issue, neither party is willing to defend life as in the past. Again, this does not mean we have no meaningful choice to make in the ballot box. As it stands, while both parties are left of where they used to be, there is still a huge difference between the two parties with one more radical than ever. Which person/policies/party will bring the nation closer to the desired state as it pertains to honoring God on the issue of life?
Second, freedom of speech. Our mission is one directly connected to our faculty of speech. Making disciples (Matt 28:19-20) requires us to open our mouths and proclaim the gospel. “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Rom 10:14).
To be sure, in the absence of a government-guaranteed right to free speech, the church must continue to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 5:27-32). If it costs us everything, we will share the truth with the lost. Yet, as we noted last time, Paul urged believers to pray for a government amenable to peaceful, quiet, godly church life (1 Tim 2:1-4), which assumes conditions favorable to gospel proclamation.
Therefore, we should ask, which person/policies/party is more likely to champion the freedom of speech? Perhaps a better question to ask: which person/policies/party is more likely to tolerate speech with which it disagrees? This is the crux of the matter as it pertains to free speech. Speech is either free or it isn’t. When the powers that be propose to decide who can speak, who can’t, what can be said, what can’t be said, or must be said…free proclamation of the gospel is in danger. All that is left is for the right leader to deem it disagreeable, untrue, hateful, etc.
It is not my intention to endorse a particular candidate or party, but to help bring some biblical insight to the issue. May the Lord give us all wisdom and biblically-informed consciences as we continue to consider these things.
Comments