Voting in 2024 (Pt. 2)
Clarity, Choice, Charity
This article is the second installment. Here is the first.
Recap: Living in a democracy during an election means that all of us play some part in election process—even if we vote third party—all of us cast a vote, which means all of us must be prepared to make compromises. How do we know which compromises to make? We must heed our consciences, even as we seek to shape our conscience with God’s truth and accurate facts, within the context of the Church. And within the Church, we acknowledge that fellow members may have differently calibrated consciences than our own.
While fellow church members may disagree on the best political path to take in this election, that does not mean we sacrifice clarity on what God has spoken—we do not mumble when God speaks loudly.
Clarity
The Bible does not speak with equal clarity on all issues, therefore we do not weigh all issues equally. The Bible is clear that, for instance, murder, sexual perversion, and lying are sinful.
The Bible has something to say about a Christian’s obligation to the environment and immigration, but it is less clear than the former issues.
The Bible has almost nothing to say about taxation rates or international trade policies.
That isn’t to say that taxation rates or trade policies are unimportant. It means that what the Bible is most clear on should weigh most heavily on how we vote.1
This means that some of the most pressing, important political issues today cannot be answered by simply citing a chapter and verse:
What should America do in response to China’s increasingly aggressive posture towards Taiwan?
What role should the government play in regulating Big Tech?
What immigration policy is most realistically possible, humane, and wise?
What, if anything, should be done to keep Social Security solvent?
What gun control laws should be passed?
These, and many more, are serious questions that we should ask of any potential future leader of our country. But faithful Christians can have vastly different views on these policies. And because these questions are so far removed from the clear teaching of Scripture, we are left to use wisdom and prudence as we consider the answer.2
But, not every political question is like that.
Is marriage between a man and a woman?
Are all human beings—from the pre-born, to the immigrant, to the elderly, and mentally handicapped—valuable and worthy of the right to life?
Can a man choose to become a woman, or vice versa?
Can we use violence to achieve our desired political ends?
These are not questions that faithful Christians can have different views on. The Bible is abundantly clear on all of these.
If there is an intersection between “clear teaching of the Bible” and “public policy”, then that has to do with issues surrounding the doctrine of man: the imago Dei, marriage and sexuality, sanctity of life, social and retributive justice, freedom of conscience and worship, etc.
If a candidate ignores or proposes policies that undermine these matters, then Christians should be crystal clear in their opposition and disapproval. We should not act as if a candidates views on lesser issues are more important than their views on these critical matters: “Sure, George Wallace may be a racist and segregationist, but his economic policy is great!”
Unfortunately, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris fall short on some of the clearest teachings in Scripture in their social policies.
For instance, both Trump and Harris stand in opposition to what God has said in regards to the murder of unborn children. This does not mean that they are equivalent, by any means, on this issue. Harris is enthusiastically and passionately supportive of abortion—saying she would be prepared to end the filibuster in the Senate to secure abortion rights—while Trump seems to approach it with at least some realpolitik reticence. But the GOP party platform of 2024—at the behest of Trump—dropped the call for a federal ban on abortion, dropped the term “sanctity of life,” said nothing about an unborn child’s fundamental “right to life,” and only stated—in ironically (but not really; clearly intentional) pro-choice verbiage—the right of states to choose what they would do with abortion. Trump does, however, oppose late-term abortion—but this comprises only 1.1-1.3% of all abortions performed. Further, he not only supports IVF, but has pledged to fund IVF with tax payer dollars—more embryos are destroyed through IVF than through abortion, every year.
The abandonment of the “right to life” is so troubling because, in the words of John Paul II, without it all other rights are “false and illusory.” If the State—whose express purpose is to protect and preserve life—can remove the right to life from some persons, then they can deny other God-given rights as well. In fact, by denying what God gives, they assume the role of the divine in society (Rev 13:8).
Similarly, Harris is much farther to the left on LGBT issues than Trump is, but the 2024 GOP party platform also dropped its calls to oppose same-sex marriage, and nowhere says anything about the traditional definition of marriage. Previously, the 2016 platform stated: “Every child deserves a married mom and dad, and our laws and government regulations should actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society.” Today, the platform simply states: “Republicans will promote a Culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage, the blessings of childhood, the foundational role of families, and supports working parents. We will end policies that punish families.”
The general outlook of the two candidates appears to be that Harris is far to the left on most social policies, and Trump has similarly drifted (or returned) leftward, only much more modestly.
This isn’t true, of course, on everything.
One issue that does seem to be starkly different between the two candidates is their views on transgenderism. Harris supports the Equality Act, a radical piece of legislation that, “could be used to restrict the religious freedom of churches and religious nonprofits, including religious schools; set back protections for women in athletics, at work, and in private spaces like showers and locker rooms; and inhibit the ability of everyday Americans to live in accord with their beliefs.” If signed into law, this act would override RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)—meaning, someone could not appeal to issues of conscience or religious freedom if disagreeing with, for example, hiring a transgender teacher for their religious school.
Trump, on the other hand, opposes the Equality Act and has vowed to end how the Biden administration used Title IX to apply to transgender students and athletes. He also said that he would block doctors who provide gender-affirming care from Medicare and Medicaid, forbid federal agencies from actions to “promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age,” and task the Justice Department with investigating the medical industry to see if they “deliberately covered up horrific long-term side effects of sex transitions in order to get rich.”
Again, I would recommend reading this and comparing and contrasting the views on LGBT+ issues and abortion between the two candidates.
There are, of course, many other issues besides abortion and LGBT policies that Christians should be thinking about. I am zeroing in on these because they (1) are some of the clearest issues the Bible speaks on and (2) have historically served as disqualifying positions for single-issue voters among Evangelicals.
But, even if we can see that Trump appears to not be as radical as Harris on these matters, neither candidate aligns with the Bible. So, what are we to do? This brings us back to our previous point—we must be prepared to compromise, which means we have to make a choice.
Choices
But what compromises should we make?
One may believe that, while Trump has no sterling record, he is the lesser of two evils given his opposition to the most radical forms of ideology coming from the Left, and his defense of religious freedom, school choice, and freedom of speech. Further, his running partner, J.D. Vance, has a refreshing affirmation of the importance of family and children and the threat of Big Tech in eroding the mental and emotional health of the next generation. Plus, most Trump voters likely fear that Harris/Walz are simply the greater of two evils, and so vote with no love for Trump, but only fear of the alternative.
Others Christians, however, may disagree and claim that since neither candidate agrees holistically with the Christian perspective on life and marriage, then other factors should be weighed as well. They may insist that character, not just policies, matter, and Trump is a morally bankrupt man unfit for office. Or they may point to the fact that abortions have actually risen since the Dobbs decision and that nothing appears to animate and unify the Left more than Donald Trump. Or some may point to Trump’s lack of support for Ukraine, or to the fact that Trump’s proposals will balloon our national debt at more than twice as much as Harris’. Or they may point to January 6th and Trump’s recent threats to use the military to deal with “the enemy from within”—that is, his political opponents. “Trump is an existential threat to the institutions of our country” is a common argument.
And finally, some may believe that if Christians vote for either Trump or Harris—who have disregarded the central planks of social conservatism—we will functionally be telling both parties: “You never need to pay attention to us again.” Thus, they believe that to vote in this election is to cede any future influence we may ever have. Edward Fesser, a Catholic philosopher, has been a winsome advocate for this perspective, both here and here.3
Fesser argues that to support Trump now is to do irreparable damage to social conservatism for generations:
Trump’s defenders will respond that the greatest danger nevertheless comes from the Left. I agree, as I have made clear over and over and over again. But it simply doesn’t follow that Trump is the remedy. His essentially Hobbesian individualist ethos is simply another variation on the liberal disease that afflicts the modern body politic, rather than its cure. Even then, it is less an ideology than merely the personality type of one man, who is unlikely to leave behind him even a coherent movement, much less a political philosophy, after he is gone. His legacy will likely be a social conservatism that is greatly diminished in influence, and a larger conservative movement that will be less serious intellectually and remain internally divided indefinitely.
Or, they may argue that to vote for either candidate is to make oneself complicit in the evil each campaign represents, to sin against God. Another Catholic writer, James J. Heaney, has presented the most thorough and persuasive argument for this position here:
In short, Christians must speak clearly and definitively in sync with the Bible. The clarity of God’s Word binds our conscience from voting for either Trump or Harris because of their sinful policies, but we may—if conscience allows—vote in spite of them. Meaning, we have, to the best of our ability, accepted that this imperfect choice is better than that one. But we never defend what God has told us is indefensible. We do not proudly wave their flags, wear their faces on our shirts, or embrace their personas as our standard-bearers. We do not present ourselves as members of their “squad” and should make our disagreements with their reprehensible policies known, as we are given opportunity.
If upon reflection, prayer, study, and an earnest attempt to shape our conscience wisely, we deem that we should vote for either major candidate, we may do so, but do so reluctantly.
But, if we arrive at the conclusion that we must not vote (or vote third-party), we must accept that one of these two flawed candidates is still going to become president. Our absence from the process may spare us from a troubled conscience (which is no small thing), but it will not alter—at least immediately—this outcome.
In other words: we all will have to make compromises.
Which brings us to the final point.
Charity
Christians must agree on what is clear in the Bible. But that does not mean we need to agree on everything that matters in this election. Nor does it mean that we need to agree on the best political mechanism to try to achieve the clear teaching of Scripture.
Scripture binds our conscience, for example, to “defend the rights of the poor and needy,” (Prov 31:9). But it does not give us a detailed mechanism to achieve that end. One Christian may think the best political mechanism to help the poor is through a large welfare state, while another Christian may think that a large welfare state actually hurts the poor. Christians, of good faith and sound mind, who agree on the end, may disagree on the different means to achieve that end.
So too, Christians will disagree on what compromises they are willing to make to achieve the most desirable end in the political realm. Which means that we need to exercise charity towards those who disagree with us. The unity of the church is not uniformity, but a unity amidst diversity (1 Cor 12:12-24; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; Eph 2:13-17).
Thus, we should be slow to assume the worst of our brother or sister who arrives at a different political calculation than we do. They could be wrong. Or we could be wrong. Politics is a highly uncertain endeavor. But what we all are certain about—the eternal truths of God’s Word—matters much more. If the unity you share with other brothers and sisters in the Apostle’s Creed or the Westminster Confession of Faith matters less to you than the unity you share with non-Christians around your favorite political pundit, then that reveals something malnourished and misshapen in you, a species of worldliness.
The unity created through our shared union in Christ is infinitely deeper and broader than any other political alliance that may last for the next election cycle.
Conclusion
We have no perfect choices. We all must make compromises. We need to do the hard work of both shaping and heeding our consciences. No matter what, we must affirm what the Bible clearly teaches. When we come to make a choice, we should not pretend that Trump or Harris’ rejection of God’s design is anything other than wretched. But as we make our choice, we must extend charity to fellow brothers and sisters who may have arrived at a different choice than ourselves.
This does not mean, however, that just because something is clearly sinful, it must also be illegal. God has given the State the authority to preserve life and punish evil so that the God’s people may fulfill the Great Commission. For more on that, see this. The authority of the State is not the same as the authority of the Church. So, while blasphemy is a sin, it is not within the jurisdiction of the State to punish it, but the Church. Murder is a sin, and should be punished by the Church, but it also falls within the jurisdiction of the State (since the State exists to preserve life), so it should also be a crime.
This does not mean, however, that all views are right. We can affirm that there can be matters we can agree to disagree on without slipping into a kind of epistemological or moral relativism.
Though Fesser does admit that between the two, Trump would be preferable to Harris. So he advocates those in swing states to still vote for Trump, but to make their grievances and complaints as loud and public as possible, while encouraging those elsewhere to protest voting for either candidate.