Can a vote for a political candidate be sinful, or described as “partnering with darkness?” (Eph. 5:7–12)? I think all of us instinctively understand there has to be a line somewhere that can be crossed. If a politician was in favor of lynching minorities, for example, would that disqualify them from getting your vote? What if they had many other sound policies that you aligned with? What if the candidate had an upstanding family, and no (known) political scandals? What if they were only in favor of lynchings under the circumstances they were “safe, legal and rare?” I use this extreme example to amplify the reality that all of us have a line, and I am confident a Christian would not justify voting for a candidate who publicly supported lynchings.
But, let’s bring this closer to home. Since I suspect that most who will read this essay are in the conservative evangelical world, what if a Republican candidate removes the pro-life plank from the Republican platform and says they will veto any national abortion ban legislation? Well, sadly, we need not ask this hypothetically. Donald Trump—the Republican nominee for President—has convinced the GOP to remove language which maintains support for an “amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth”—a passage the party platform had included since 1984 under Ronald Reagan. In its place, the platform now asserts:
Republicans Will Protect and Defend a Vote of the People, from within the States, on the Issue of Life.
We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments).
So, effectively, Trump has moved the GOP from explicitly pursuing the legal protection of preborn children, to turning the matter over to the States. I, like all fellow conservative evangelicals, lament this compromise. Trump’s decision to remove the legal protection of preborn children from the platform will likely have lasting harmful ramifications on social conservatism in the US. I mention this, because I made the following argument two years ago during the 2022 midterm election cycle in an essay for Christ Over All:
Certainly, abortion is not the only issue involved in voting, but as Schaeffer demonstrated in A Christian Manifesto, there is an antithesis between those who are for life and those who are against it . . . An evangelical can in good conscience vote for a Republican candidate who is pro-life, or a third-party candidate who is pro-life, or even not vote. But the question for evangelicals equivocating on abortion is this: can we revere Christ in our hearts as holy and vote for [the Democratic party] who wish to “beat humanness to death” by recodifying Roe as a federally protected “right?” The answer to this question is clear.
There is certainly more involved in properly calibrating our voting calculus than being pro-life, but there can never be less than the right to life for all (see here and here for more on this point). This raises the question, can evangelicals in good conscience vote for the Republican platform since it has removed the pro-life plank? While there are other morally permissible options, I believe an evangelical can and even should still vote for Trump in good conscience, because the platform change is not pro-abortion, and the opposing party is literally setting up abortion and vasectomy to-go mobiles outside their convention hall. Furthermore, there is still only one ticket who would not sign a federal abortion bill if/when it is brought to their desk, and that is the Trump ticket. So, while Trump may veto a national abortion ban, he will also veto any national abortion law congress puts on his desk.
A clear example of the stark difference between Trump and Kamala Harris on this point is Trump’s recent stand against the pro-abortion Amendment 4 “right to abortion initiative” in Florida, followed by Harris’s doubling down on her promise: “When I’m President and Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom [reinstate and expand Roe], I will proudly sign it into law. The choice in this election is clear.” What Harris says here is precisely what Biden was saying at the time I wrote my previous article, and I once again agree with the Democratic candidate: the choice is clear. #NeverHarris.
While I believe social conservatives/conservative evangelicals must make our displeasure abundantly clear with the removal of the pro-life plank, this retrogression does not make voting for Trump and J.D. Vance a sinful act, and it most certainly does not validate voting for Harris and Tim Walz, no matter what David French says. Any who are trying to strain Donald’s shortcomings to justify swallowing Kamala’s agenda are blind guides. Samuel Sey offers sound analysis (emphases added):
So we evangelicals cannot criticise the Evangelicals for Harris campaign while overlooking Trump’s evil. Voting for the lesser evil in Trump can be a righteous act, but it’s unrighteous to ignore the evil, even if it’s lesser than Kamala Harris’ greater evil. Donald Trump’s position on abortion is deplorable and Kamala Harris’ position is demonic. Despite his great track record on abortion when he was president, Trump isn’t campaigning against abortion. Kamala Harris, however, is campaigning for abortion. Essentially, between the two candidates, one wants to maintain the current abortion laws in America and the other wants to make it even worse.
I am saddened that I will effectively be voting for Trump/Vance to hold the turf gained in the demolition of Roe, as opposed to casting my vote for the explicit advance toward the abolition of abortion at the federal level. But, given the option of maintaining ground vs. losing ground on this crucial issue, I am fully convinced the former is the easy and common sense choice. As Erik Reed has said well, “Trump may allow abortion rights to gain an inch if he softens on the pro-life issue, but I believe if Harris wins she intends to take a mile.” As someone who desires to see the lives of as many babies spared as possible over the next four years in America, while wanting this country to be in the best possible position to see abortion outlawed down the road, this is an easy call. This conviction was reinforced when recently Trump spoke of banning abortion at six weeks being “too early” in reference to potentially supporting Amendment 4 in Florida, before announcing the next day after considerable pressure and outcry from the pro-life movement that he will be voting against the Amendment on the grounds that it is “too extreme” in its abortion advancement. Trump has shown time and again that he is reasonable and even persuadable on these matters, while Harris has made the promotion and expansion of abortion access and legalization the centerpiece of her platform.
When it comes to casting a vote this November, it is important to keep in mind that in America’s current two-party system, we are presented with a binary choice, or at least we have two legitimate options for office. In agreement with Dean Inserra, I find that voting third-party is a waste of a vote. I would take it a step further and add that not only do I find this strategy a waste of a vote, but as I will unpack more later, it overweights the vote in favor of the greater evil. This election, Harris/Walz are the indisputable greater evil and a clear threat to the common good, so the burden of proof rests upon those who would not actively contribute toward the defeat of this wicked ticket. As American evangelicals prepare to vote for the next president of the United States two years later, my perspective remains unchanged from the 2022 midterms. Therefore, in what follows, I will argue that conservative evangelicals:
Must not vote Harris/Walz. This is a clear and indisputable evil, and is thus sinful. Christians do not have the freedom to sin.
May vote third party or not vote.[1] I consider this to be a weaker brother perspective (akin to teetotalism or abstaining from eating meat) because it functionally contributes to the greater evil securing victory. However, I would add that Christians have the freedom to operate under a weaker conscience and must abide by their conscience. In the words of Martin Luther: “To go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”
Should vote Trump/Vance. I consider this to be the most mature perspective, grounded in political realism and a right understanding of what is at stake when compared to the opposing option.[2]
1. I agree with Andy Naselli’s argument in his contribution to this month’s theme that Christians have “three main options: (1) Vote for a Republican candidate. (2) Vote for a third-party candidate (I personally think this is wasting your vote). (3) Don’t vote (I personally think this is irresponsible). This tracks with the categories I am using of must not, may, and should here.
2. I owe these categories to Andrew T. Walker from his essay: “‘Is This a Sin?’: Ethical Triage and Church Discipline,” 9Marks, 2 October 2019.
The “Lesser of Two Evils” and Civic Responsibility
It is important to point out that someone’s identity is not bound up in whom they vote for. It seems to me the quagmire of identity politics is affecting our thinking unduly on this point. As Jonathan Leeman and Andy Naselli helpfully explain:
People today often treat their votes as personal expressions of who they are. Yet we would encourage you to view votes less as matters of self-expression or tribal identification and more as strategic calculations concerning these kinds of non-biblical matters. Then recognize that different Christians will make different wisdom-based calculations.[3]
3. Jonathan Leeman and Andy Naselli, How Can I Love Church Members with Different Politics? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020), 21.
The individual or party you vote for is not your federal representative before the throne of God above. Rather you are casting a vote for whom you think will best render earthly justice in keeping with your biblically informed worldview. This means that on this side of heaven Christians will always be tasked with voting for the “lesser of two evils.” On this point, each election cycle, I see people misuse Charles Spurgeon’s now rather infamous quote: “Of two evils, choose neither.” However, not only is this quote taken out of context when applied to politics, it does not even square with Spurgeon’s own guidance offered to his congregation in the sermon “Particular Election.”[4]
4. Spurgeon says, “I would not, however, say to any persons here present, despise the privilege which you have as citizens. Far be it from me to do it. When we become Christians we do not leave off being Englishmen; when we become professors of religion we do not cease to have the rights and privileges which citizenship has bestowed on us. Let us, whenever we shall have the opportunity of using the right of voting, use it as in the sight of Almighty God, knowing that for everything we shall be brought into account, and for that amongst the rest, seeing that we are entrusted with it. And let us remember that we are our own governors, to a great degree, and that if at the next election we should choose wrong governors we shall have nobody to blame but ourselves, however wrongly they may afterwards act, unless we exercise all prudence and prayer to Almighty God to direct our hearts to a right choice in this matter. May God so help us, and may the result be for his glory, however unexpected that result may be to any of us!”
If this essay does nothing else but help disabuse fellow Christians from absconding their civic responsibilities with vapid platitudes, I count it a success. Spurgeon is correct to apply pressure/weight upon the irresponsible conscience who defects or abstains from exercising their civic duty with mature and prudential deliberation. This applies to voting third-party or not voting. I should add, while I am not opposed to the language of “lesser-evil,” it may be even better to instead ask: which administration will better curb evil for the next four years? And as Spurgeon says, “exercise all prudence and prayer to Almighty God to direct our hearts to a right choice,” and vote for this option. Again, I think it is abundantly clear this is the Trump administration.
“Straight-Line” and “Jagged-Line” Issues
How do Christians rightly determine whom the lesser evil is this election? This is precisely what Leeman and Naselli were getting at above with the phrases “non-biblical matters” and “different wisdom-based calculations.” They get more specific with what is meant by this in their insightful rubric of “straight-line” vs. “jagged-line” political issues, which you can read about in their excellent essay from 2020, “Politics, Conscience, and the Church: Why Christians Passionately Disagree with One Another over Politics, Why They Must Agree to Disagree over Jagged-Line Political Issues, and How.” They explain,
For a straight-line issue, there is a straight line between a biblical text and its policy application. For instance, the Bible explicitly teaches that murder is sinful; abortion is a form of murder, so we should oppose abortion . . . for a jagged-line issue, there is a multistep process from a biblical or theological principle to a political position. Fellow church members should agree on straight-line political issues, and they should recognize Christian freedom on jagged-line political issues.
So, they are (rightly) arguing Christian freedom must be granted to fellow believers on jagged-line issues, but that uniformity among Christians is demanded on straight-line issues. As they mention, abortion is a straight-line issue. The reason why is captured soberly yet graphicly by Trent Hunter:
Abortion describes the murder of a fully human unborn life. A vulnerable boy or girl made in the image of God is killed in the protective womb of its mother, often as a paid service. The child is killed through chemical starvation and expulsion, or through vacuum disintegration, or through forceps dismemberment. The rights and choices of these children are immediately taken away from them, usually due to social or economic reasons. Mothers and fathers who do this willingly commit feticide—the slaying of their own offspring. Abortion is an abominable sin in the eyes of the God to whom all must give an account.
Or as Stephen Wellum has rightly argued, “The bottom line is this: the debate over the value of human life is not simply another issue; it’s a foundational one.” And the Democratic party is hellbent on passing a national law to restore “reproductive freedom,” that is, forcing all 50 states to legalize abortion-on-demand. Hunter insightfully draws attention to the fact that language such as “reproductive freedom” is a politically correct euphemism designed to hide the real horror of what is actually being advanced. It is a form of Derridean deconstruction, whereby the reality (feticide, or murder of one’s children) is cloaked in the language of freedom and bliss for the mother. But when we unmask so-called “reproductive freedom,” what we find is a holocaust of mutilated babies, sacrificed upon the altar of autonomy and “convenience.” (Take a moment to watch this graphic and disturbing clip from Live Action for a sobering and chilling reminder as to what “reproductive freedom” actually entails). Abortion is murder, and the Democratic party is obsessed with making feticide a national “right.”
Straight-Line Issue: Christians Must Not Vote For the Harris/Walz Radical Progressive Agenda
Regarding uniformity on straight-line issues this coming election, Christians must be in unison on what is not a viable option. As Albert Mohler has explained, “A Biden administration is totally beholden to the left. The Harris administration is the left.” He adds elsewhere that Harris will be the most radical abortion advocate in American history. This fact is echoed by Ryan Anderson. To illustrate this point, Harris co-sponsored a bill in 2019 that would have allowed for late term abortions nationwide if passed. If abortion is a straight-line issue, and it is, then Christians must not vote for Harris/Walz.
Let me be blunt, to vote for the Harris/Walz ticket does not merely expose a professing Christian to be a “weaker brother,” but it reveals such a profound disregard for God’s word and Christian ethics that it probably should call into question whether they are even a brother/sister in the faith at all. In short, it is at best an extremely unwise and at worst a blatantly sinful decision. If a professing Christian can vote for such a vile ticket (see exposés here and here, and see Harris’s “personal” platform here) their conscience is–at minimum dangerously close to being–seared, and they have likely been deceived.[5] A good conscience cannot and will not vote for the most unhinged pro-abortion ticket in American history. Thus voting for Harris/Walz is not a faithful option for Christians. Full stop.
5. The apostle Paul does indeed say that something is unclean only when someone thinks it to be unclean, but he is of course speaking to “jagged-line” (adiaphora/disputable matters) issues, not indisputable wickedness (Rom. 14:14; cf. 1 Cor. 5:1–6:20).
Jagged-Line Issue: Christians Should Vote for Trump/Vance, or Christians May Vote Third Party or Not Vote
Regarding freedom on jagged-line issues, Christians must not divide over voting for Trump, voting for a third-party pro-life candidate, or not voting at all. I appreciate the firm and clear answer Leeman and Naselli provide in response to the question: Must Christians have to tolerate those who differ on jagged-line issues? They write, “Yes, must. It’s not optional to respect fellow Christians who have differently calibrated consciences on jagged-line issues. Jagged-line issues correspond to what Paul in Romans 14:1 calls ‘disputable matters’ (NIV) or ‘opinions’ (ESV) or matters of conscience. ‘Don’t argue about disputed matters’ (CSB).”
Now, the charge for Christians to not argue about disputable matters does not preclude conversing over such topics or even seeking to persuade one another to alter course. Otherwise progressive sanctification and growth in Christ would be undermined. I fear that the affirmation-centric spirit of the age may influence some Christians to confuse attempted persuasion with contentiousness. But recall that when Paul charges Timothy to have nothing to do with foolish controversies and to avoid being quarrelsome, he then immediately exhorts Timothy to seek to correct his opponents with gentleness (2 Tim. 2:22–26). If this is how a pastor is to correct those in serious theological error, how much more ought this posture characterize Christians engaging on disputable matters? After all, just because there is freedom to disagree on “jagged-line issues” and we are commanded to tolerate and even welcome one another (see Rom. 14:1; 15:1), we should not conclude there is not a better or more mature position worth advocating for. Paul makes it clear he is a mature/stronger brother and calls the church to imitate his life and conduct (see 1 Cor. 8:13; 1 Cor. 10:23–11:1). Christians can engage on disputable matters all-the-while mutually resolving to not allow the discussion to devolve into dissension and ultimately division.
Because conservative evangelicals ought to be in unison over not voting Haris/Walz, I am convinced this is an implicit affirmation that maturer/stronger Christians (on this particular “disputable matter”) will vote for Trump/Vance. Let me be clear, in saying that maturer/stronger Christians will vote for Trump/Vance, I am not suggesting such Christians are thereby maturer/stronger in all areas of Christian living. My aim is not to be offensive or provocative, but to use the biblical categories we are given for disputable matters like voting. I personally have dear and trusted mentors in the faith whom I think have a weaker conscience on some matters of Christian freedom (even on the very topic covered in this essay!), but they are more mature and wiser than I in other significant areas of life. In other words, each “disputable matter” is to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and in the complex and diverse spectrum that is Christian conscience and sanctification, saints can be the mature brother in one area, and the weaker in another. Christian maturity and immaturity is not a zero sum game. Please do not read my case for it being a more mature/informed decision to vote for Trump as a totalizing claim. I am arguing that a vote for Trump/Vance demonstrates greater political maturity and prudence for this particular moment in American history.
The reason I argue those with a maturer/stronger conscience will vote for Trump/Vance is that we are promoting the best realistic option put before us. Put differently, if the Democratic party has crossed the line on a “straight-line” issue and thereby becomes sinful to vote for, then prudence calls for us to support whatever is most likely to defeat this clear evil, provided the alternative is not itself guilty of breaching a “straight-line” issue, or, in the worst of cases, does not breach such lines as flagrantly. To be blunt, the case against voting for Trump/Vance is littered with more imagined leftist propaganda than substantive or “straight-line” arguments. Joe Rigney has recently captured what I am seeking to get at here well:
Consider two different motives for a Trump vote: One, Trump is an American messiah who has no faults and has never done wrong. And two, Trump is better than the high-handed wickedness of the Party of Death and Sexual Insanity. Under the progressive gaze, if you adopt the latter, you will be accused of adopting the former in hopes that you will rethink your vote, or, at the very least, you will keep your intention to yourself (lest you encourage others to make the same choice).
As Colin Smothers has noted, evangelicals for Harris peg Trump voters with every one of his warts–real or imagined–while glossing over Harris’s unequivocally vile agenda, as Denny Burk unpacks. This double-standard is an example of the “progressive gaze” intended to manipulate Christians operating under the second motive Rigney lists above. For those reading this essay who plan to vote for Trump: Do not be steered or manipulated by the failings of those with weak and/or seared consciences. I do not say this as a Trump acolyte, but to call you to stand firm in your liberty, and to confidently cast your vote for the lesser evil. The world, the flesh, and the devil can and will enlist the help of the weak-minded to pry away your confidence in what you know to be the clear better option. There is no reason to rethink/overthink your vote because of the failings of those with weak and/or seared consciences.
For the reader who is rightly convinced Harris/Walz is a non-starter, while also not planning to vote for Trump/Vance, the main argument I have seen made for such a position is to “send a message” that social conservatives will not just beg for table scraps from the Republican party by withholding their vote. Let me just say that I find such logic to be rather idealistic, lacking in political realism and awareness of what is at stake. To vote third-party or not vote functionally contributes to Harris/Walz winning the race. We may wish this was not the case, but in a two-party system, this is the reality. Keep in mind that even after the Republican party compromised on abortion with the aforementioned platform changes, the party is still notably better than the Democratic position on abortion. So, to withhold your vote from Trump on “pro-life” grounds functionally contributes to the victory of a radically pro-death agenda. When a clear “lesser evil” is on the ticket it is permissible to not vote for this option, but it is by no means beneficial or commendable.
Some may object at this point and say: Are you not just moving the field goal posts indefinitely to justify voting Republican? No. Should the Republican platform become indistinguishable from the Democratic party’s on abortion, I would say that no Christian could in good faith/conscience vote for them either. But, we are not close to that being a reality. In agreement with Andrew T. Walker, I would also add there are other policies to bring into our voting calculus here. He explains:
It also seems better, for example, to vote for a candidate who opposes gender transitions but who also supports a fifteen week ban on abortion than a candidate who seeks to expand abortion and support gender “transitions.” The interest of justice is advanced as we aspire to make abortion increasingly outlawed, even though political realities prevent us from accomplishing everything we would like in the immediate term.
While I am honing in on the issue of abortion in this essay, I would be remiss to not clearly state that on virtually every other point of the Republican platform, they are the better ticket (see the Republican and Democratic Party Platforms). For more on why this is the case, see Andy Naselli’s excellent offering to this month’s theme on Voting to the Glory of God.
Now, to be upfront, I find Trump’s recent statements on IVF deplorable, and I find him no friend of traditional marriage. But Harris and Walz promote the mutilation and castration of our nation’s children, and they are expected to expand Biden’s child “gender transition” agenda if elected (see here and here). They provide unbridled support for all manner of sexual deviancy, while Walz confuses socialism for neighborliness. On these and many other crucial issues, the Harris/Walz ticket proves to be a far greater threat to the common good. In view of this reality, Mohler has recently provided needed moral clarity on the Briefing as to what is at stake in this election and the Christian conscience (emphases added):
The effect of our vote is that if we don’t vote, or if we vote for an implausible candidate, that is to say some third party candidate. We write someone in. And I’m not saying that would not be an act of conscience. I am saying that conscience needs to be informed by the fact that you are overweighting the rest of the vote. And that is to say there’s no way out of this. And so it is a way of registering a certain act of conscience, but there are balancing issues to that conscience, and those balancing issues to me are radically underlined on the issues of policy and party. I believe that not voting for one of the two parties means your vote is simply a matter of an extraneous choice that may function as a way that is right for your conscience. But I want that conscience to be informed by the fact that that vote nonetheless is not going to be without responsibility for the impact of the election…
I think the vast majority of those who are regular church attenders and are deeply committed to a theistic worldview, I believe the vast majority will be likely to vote for Donald Trump because they’re voting for the Republican Party because they are voting for those policies…
So I believe there will be some evangelical Christians and other conservatives who will write in a name as a presidential candidate, as an act of conscience, believing themselves to be unable to vote even though they would hold some kind of conservative principles. They are unable by conscience to vote for Donald Trump. I want to say that the rest of us will have to respect that, but I’m going to say I do not endorse that, and I believe that our vote will have consequences, and particularly in this kind of election, we are electing policies and we are in effect electing a party. And there still is a dramatic difference when it comes down to the policies that will be enacted by these two different candidates for president as you look at the Democratic and the Republican tickets.
No doubt, there will likely be a cost to pay if/when conservative evangelicals overwhelmingly vote for Trump this coming election, politics in a fallen world are all about tradeoffs. But the alternative–to passively contribute to a Democratic party victory “on principle” this election–is a naive pietism. The Democratic party is openly and flagrantly at war with ontology and God’s created order. Trump has shown himself to be somewhat philosophically malleable, meaning conservatives actually have a hearing with him. Therefore, mature Christians who “know what time it is” (1 Chron. 12:32) will cast their ballot for Trump and seek to persuade him and the GOP to recommit to pro-life policies and other conservative principles.
In agreement with Mohler’s argument, I would reiterate that just because something is a “conscience issue” does not mean they are equally commendable. Nor does it mean that a Christian with a weaker conscience cannot or should not be called to account for their civic responsibility and thus calibrate their conscience over time to better accord with God’s word and sound wisdom. However, mature Christians are called to patiently bear with the weaker, and weaker Christians are called to not judge the mature for failing to live “up” to their failings (Rom. 14:1–4; 15:1–2). Moreover, should a weaker brother change their mindset/perspective, they must do so with care and sobriety, ensuring they do not violate their conscience in the process. And as Mohler also points out above, the “rest of us” (the mature brothers and sisters/the vast majority of evangelicals) have to respect if and when a fellow Christian/church member decides not to vote for Harris/Walz or Trump/Vance. But, we by no means are called to endorse such a decision any more than Paul endorses vegetarianism or keeping Jewish festivals in Romans 14.
How To Calibrate Your Conscience in a God-Honoring Way
If you are reading this essay, and you find what I am arguing persuasive, but previously could not in good conscience vote for Trump/Vance, I would encourage you to prayerfully and slowly calibrate your conscience accordingly. As your brother in Christ I am not asking you to violate your conscience out of fear of man, but desire for you to be informed and to make a sound decision with a clear conscience in the voting booth. Leeman and Naselli once again provide sound advice on the matter:
The standard for what’s right and wrong is God, who has revealed himself to us particularly through the Bible. So when your conscience is not functioning accurately, you should endeavor to align it with God’s words. The classic example of this in the Bible is the Apostle Peter. He was convinced in his conscience that it was sinful to eat certain foods—like pork. God told Peter three times to “kill and eat” animals that Peter considered to be unclean. Peter had the gall to reply to God, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” But because the Lord was commanding Peter to eat those foods, Peter had to calibrate his conscience so that he would have the confidence to accept food and people that he previously could not accept (see Acts 10:9–16). So how does a Christian calibrate his or her conscience? In at least three ways:
1. by educating it with truth. Truth refers primarily to the truth God reveals in the Bible, but it also includes truth outside the Bible. For example, assuming that God allows some forms of contraception, the decisive information that may lead a Christian couple to use or not use a particular form of contraception may be truth outside the Bible—that is, scientific information that explains in detail how a form of contraception works.
2. in the context of your church. Godly church leaders and fellow members are one of God’s gifts to you to help you calibrate your conscience. You don’t have to do it alone.
3. with due process. Some issues may take you years to work through. That’s okay. It’s better not to rush it than to prematurely change and go against your conscience.
One of the reasons I am thankful to be writing on this matter in the month of September is because it grants the opportunity to make this case and allow readers to take time to pray and think over what I am claiming. In fact, I write this essay now as someone who voted third-party in 2016 and is convinced I was operating under a weak conscience eight years ago. I myself have had to calibrate my conscience since. And I am thankful for the maturity demonstrated toward me on the part of fellow church members over the last decade as we have engaged on political matters, which has helped me mature. “Behold how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity” (Ps. 133:1). For it protects the weak and provides opportunity for their growth. I would commend each of the steps outlined above by Leeman and Naselli, and would add that should you still not in good conscience be able to vote for Trump this November, I respect that, and encourage you to honor your conscience. This would be both right and safe.
Conclusion
My prayer is that conservative evangelicals would agree that we must not vote for Harris/Walz, while granting one another Christian freedom on voting for Trump, voting third-party, or not voting. May we be uniform on the “straight-line” and tolerant on the “jagged-line” issues. I am convinced the “maturer/stronger” brothers/sisters politically will ultimately vote for the Trump/Vance ticket, but readily grant that those with an “immature/weaker” conscience have the freedom in Christ to vote third-party or abstain from voting entirely. If you are reading this essay and are inclined to not vote for Trump, I would encourage you to earnestly consider the reality that such a decision passively contributes to a Harris presidency, and then to reconsider whether such a scenario is worth the message you think you are sending to the GOP. As in all things, may we act with faith and wisdom, knowing “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). Above all, may Christians be known for/by our love for one another as we model how to disagree well on disputable matters (John 13:35).