Situational Ethics & Voting: Answering Wayne Grudem

Last updated on: August 5, 2016 at 2:32 pm by Michael Farris

Situational Ethics & Voting: Answering Wayne Grudem 2016-08-05T14:32:12-04:00 Michael Farris

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Substantive Issues

In Deuteronomy, the king was not supposed to turn from God’s law to the right or to the left. So, for a Christian to be able to cast his vote with a clean conscience, he must assure himself that the candidate he supports is in accord with fundamental moral questions that arise in the political context.

This, of course, begs the question as to what are such fundamental moral questions? Every believer needs to be convinced in his or her own mind as to the issues on which he believes that there can be no compromise of God’s standards.

I will list just four that I believe have the strong consensus of evangelical leaders over time.

We should not support a person who advocates the death of innocent human life.
Slavery and racism. We should not support a person who supports slavery in any form (including sexual slavery) or a person who advocates racially-based inequality before the law.
Religious freedom. We should not support a person who fails to affirm his commitment to protect the right of every person to not only worship God as he believes but to fully exercise his faith in his every-day life.
Sexual confusion. God created us as males and females. Marriage is the relationship between one man and one woman. Any form of confusion about gender identity is a form of denial that God created us male and female.

There are several other issues that I personally apply to guide my voting, but I would contend that they are more constitutional in nature rather than scriptural. And while I am entitled as a believer to add more hurdles for a candidate, I do not believe that any amount of constitutional fidelity on issues like property rights, gun rights, federalism, tax limitations and the like (which I personally always seek to apply) can overcome any failure on these four minimum moral issues.

Summary, Synthesis and Application

I see nothing in Scripture which permits us to engage in situational ethics when it comes to voting. There is no occasion in which the lesser of two evils is relevant or controlling when it comes to the duty of a Christian to cast their vote for a leader of a nation.

Rather, the Scripture gives us a series of character requirements that we should apply to help us conclude that the person is fit to handle the duty of punishing that which is wrong and praising that which is right.

I respectfully suggest that the correct test is not the lesser of two evils. Rather, we should be asking: who is the better of two qualified candidates?

We should be generous in our application of these standards to determine minimal qualifications. This takes into account that all men are sinners.

In summary, then, I suggest the following standards for a Christian to apply for their own personal vote:

A political leader is to praise good and punish evil. If a person’s life demonstrates a long-time rejection of God’s moral standards, such a candidate is disqualified from the outset.
A political leader should be wise. At a minimum, this means that they understand fundamental morality and how to apply this with justice in government.
A political leader should be virtuous. Faithful, honest, true, and tested.
A political leader should not compromise on the fundamental moral issues of the day especially: abortion, racism and slavery, religious freedom, and gender confusion.
We should reject those who are hot-headed, arrogant, liars, deceivers, or blood-thirsty.

It should be self-evident that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton are qualified to be president under these standards. It is not a close call in either case both for reasons of personal character as well as reasons of policy on core moral issues.

So what do we do then?

The answer is that we don’t cave in and violate our principles. We can vote for an independent or minor party candidate who is qualified. Or, we can write-in the name of someone we believe to be qualified. Or, we can leave the presidential line blank and vote for other offices. Not only is this the approach we find in Scripture (don’t associate with the arrogant liar) but it is also the only practical thing to do in the long-run. Here’s why:

People who espouse a biblical worldview have seemed much more welcome in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party for several decades now. However, if we give our votes to the Republican Party when it nominates a candidate that fails to meet our minimum standards, then we forfeit any and all political power we have—not just in one election—but for a generation.

Can you imagine the African-American community giving their votes to the Democratic nominee if he or she was openly racist? I guarantee you that they have a minimum standard and so do labor unions, homosexual activists, and the NRA.

Christians who fail to erect and demand a minimal standard for earning their vote are not just ignoring the standards of the Word of God, they are betraying their utter political ignorance. If you want to win in the long run, you have to stick by your minimums in every election.

If we want leaders with character and conviction, we cannot violate our minimum standards even once.

Photo Credit: Elliott Stallion, https://hd.unsplash.com/photo-1466780446965-2072a3de8a43