I'm a Christian Leader and This is How I Vote

The 2024 presidential election was expected to be one of the most ridiculous and contentious in modern American history, and it has certainly lived up to the hype. If we take a step back and recognize how abnormal it is for conversations about eating cats, a politician remarking about how beautiful their own body is, and arguments over something as fundamental as reality itself to be mainstays in an election for one of the most powerful nations on earth. It’s quite the spectacle.

With the Republican platform functionally moving away from its decades-old stance against abortion—the primary justification for longstanding evangelical loyalty to the GOP—I’ve had conversations with numerous people who have asked about how I decide to vote. This piece is my attempt to consolidate those responses into something coherent that will hopefully serve to benefit others.

Before we begin, I must make a confession at the onset: I’m not going to tell you who to vote for in this piece. Rather, I am discussing the postures and criteria with which I approach exercising my right to vote—not only for the 2024 election, but for every election.

Principle 1: I Reject Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a heck of a drug. Pragmatism says, “well, this person may be an awful human being but they’ll do x, y, and z.” Pragmatism says that ends justify the means. Pragmatism says if something works then it must be right. Pragmatism says winning is all that matters. Pragmatism says, “well, we’re not electing a Pastor-In-Chief!”

I reject all of that. While I reject pragmatic considerations for deciding how to vote because it is precisely because of pragmatism that with every election cycle more and more of the worst parts of who we are as a society seem to reach the ballot box, that’s not the only reason. I also reject pragmatism because, in its extreme forms, it is completely unbiblical. God cares about character. God cares about the means just as much—sometimes more—than the ends (cite here any number of Scriptures about the Lord looking at the heart over outward appearance, the rejection of people who did great things in his name but did not know him, and people honoring the Lord with their lips but their hearts being far from him).

Pragmatism is the enemy of principled conviction. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if we dispense with our principles for pragmatic reasons, we have no principles. And if we have no principles we have no morals. And if we have no morals…well, you can see where I’m going with this.

Principle 2: I Actually Look for a “Pastor-In-Chief”

As I described in a similar piece last year, many of the cultures of the Bible used the image of a shepherd when thinking about the ideal ruler. Someone who looked out for the vulnerable, was benevolent, watchful, compassionate, and tended to the most basic needs of his or her people. This is why the psalmist pulls on the image of the shepherd to describe the greatest Ruler of all in Psalm 23…the Lord is my Shepherd.

While the modern pastorate has had added to it any number of qualities including, but not limited to, visionary CEO, thought leader, influencer, organizational guru, leadership development coach, etc., the word “pastor” itself simply means shepherd. So if we’re to take the Bible seriously (I suggest that we should), it should weigh heavily on our decision making that the ideal ruler of the cultures who gave us the Bible was one who was very much a sort of “pastor-in-chief.”

While many Christian leaders point to that term as a ridiculous notion, the ridiculousness of which they then use to justify their enthusiastic support for objectively-wicked politicians, the fact is that is precisely the type of person we should look for. An easy criteria to apply is to consider how the ideal of the shepherd took on flesh in a singular individual, the Good Shepherd…Jesus the Christ.

In other words, I decide how to vote based upon which candidate exhibits the leadership, character, and disposition most like Jesus.

When I tell people this many will wring their hands at the thought… “How idealistic!” “How unrealistic!” But I’m not saying voting for the candidate that is like Jesus. I’m talking about grading on a curve here. Between the candidates for an office (any public office)…which one is most like Jesus? Surely if we know Jesus…if we walk in his way…if we hear his voice…we can make such a determination with relative ease in prayerful discernment.

Principle 3: I Don’t Hang my Hat on Promises

I recall an episode of the 90s sitcom Boy Meets World where Corey Matthews decides to run for class president in an effort to be more well-liked. He finds that as he makes increasingly ridiculous campaign promises—promises that he knows full and well are out of his reach to give—that his popularity grows. Corey gets to a point by the episode’s climax where he will promise anything so long as he gets elected.

Many candidates, especially running for federal office, make all sorts of promises. As Brian Zahnd said recently, “political parties are more interested in Christian votes than they are in Christian values.” This is especially true if the candidate is also bereft of character from which genuine conviction and principled integrity grow. If the person doesn’t have that, there’s no point in listening to any campaign promise or policy proposal. It’ll change with the shifting winds of public sentiment.

Principle 4: I Critique the People I Vote For

Voting for someone doesn’t mean you should become an apologist for him or her. Don’t trade your place as a prophetic people to function as some pundit puppet, justifying the immorality, duplicity, or outright wickedness of a politician. I don’t exactly know what it is that causes people to feel the need to defend the shenanigans of the person for whom they vote, but we should stop it. If it’s immoral, say so. If it’s evil, say so.

Principle 5: I Consider the Witness of the Church

Many Christians have gotten riled up over leaders and pundits who traffic in fear-mongering, promising the “end of Christianity” or “certain persecution” if one side or another wins the election. They do this because it’s common knowledge that appealing to the worst in people is a quicker way to motivate people to action than by appealing to the best in people. Consequently, many Christians are deciding their vote based on what they perceive to be the survival of the Church.

But the Church is much bigger, much more ancient, much more transcendent than any particular corner of Christianity that has taken up residence in the United States. We serve a global God on a global mission to reconcile all the nations of the earth unto himself and has called his global Church to join him on that mission. I’m much more concerned about God’s reconciliatory mission in the world than I am whether a courthouse hangs the Ten Commandments in its entryway.

The unfortunate reality is that I’ve often found that those who become obsessed with preserving their religious liberties are seldom of the mind to avail themselves of those liberties for evangelistic purposes. The motivation is more often personal comfort than participating in God’s mission.

My greatest concern as it pertains to the witness of the Church is her unholy alliance making with political parties. History has shown time and again that when the Church cozies up to political power for security in one generation, it forfeits its witness in the world in the next generation. I have deep concerns that our unholy alliances will cost us more deeply than we can possibly imagine. Indeed, it is already costing us more than we can possibly know.

Principle 6: I Vote for Human Flourishing

God’s ultimate design for humankind is to flourish together under his wisdom and rule. Scripture promises that this will be brought to fruition at the return of Christ, when his kingdom will be established for eternity—not through the halls of any earthly power today—but by his own resurrection power. Christians are called to work in this time between two advents…declaring that the promise of Christ’s first coming will be fully realized in his second coming. We have historically placed significant priority on human flourishing as a result…caring for the poor and the sick, fighting against the oppression of marginalized people, contending for the proper stewardship of God’s good creation.

This means that I not only take seriously the right of the vulnerable—such as unborn children—but that I also take seriously that these unborn children, once born, should be permitted to live flourishing lives. I’m unashamedly what is often called a “womb-to-tomb” pro-lifer. I take this ethic of life so seriously that I believe it should extend into how we think about every facet of society. My ethic of life informs my beliefs about economics. It informs my beliefs about criminal justice. It informs my beliefs about social welfare. It informs my beliefs about care for veterans. And the list could go on. Fundamentally it is a holistic ethic of life, rooted in God’s design for human flourishing, that is a significant criteria for how I choose to vote. That is more than just about policy, however. It is about a candidate’s personal regard for human life and flourishing. Because, of course, it is out of the abundance of a candidate’s heart that his or her mouth speaks.