Can I just point out that apathy is not the only reason Christians might not be voting this year? Certainly, it may be part of the explanation, but when the supposed "conservative" candidate essentially takes the position of the Democratic Party of the 1990s on abortion, openly endorses homosexuality, and has been unwilling to take any real stand against transgenderism, it should hardly be surprising that Christians are not enthused to vote for the guy.
Take as an example, the topic of abortion (which I would prefer to call "baby murder" so as to avoid euphemisms). We have been told that it is just a complete surprise how much opposition there is to prolife legislation and that we need to push for incremental changes that trims around the edges of the problem (and barely does so at that since the vast majority of babies murdered are killed by means of a pill the mother received by mail). However, I might point out with the abolitionists that by allowing for exceptions, we are creating roadblocks for ourselves in the future if we ever come to the point of being able to abolish baby murder. Further, it muddies up the message when we start advocating for legislation with exceptions while arguing that there should be no exceptions. This is one of the primary reasons for so many losses by the prolife movement recently: we have utterly failed to communicate the message that all human life is valuable and deserves equal protection. We have instead communicated that baby murder is "icky" when the baby looks like a baby on the ultrasound and that the mother seeking to murder her baby is a victim too.
Getting back to the topic of the election, for myself, everytime I see/hear of something horrible/wicked Harris has done, said, promoted, etc., I'm inclined to vote for Trump to try to prevent the destruction of this country. But every time Trump does, says, etc. something that reminds me how much he has completely eviscerated the conservative movement over the past 8 years, I'm inclined to leave the top of the ballot blank to try to stop the continued destruction of the conservative movement.
Either way, I do not consider this to be "not voting", and it certainly isn't apathy. I'm making a conscious calculated choice to seek to use my vote to send a message to the GOP that Christians will not blindly follow them down the path of moral bankruptcy that they are headed, and if they want my vote in the general election, then they need to start putting up candidates that hold to some minimum standard of morality. If Christians are willing to hold their nose and vote for the "lesser of two evils", then that just tells the GOP that all they have to do to win the Christian vote is be a little less evil than the other guy as the other guy is seeking to maximize evil in every way possible. There are certainly instances where the "lesser of two evils" argument is valid, but there is a limit to which I'm willing to vote for evil that is slightly less evil than other evil. At some point, I become responsible for not vigorously opposing the evil of both sides.
Ultimately, every four years we are told "this is the most important election of our lifetime". Maybe it is true that each election is more important than the last, but unless we genuinely believe that there will be no more elections after this one if Harris wins, then a longer term view than just this election has to play some kind of a role in our choice. If Harris wins, the next four years will no doubt be pretty terrible (maybe even to the point where our ability to spread the Gospel is limited), but I doubt it will be to the point where the GOP is incapable of winning any more elections (though I expect that will come at some point in the next few decades), and certainly God has not promised that we will be able to share the Gospel without fear of reprisal. Therefore, we need to consider when and how to begin holding the GOP accountable for its leftward slide. For that, I would suggest that we should start communicating that we can't be taken for granted in general elections.
In conclusion, anytime conversations about politics comes up, I like to use it as an opportunity to remind myself and others that we should not be placing our hope in people. Getting "our guy" in power will not "save this country" (despite the claims of Ted Cruz and other prominent conservative politicians/commentators). The country's problem is not political in nature. It is spiritual, and spiritual problems cannot be fixed with political solutions. As good stewards of the tremendous blessings of freedoms that we have, we should absolutely be involved in the political system, but as those freedoms begin to slip away, we must hold them with an open hand and realize that we as a nation have been murdering hundreds of thousands of babies every year for more than fifty years now, and for about a hundred years have been going down the path of destruction described in Romans 1. If we don't deserve God's judgment, I'm not sure who does. Maybe God sees fit to extend mercy for a little while longer, but it is not hard to imagine a series of events in the next few decades that will result in nothing recognizable as the United States continuing to exist. While the causes would be many and numerous, I imagine it would "just so happen" to shortly follow an abandonment of the nation of Israel.
Tim, thanks for the comments. You make a lot of good points.
To me, freedom of speech/religion is more important than any other issues. If we lose that, we can't openly advocate for other important issues. Consequently, I look for candidates who are going to best preserve or advance that freedom.
Americans have a difficult choice before them. (I don't have a vote, I am a Canadian, but my wife and kids are Americans.) Neither candidate for president is someone I would support on their own merits. Yet one of them will be president. I have to ask, which one will be better overall. While it is tempting to vote for "none of the above," I don't think it is reasonable to say that the two candidates are equally bad. Not voting risks allowing the worst candidate to win, and not voting will not effect change in the Republican party. The "protest non-vote" won't be noticed.
Rather, the way to influence political parties is to get involved at the grass roots level and be an influence. It takes time, but if enough people got involved like that, they could make a difference in the system. (However, we could also ask if this is the best use of our time from a Christian perspective...)
All in all, I hope things improve, all over the world, but I'm not holding my breath. I agree with you on your last line, though. There is a king that will make the world far far better than its ever been.
The protest vote for "none of the above" has just as much impact as the vote for one of the candidates will. Both are certainly small in the sea of millions of voters, but both are equally as significant.
I agree that, in terms of the amount of damage done to the country in the short term, Harris is way worse. However, I think things start to even out when you compare the damage done to the country that Harris has done/will do to the damage done to the conservative movement that Trump has done/will do. It used to be that conservatives recognized that we were holding our nose and voting for the "lesser of two evils", but Trump has been uniquely able to convince conservatives that he is conservative while pushing policies that are objectively not at all conservative. This has led to a massive leftward lurch of the GOP over the past 8 years to the point that we now have significant movements in the GOP to permit baby murder through ~50 percent of the pregnancy, accept big government spending as a good thing, and become isolationist in our foreign policy. In other words, the conservative movement is being destroyed, and we are about to give the guy who is most responsible for the destruction the power to do even more destruction. Trump winning will make it so he can't be President again, but it will put JD Vance (who was chosen not because of his differences with Trump but specifically because of how much he agrees with him) at a solid lead for 2028. The best chance someone like DeSantis (who actually would move the party in a more conservative direction) has in 2028 comes with a Trump loss in 2024. While this seems shocking to say, it is obviously true. As I've said, Trump has laid waste to the conservative movement, and if the conservative movement is going to succeed, it is at some point going to need to eliminate the god of Trump that it has built.
If Trump continues as the leader of the GOP, his "big tent" approach will eventually lead to a split in the GOP. That's exactly what happened in England and resulted in the Labor Party gaining power over there (and implementing extreme socialism). So, the efforts to prevent the socialist policies Harris would implement by bringing into the GOP Democrats like RFK Jr. may well result in the GOP splitting and the implementation of the socialist policies being delayed by 4 years.
The question isn't "Who is going to do more damage to the country?" The question is, "Is extreme damage in the short term or the long term more desirable?" If the short term damage is going to cause the entire thing to come crashing to the ground, then we should be focused on that. If not (which I think is more likely), then we should be focused on avoiding the risk associated with the long term damage.
Well, everyone has to decide for themselves. I don't think the election of Trump will cause the right wing to collapse. He will do things I don't like, I am sure, but he will be better than Harris.
I doubt that electing Harris and seeing Trump defeated will bring the GOP back to a more conservative stance. The GOP reflects the culture. Our focus should be on reaching the culture, and losing less sleep over politics.
I certainly agree with that. My main point though has been to demonstrate that there is a legitimate argument for leaving the top of the ticket blank. You have to weigh which type of damage is more sustainable. Good people certainly disagree, and people on both sides of that can maintain their position without justifiably being deemed to be failing to be good stewards of the freedoms God has given us by compromising with evil or being apathetic (something I don't think could be said about those voting for Harris).
Can I just point out that apathy is not the only reason Christians might not be voting this year? Certainly, it may be part of the explanation, but when the supposed "conservative" candidate essentially takes the position of the Democratic Party of the 1990s on abortion, openly endorses homosexuality, and has been unwilling to take any real stand against transgenderism, it should hardly be surprising that Christians are not enthused to vote for the guy.
Take as an example, the topic of abortion (which I would prefer to call "baby murder" so as to avoid euphemisms). We have been told that it is just a complete surprise how much opposition there is to prolife legislation and that we need to push for incremental changes that trims around the edges of the problem (and barely does so at that since the vast majority of babies murdered are killed by means of a pill the mother received by mail). However, I might point out with the abolitionists that by allowing for exceptions, we are creating roadblocks for ourselves in the future if we ever come to the point of being able to abolish baby murder. Further, it muddies up the message when we start advocating for legislation with exceptions while arguing that there should be no exceptions. This is one of the primary reasons for so many losses by the prolife movement recently: we have utterly failed to communicate the message that all human life is valuable and deserves equal protection. We have instead communicated that baby murder is "icky" when the baby looks like a baby on the ultrasound and that the mother seeking to murder her baby is a victim too.
Getting back to the topic of the election, for myself, everytime I see/hear of something horrible/wicked Harris has done, said, promoted, etc., I'm inclined to vote for Trump to try to prevent the destruction of this country. But every time Trump does, says, etc. something that reminds me how much he has completely eviscerated the conservative movement over the past 8 years, I'm inclined to leave the top of the ballot blank to try to stop the continued destruction of the conservative movement.
Either way, I do not consider this to be "not voting", and it certainly isn't apathy. I'm making a conscious calculated choice to seek to use my vote to send a message to the GOP that Christians will not blindly follow them down the path of moral bankruptcy that they are headed, and if they want my vote in the general election, then they need to start putting up candidates that hold to some minimum standard of morality. If Christians are willing to hold their nose and vote for the "lesser of two evils", then that just tells the GOP that all they have to do to win the Christian vote is be a little less evil than the other guy as the other guy is seeking to maximize evil in every way possible. There are certainly instances where the "lesser of two evils" argument is valid, but there is a limit to which I'm willing to vote for evil that is slightly less evil than other evil. At some point, I become responsible for not vigorously opposing the evil of both sides.
Ultimately, every four years we are told "this is the most important election of our lifetime". Maybe it is true that each election is more important than the last, but unless we genuinely believe that there will be no more elections after this one if Harris wins, then a longer term view than just this election has to play some kind of a role in our choice. If Harris wins, the next four years will no doubt be pretty terrible (maybe even to the point where our ability to spread the Gospel is limited), but I doubt it will be to the point where the GOP is incapable of winning any more elections (though I expect that will come at some point in the next few decades), and certainly God has not promised that we will be able to share the Gospel without fear of reprisal. Therefore, we need to consider when and how to begin holding the GOP accountable for its leftward slide. For that, I would suggest that we should start communicating that we can't be taken for granted in general elections.
In conclusion, anytime conversations about politics comes up, I like to use it as an opportunity to remind myself and others that we should not be placing our hope in people. Getting "our guy" in power will not "save this country" (despite the claims of Ted Cruz and other prominent conservative politicians/commentators). The country's problem is not political in nature. It is spiritual, and spiritual problems cannot be fixed with political solutions. As good stewards of the tremendous blessings of freedoms that we have, we should absolutely be involved in the political system, but as those freedoms begin to slip away, we must hold them with an open hand and realize that we as a nation have been murdering hundreds of thousands of babies every year for more than fifty years now, and for about a hundred years have been going down the path of destruction described in Romans 1. If we don't deserve God's judgment, I'm not sure who does. Maybe God sees fit to extend mercy for a little while longer, but it is not hard to imagine a series of events in the next few decades that will result in nothing recognizable as the United States continuing to exist. While the causes would be many and numerous, I imagine it would "just so happen" to shortly follow an abandonment of the nation of Israel.
"Even so, come, Lord Jesus." (Revelation 22:20)
Tim, thanks for the comments. You make a lot of good points.
To me, freedom of speech/religion is more important than any other issues. If we lose that, we can't openly advocate for other important issues. Consequently, I look for candidates who are going to best preserve or advance that freedom.
Americans have a difficult choice before them. (I don't have a vote, I am a Canadian, but my wife and kids are Americans.) Neither candidate for president is someone I would support on their own merits. Yet one of them will be president. I have to ask, which one will be better overall. While it is tempting to vote for "none of the above," I don't think it is reasonable to say that the two candidates are equally bad. Not voting risks allowing the worst candidate to win, and not voting will not effect change in the Republican party. The "protest non-vote" won't be noticed.
Rather, the way to influence political parties is to get involved at the grass roots level and be an influence. It takes time, but if enough people got involved like that, they could make a difference in the system. (However, we could also ask if this is the best use of our time from a Christian perspective...)
All in all, I hope things improve, all over the world, but I'm not holding my breath. I agree with you on your last line, though. There is a king that will make the world far far better than its ever been.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The protest vote for "none of the above" has just as much impact as the vote for one of the candidates will. Both are certainly small in the sea of millions of voters, but both are equally as significant.
I agree that, in terms of the amount of damage done to the country in the short term, Harris is way worse. However, I think things start to even out when you compare the damage done to the country that Harris has done/will do to the damage done to the conservative movement that Trump has done/will do. It used to be that conservatives recognized that we were holding our nose and voting for the "lesser of two evils", but Trump has been uniquely able to convince conservatives that he is conservative while pushing policies that are objectively not at all conservative. This has led to a massive leftward lurch of the GOP over the past 8 years to the point that we now have significant movements in the GOP to permit baby murder through ~50 percent of the pregnancy, accept big government spending as a good thing, and become isolationist in our foreign policy. In other words, the conservative movement is being destroyed, and we are about to give the guy who is most responsible for the destruction the power to do even more destruction. Trump winning will make it so he can't be President again, but it will put JD Vance (who was chosen not because of his differences with Trump but specifically because of how much he agrees with him) at a solid lead for 2028. The best chance someone like DeSantis (who actually would move the party in a more conservative direction) has in 2028 comes with a Trump loss in 2024. While this seems shocking to say, it is obviously true. As I've said, Trump has laid waste to the conservative movement, and if the conservative movement is going to succeed, it is at some point going to need to eliminate the god of Trump that it has built.
If Trump continues as the leader of the GOP, his "big tent" approach will eventually lead to a split in the GOP. That's exactly what happened in England and resulted in the Labor Party gaining power over there (and implementing extreme socialism). So, the efforts to prevent the socialist policies Harris would implement by bringing into the GOP Democrats like RFK Jr. may well result in the GOP splitting and the implementation of the socialist policies being delayed by 4 years.
The question isn't "Who is going to do more damage to the country?" The question is, "Is extreme damage in the short term or the long term more desirable?" If the short term damage is going to cause the entire thing to come crashing to the ground, then we should be focused on that. If not (which I think is more likely), then we should be focused on avoiding the risk associated with the long term damage.
Well, everyone has to decide for themselves. I don't think the election of Trump will cause the right wing to collapse. He will do things I don't like, I am sure, but he will be better than Harris.
I doubt that electing Harris and seeing Trump defeated will bring the GOP back to a more conservative stance. The GOP reflects the culture. Our focus should be on reaching the culture, and losing less sleep over politics.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I certainly agree with that. My main point though has been to demonstrate that there is a legitimate argument for leaving the top of the ticket blank. You have to weigh which type of damage is more sustainable. Good people certainly disagree, and people on both sides of that can maintain their position without justifiably being deemed to be failing to be good stewards of the freedoms God has given us by compromising with evil or being apathetic (something I don't think could be said about those voting for Harris).