With 2024 being an election year, we Christians again can further exercise their earthly citizenship. Unlike Christians in other parts of the world, Christians here have the blessing and privilege to choose representatives for various offices and to vote directly on matters effecting their state and local communities through ballot measures.
However, the challenge for us Christians at this time is how we ought to exercise and view this opportunity, knowing that we have been set aside and made distinct in this world as God’s people. Jesus spoke to our distinction in this world in John 17:13-15, part of His high priestly prayer before the Father. While He asks that we experience joy and have protection from tribulation during our earthly pilgrimage, Jesus also makes His intention clear for us to remain here for the purpose of His will and that we might be sanctified in truth and set aside in Holiness as He was. Then, taking up our call to be salt and light to the world (Matthew 5:13-14) we seek to be effective in ministering to those around us in such a way that brings glory to the Father.
One of the blessings that we experience in Christ is that we grow in godly, Christlike wisdom. In fact, election seasons are times when Christians, as citizens of heaven, should cling to godly, wisdom as we are confronted with earthly wisdom which sadly has led many from being salt and light while engaging in the civic process. We should stay alert to the earthly mentalities that surface during election cycles, for those mentalities run contrary to God’s truth that should shape and renew our minds as we deepen in our knowledge of Him. They often serve as snares that lead people from voting in a way that conforms to God’s truth and how He would have us reason.
One of the snares that people sadly conform themselves into believing is that we must choose between ‘the lesser of two evils.’ Since God has also given us minds to reason appropriately, we should challenge this way of thinking. The holy God does not put His people in situations where they can only make a tragic choice. That is, when Christians are truly walking in reverent fear of their God, they should never see themselves as forced to choose to advocate for something that they know to be evil. Though not often taken into consideration, the idea of choosing between ‘the lesser of two evils’ is still choosing evil, a choice that really makes no sense for a Christian who knows that we are to glorify God in all that we do.
There is another fallacy of ‘the lesser of two evils’ approach that we need to consider: it plainly ignores, especially in times like these, that there are almost always more than two options for voters to choose from on the ballot. Looking at this economically, we would rarely find consumers intentionally limiting their selection for a good or service to two providers, knowing that there are many alternatives presented to them. If this approach were applied broadly, incentive for adaptation in the marketplace, competition, and new innovations would be diminished significantly. We find similar results through applying the ‘lesser of two evils’ approach to voting. Many voters see themselves as selecting between options that they believe will do the least amount of damage, which only perpetuates or even worsens the status quo. If more voters were willing to look at other options when voting, the two major parties would have to address the public’s interests and concerns to a much greater degree. By selecting candidates beyond the major parties, voters would be affirming that they believe there are better solutions than what we have been getting for so long.
Another claim that is often overstated is that citizens have a duty to vote. Perhaps the unintended implication here is that citizens are bound to participate in civil elections. This isn’t necessarily reasonable. During any election, there exists a wide variety of reasons why many citizens do not vote. In all fairness to voters, issues of conscience often arise. Some voters humbly choose not to cast a vote when they are unaware of the candidates who are running or if they simply do not believe that any of the candidates on the ballot are worthy to hold office. Particularly when considering the latter example, it may be reasonable to say that a voter is exercising good citizenship by not voting to avoid affirming that any of the candidates on the ballot would serve the public’s best interest if they were to hold the office that they are seeking.
Now, another notion that is often too broadly applied says that if a person does not vote, they cannot complain. However, is it reasonable to say that casting a vote is a prerequisite for addressing concerns relating to proposed legislation that a citizen believes may be a detriment to the community? In fact, there are many citizens who testify on proposed pieces of legislation at their state capital though the validity of their testimony does not depend on whether they voted in the recent election.
None of the comments stated above is intended to undermine the virtue in exercising the right to vote. The point is that it is important to see voting in the broader context of exercising good citizenship. Though casting a vote certainly is a means of exercising one’s citizenship, it should not be seen as the prerequisite on which good citizenship rests. Also, as stated above, it is important to remember that for God’s people, our true citizenship is in heaven. In fact, the way that we exercise our earthly citizenship should reflect our primary citizenship which is tied directly with our union to Christ. Once again, it is our heavenly citizenship that sets us apart from those who walk in the way of this world.
In His Image 