Update: While Russell Moore (discussed below) appeared to advocate abstaining rather than voting for an immoral candidate, Franklin Graham went on record for the opposite point of view, saying Christians may have to vote for the “less[er] of two heathens.”

Writing at Christianity Today, Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, discussed the moral situation some Christians may find themselves in at the ballot box — feeling as though they are having to decide between the “lesser of two evils.”

Moore essentially says that Christians cannot justifiably support either “evil.” The most notable part of Moore’s article was his use of the US military as an analogy to this Christian conundrum [emphasis added]:

Think of military service, another office of public responsibility, as an example. Members of the military don’t need to approve of everything a general decides to be faithful to their duty to the country.

But if they’re commanded to either slaughter innocent non-combatants or desert and sign up with the enemies of one’s country, a Christian can’t merely choose the least bad of these options. He would have to conclude that both are wrong and he could not be implicated in either.

It’s an interesting, if somewhat ill-fitting, analogy.

Yes, Christians (and every other service member with a moral backbone) would refuse to obey illegal and immoral orders. But US Christian citizens aren’t being faced with opposing political candidates who so clearly say they will take such stark immoral or illegal actions — so the analogy fails.

Politics are rarely so clear as combat (which is why the stereotypical soldier says he prefers combat to politics). Rather, everyone “knows” candidates may say one thing, have a history of a different action, and do yet another once elected.

Further, that which defines “evil” on a political scale is rarely so clear. For example, abortion is immoral at any level, yet otherwise-moral politicians will almost certainly have voted to permit abortions “in some cases.” They did so not because they supported abortion, but because by virtue of allowing it in “some” cases, they were able to prevent it in others. While some would still call that evil, as it legally permits children to be killed, others would call that a small victory, or a small step in the right direction.

If allowing limited abortions is a lesser evil to permitting abortion on demand, should Christians refuse to act at all and allow the latter?

Ultimately, using the analogy of the military unfairly oversimplifies what is an understably complex situation, and one which both lay Christians and the leaders in their faith are attempting to comprehend.

ADVERTISEMENT