Somehow in this election cycle an alarming number of Christians have become enthralled with the idea that because all men are sinners, all votes are a vote for the lesser of two (or three or four) evils. I applaud people standing up for what they believe in. It is precisely that strength coupled with wisdom that has made us who we are as a nation. But I frequently caution my fellow believers to never use a saying or idea for the spreading of our cause if it is not true no matter how pithy or "cool" or "spiritual" it is. We're on God's side, we don't need pithy sayings, and when we use them we need to make sure that they are true and Biblical. It is my belief that just as with the saying "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship" Christians have seen that this idea has some Biblical truth in it that the world generally doesn't recognize and so have latched onto it without really thinking it through, even though it has some major flaws. So I plead with you, lay aside your emotions and biases for just a few minutes and let's examine it rationally to see which side we should stand on.
First let me make it perfectly clear that I do understand and completely agree with the Biblical fact that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). I agree with and understand that no-one is perfect. There is not one candidate today nor has there ever been one who was perfect, and there won't ever be a perfect candidate. It is also, as I have seen mentioned elsewhere, wrong and foolish for us to put our hope in any particular candidate, party, or election. None of those things are disputed by myself or other Christian third-party voters.
However, there are some major flaws in this line of thought. Let's examine them.
First: This statement misunderstands what is meant by "evil" in the "lesser of two evils".
Let's define our terms. There are two basic ways that the statement "choose the lesser of two evils" can be used. First there is the general idiom used in all kinds of circumstances. It is imperative to this discussion to remember that the word "evil" used in the general form is NOT necessarily defined morally or in conjunction with the Biblical definitions of "good" and "evil". There is nothing wrong with that. For example, the phrase is often used when referring to military situations. From a practical standpoint there are many times when there may only be two choices (or even three or four) all of which will result in the deaths of some of the soldiers. Generals often say you should "choose the lesser of two evils", in other words, we should pick the course of action that accomplishes our goal (winning the battle, taking the strategic point, etc.) with as few casualties as possible. I have no problem with this. The word "evil" here is NOT being defined in reference to Biblical morality; it is not being said that there are only two options both of which require sin. What is being said is that there are two necessary options, both of which have negative and regrettable but necessary and Biblically acceptable outcomes, one of which has less negativity to it. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the phrase and it is a perfectly acceptable rationale for the Christian.
The second way in which this phrase can be used is when the word "evil" is defined in relation to Biblical morality; the word "evil" can be interchanged with the word "sin". In other words, it means that out of two options, both of which require require sinning (or "doing evil"), one of them much more than the other, we should choose the one that has the least amount of evil (sin) in it. This is also an acceptable use of the phrase. The reason I am belaboring this point is because what happens in this discussion is we wish to define the term in one way (the moral usage showing that the choices are between two evils) and then turn around and use it in another way to justify it (the general way to say that the lesser evil choice isn't really sin so it's ok). A Biblical example of choosing the lesser of two evils where "evil" is defined in relation to God's Law is 1 Chronicles 13:7-10 where Uzza puts his hand to the Ark of the covenant to keep it from falling and touching the ground. God had commanded that the Ark not touch the ground, but He had also commanded that man should not touch it with his hand. Uzza only disobeyed the command to make sure that something worse didn't happen to it. This way of using the phrase is also perfectly acceptable but the rationale is never Biblically justifiable.
Second: This statement misunderstands what is meant when we say "choose the lesser of two evils".
The problem now with the contested statement is that we're confusing people's own sin (or evil) with whether or not a choice to support that person is sin or evil. You see, when we use the phrase "the lesser of two evils" what we are saying is that out of two choices both of which are "evil" (whether this be truly sinful or merely disliked) we should choose the least bad. It does NOT mean that people are the lesser of two evils, but that choosing one of them is. This is absolutely fundamental. When someone says that it is never ok to choose to do the "lesser of two evils" they are saying that the CHOICES are evil (sinful) and are NOT talking about whether or not the people involved in those choices are sinful. Frankly, this should be obvious. Again, no-one contests that everyone has sinned; that is agreed. The issue is that this fact doesn't mean choosing those people for something is necessarily equal to their sin!
When we define "evil" in the sentence in relation to Biblical morality and say "don't vote for the lesser of two evils" we're NOT talking about the personal sin state of the person. We're saying that we believe that the choice to vote for both people is sin, but we are NOT saying that the choice to vote for someone else is necessarily sin just because all have sinned. Yes, all three of the people being discussed have sin in their lives, but this does not equate to it being sin to choose any of the three (consequently, all have sin in their lives and are therefore "evil", but this does NOT mean that the choice to vote for all of them is evil. If the choice to vote for one of them is not evil, then it cannot be a choice between the "lesser of two evils" since both must be evil for that to be true). Thus, when we say "choose the lesser of two evils" we're talking about two choices not two people. You see, when we say a vote for the lesser of two evils is wrong we are not directly talking about whether or not the man is evil but about whether or not the choice to support him is. The lesser of two evils in this case is not so much about the the men but about voting for them. It is wrong to vote for either, therefore it is wrong to vote for the lesser of the two evils because both courses of action still require sin.
While this is true in voting it is also true in every other area. Frankly, it is hard for me to see how so many Christians have been duped by this when no-one ever argues that this same philosophy is acceptable in any other case or in any other years but election years. No-one ever supposes that since all men are sinful it is ok to select any man to be a deacon or elder even if he's a fool and a murderer so long as he has the least sin of the other options!
Yes, it is true that anytime you vote you are choosing someone with "less sin" than someone else (and also choosing someone with more sin than yet another someone else...). But that does not mean that the choice to support someone is evil, in which case it cannot be "less evil" than another choice. Yes, there's a sense in which you're voting for a person who may be less evil than another person, but this does not mean that all choices in voting are less evil than another choice because it may not be evil at all.
Third: This statement misunderstands what is meant by people being "evil".
There are a number of examples we can use to help understand this. What is being pointed out by my Christian friends is that God's standard is perfection: God requires absolute sinlessness from all of us and we all fail, thus we are all "evil". First, we must remember that regenerate believers, children of God, are all washed by His blood. The stain of sin is removed from us. We are no longer "evil" by God's standard. There's a big difference between the way that a non-Christian is "evil" and the way that a Christian is "evil"!
Even granting that we all still sin, and are not perfect, we're completely overlooking another important aspect: God's standards. You see (as strange as it may sound) God has different standards for things. Yes, He really does. Just read Romans 3:23 which says that God's standard for not condemning us to Hell is absolute perfection and compare that with 1 Timothy 3, the standards for bishops, which does not include perfection in any way, shape, or form. You see, I can (and do) absolutely fall short of God's absolute standard of perfection. I ain't going to heaven on my own, folks, so sure, I'm "evil" in that sense. But can I fall short of this standard and meet the standard in 1 Timothy 3? Of course!! God doesn't require perfection for church leaders, nor does He from civil leaders, so when we use the term "evil" we MUST use the term in relation to the standard being discussed.
To be perfectly honest, this is one of the most obvious and yet well-done "bait & switch"es I've seen Christians use. We so piously assert that "all are sinful" (something that no Christian dare disagree with) and then subtly change gears and standards by equating this with everyone being "evil" so that we can say that all votes are a vote for the lesser of two evils! I can't believe it works but it obviously does, as smooth as a snake-oil salesman selling something you don't need and don't want. Again, we must use the proper definitions in conjunction with the standard being discussed. God doesn't say perfection is required of civil leader, that will be readily admitted. So, are all people equally evil in relation to this standard? No, they are not. Someone being evil in this context would be someone who doesn't meet the required standard (just as someone evil in general is someone who doesn't meet God's absolute standard of perfection), so if you find any candidate who meets the standard, he is not evil, and thus, cannot be a "lesser" of two evils! We have again proved our point that voting for someone is not necessarily voting for the lesser of two evils.
Fourth: It misunderstands the fact that not all imperfection is equal.
For this part I will use the words of my friend, +Daniel Woodworth since he has so adequately dealt with this before on several occasions. In his words, "Also, I think I might shed a little light on the issue of evil as regards political candidates. No one is perfect. That is not disputed. However, I think everyone can agree that not all imperfection is equal. Take, for example, grades. If all imperfection was equal I would be equally as pleased with a 99 as a 19. I will be the first to tell you that I am not. There is a sense in which all imperfection is the same--that is, we all fall short of God's perfect standard under our own power--but there are also lines which separate some imperfection from others. Another example of this would be the imperfections of a believer, which are forgiven, next to the imperfections of an unbeliever, which are not. Both are imperfect, both fall short of God's perfect standard, but they are not the same.
How does this apply to politics? Well, some things in candidates are tolerable, others are not. I will tolerate someone who disagrees with me on issues not addressed repeatedly and specifically in God's Word, but I will not tolerate a candidate who goes against the clear teaching of God in his positions on the issues. Both Obama and Romney advocate abortion in the majority of instances (Romney's position is, if you read the article I posted, logically the same as that of Roe v. Wade) which is evil, therefore I cannot support either of them."
Take this back to standards for a moment. God requires certain things of civil leaders (this is an excellent article detailing many of them: http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-the-bible-is-the-best-voters-guide-83688/). If God requires wisdom (something not difficult to see) then a candidate who does not have a decent amount of wisdom is not fit for office. No candidate, however, is perfectly wise. Compare the fact that no-one is perfectly wise with the standard, and you will see that clearly, not all imperfection is equal. It is an acceptable imperfection that a man not be perfect in wisdom, it is not an acceptable imperfection that a man have no wisdom at all.
Fifth: It misunderstands the Biblical way to justify an action.
This point is the saddest to me. As I have said elsewhere, "Even if it were true, you're trying to justify a wrong decision by stating its necessity instead of going to God's word for the answer. Choosing an action that is wrong to prevent a worse wrong is an incrediblely unBiblical action. If all men are evil, and if that means that voting for anyone always means voting for evil, then I expect you to never take part in an election."
If one truly believes that because all men are evil this means that we always vote for the lesser of two evils, what we're saying is that anytime we choose a human for anything (civil office, church office, etc.) we are choosing evil. This is simply unacceptable for the Christian. It burdens my heart that so many Christians have chosen to take up such an unBiblical view. Oughtn't we rather to suffer the results of the election by not voting at all than to chose to do evil in God's name? Brothers and sisters in Christ, hear God's words: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:1-2). Again in Romans 3:8, Paul says "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just."
I can hardly believe my eyes every time I see a Christian saying that all votes are a vote for the lesser of two evils and that they will go vote because they are admitting by their own mouth that political victory is more important to them than God's standards. It is altogether wrong and unBiblical to justify our decisions based on their necessity. If you are still convinced that all votes cast must be a vote for the lesser of two evils, then upon God's Word and as a Christian I expect that you will not be voting in any election ever again.
It is my hope that it will be clearly seen now how the concept that every vote is a vote for the lesser of two (or three or four) evils is mistaken. Remember that the phrase "lesser of two evils" is not referring to the people or things involved but to the choice to do that course of action. I have already written and continue to write more about why voting for the lesser of two evils (by that phrase's proper definition) is wrong. Feel free to ask any questions. Discussion is welcome, but facts and Scripture will be my guide, so you will not dissuade me with unsupported opinions or attacks. God bless you all.
Compromising our integrity is always a step away and I sincerely hope that other Christians would take this much effort to steer me away from wrong teaching and point out my fallacies. In the spirit of Christian love I share this so that others may come to see the foolishness and the untruth in this idea. To God be the Glory!
No comments:
Post a Comment