The Obligation to Oppose Evil with Your Vote

The Hypothetical That Clarifies the Duty

Imagine a hypothetical political party—the Satanic Politicians of America (SPA)—whose explicit goal is to advance satanic evil and destroy your neighbors. If you use your God-given power to help that party attain power, or if you knowingly refuse to prevent that harm when you reasonably can (without violating a greater moral obligation), are you fulfilling Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself?

Jesus identified that command as the second greatest in the Law (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31) and the Apostle Paul noted that the entire Law of Christ is summed up by loving your neighbor as yourself (Galatians 5:14).

Jesus summarized the moral demand of Scripture as treating others the way we would want to be treated (Matthew 7:12). He warned that it would be better to have a millstone hung around one’s neck and be drowned than to cause a little one who believes in Him to stumble (Matthew 18:6). The parable of the Good Samaritan shows that neighbor-love is not limited to those who are like us or near us; it requires active concrete action to relieve suffering and protect from harm when we have the means (Luke 10:25–37).

Paul adds that love is not merely the absence of malice: “It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Corinthians 13:7). James writes that faith without works is dead and that pure religion includes looking after orphans and widows in their distress (James 1:27; 2:14–17). These texts do not permit a Christian to treat the foreseeable harm of neighbors as morally optional when power to hinder that harm is available.

The Argument from Christian Neighbor-Love

1. If a Christian knowingly enables serious evil against innocent neighbors, or culpably refuses to prevent it when reasonably able to do so without violating a greater moral obligation, then that Christian sins by failing to love their neighbors.
   

2. A Christian who knowingly empowers the hypothetical Satanic Politicians of America to harm innocent neighbors, or culpably refuses to prevent that harm under the conditions specified in premise 1, enables serious evil or culpably refuses to prevent it.
   

3. Therefore, that Christian sins by failing to love their neighbors.

Most Christians will therefore answer the SPA question with a clear no. It is difficult to imagine many moral obligations more pressing than protecting our neighbors from serious, intentional satanic evil. Political gridlock, party loyalty, or the desire to avoid conflict does not justify empowering satanic evil. Thus, if you use your power (your vote) to advance the SPA, or refuse to use your God-given power to resist the SPA, you are not following Christ’s command. You are sinning—failing to love and protect the neighbors Jesus commanded you to love.

Sure, you might still be saved (Christians can still sin, but they hate their sin and strive not to), but you are definitely not following Christ in the act.

Naming the Policies

That principle is not controversial among those who take the biblical texts seriously. The question is what happens when we name the policies that make the SPA satanic and then ask whether any party in the real world actually advances them.

Those policies include killing unborn human babies without limits, the chemical or surgical mutilation of children’s healthy genitalia, men in women’s locker rooms, showers, and sports, open borders that allow unchecked and unvetted threats into our neighborhoods, the political advance of Islamism, and Marxist-style economic control. Each of these evils harms your neighbors in concrete ways.

The unborn are human babies—your neighbors—made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27; Psalm 139:13–16); deliberately ending their lives is the opposite of protecting the vulnerable. Confused children—your neighbors—are subjected to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries that sterilize and mutilate healthy tissue; Jesus’ warning about causing little ones to stumble applies directly (by extension of the principle against causing little ones to stumble). Women and girls—your neighbors—lose the privacy and safety of sex-segregated spaces, contrary to the created distinction between male and female (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4) and by extension our duty to protect the weaker (1 Peter 3:7).

Open borders without meaningful vetting import elevated risks of crime, human trafficking, and ideological hostility into neighborhoods which literally threaten your neighbors. Islamist political advance subordinates women, religious minorities, and apostates who are also your neighbors. Marxist-style control treats individual persons—your neighbors—as means to class or identity ends rather than as individual souls bearing God’s image.

These are not abstract disagreements about marginal tax rates. They are objectively evil policies whose aim or foreseeable result is grave harm to the same neighbors Jesus commanded you to love.

From Principle to Party

Major Democratic candidates and the party’s core priorities advance these policies.

Party platforms, candidate statements, and legislative records show consistent support for abortion access with few or no gestational limits, for medical interventions that alter the healthy sexed bodies of minors, for opposition to laws preserving sex-based categories in private spaces and sports, for reduced border and interior enforcement, and for economic approaches that expand centralized direction of resources.

Voting for such a candidate contributes a share of causal force to the advance of those policies. Knowingly doing so—or willingly abstaining when a viable alternative exists (even a flawed and imperfect alternative) and one is able to oppose them—fails to keep the command to love one’s neighbor.

Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). He repeated the point: “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me” (John 14:21), and “If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love” (John 15:10). The contrapositive is unavoidable: if a person does not keep His commandments in a given act, that person is not loving Jesus in that act. Therefore, the act of casting a vote that advances the policies above (or willingly abstaining when able to oppose them) means that person is not loving Jesus in that act.

Failing to love Jesus is sin.

The Voting Argument

Let P = killing unborn human babies without limits, open borders, chemical/surgical mutilation of children’s healthy genitals, men in women’s private spaces, Marxist-style economic control, and the advance of Islamism.

1. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to protect them from harm (Matt. 22:39; Matt. 7:12; Matt. 18:6).

2. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15); thus, if a person does not keep His commandments in a given act, that person is not loving Jesus in that act.

3. Knowingly contributing to the advance of P (or willingly abstaining from using one’s power to oppose P when able), absent an overriding moral obligation, is not keeping the command to love one’s neighbor.

4. Voting for a Democratic candidate contributes to the advance of the party’s core or strongly preferred policies, including P.[1]

5. Therefore, if the contribution (or the abstention) is knowing, a reasonably effective alternative exists, and no overriding moral obligation justifies the choice, then the act of casting a vote for a Democratic candidate (or willingly abstaining when able to oppose P) means that person is not loving Jesus in that act.

The syllogism simply makes explicit what the preceding paragraphs have already shown.

Don’t miss the point: This argument does not, by itself, prove the person voting for the modern-day Democrat Party is unsaved (they might be unsaved if they knowingly continue to refuse to follow Christ in this or any other area of their life); the New Testament is clear that believers still sin (1 John 1:8–9), but we do not have to sin and always have a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). The act of voting for the modern-day Democratic Party, when the conditions in the conclusion are met, remains an utter failure to follow Christ according to the standard He gave.

Indeed, consider this a loving warning: if one sees this truth and digs in their heels—continuously and intentionally chooses to sin in this manner—red flags are raised! One needs to examine themselves to see if they really do love Jesus or just merely claim they do.

Objections and the Remaining Obligation

Some will attempt to avoid this objective obligation by claiming some overriding moral justification. I am not denying that possibility in principle. If you believe other considerations require you to empower policies you would otherwise recognize as satanic evil, the burden is on you to clearly state the justification and show why it outweighs the duty to protect your neighbors from these satanic evils.

The biblical texts simply do not allow us to treat grave, foreseeable harm to unborn baby humans, to confused children, or to women and girls as acceptable collateral without a clear demonstrated, overriding reason.

Others will object that every administration produces unintended harms, or that policies associated with Republicans also carry costs. Those points, however, do not erase the distinction.

Disagreements over the optimal size of health programs or the proper annual number of refugees are disputes about means, incentives, and trade-offs. They are not equivalent to grotesquely evil policies whose direct and intended result is the killing of babies, the chemical or surgical mutilation of children’s healthy genitals, or the placement of adult males in female-only spaces.

Some complain about civilian casualties in Iran or Gaza and treat them as equivalent to the policies in P. They are not. Wartime mistakes and civilian casualties, however tragic, occur under every administration and are not the same as an intentional policy of targeting the innocent. The obligation to oppose clear, grave harms remains.

The SPA hypothetical establishes the principle from Scripture. The listed policies show what that principle condemns. The public record shows that major Democratic priorities advance those evil policies. The conclusion follows: Christ-followers have a moral obligation to use the power they possess—including the vote—to oppose them.

Refusing to do so is not moral high ground or prudent restraint. It is an utter failure to love your neighbor and, in the act, a failure to love Jesus. If these are violations of the greatest commandments, are they not among the greatest sins?

That is to say, a violation of the second of the greatest commandments is also a violation of the first.

Bottom line: The Voting Argument is valid. The premises are grounded in specific texts and in the observable content of contemporary platforms. Those who reject the conclusion must show either that the policies do not harm the neighbor, that the relevant candidates do not advance them, that a reasonably effective alternative was unavailable, or that an overriding obligation justified the vote or the abstention.

Until that showing is made, the obligation stands.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18; James 3:17),

Dr. Tim Stratton

---

Notes

[1]  A contribution is culpable when it is knowing, when a reasonably effective alternative exists that would hinder the advance of P, and when no overriding moral obligation justifies it.