Theology and Voting: Loving Our Neighbors at the Ballot Box

Christians do not treat morality as a matter of personal preference. We affirm that objective moral truths exist. Just as we do not merely subjectively prefer that Nazism and Marxism be rejected, but we recognize the real objective and measurable harm such ideologies produce. Committed, consistent, and logical Christians know that moral truth has consequences for real people living in real communities.

Because of this, Christ calls His followers to love their neighbors not only in sentiment but in concrete action—especially when those neighbors are threatened.

Love Requires Action, Not Mere Sentiment

Jesus teaches in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that neighbor-love requires active intervention when someone is harmed. Likewise, in Matthew 25, Christ warns that failing to help when we have the power to do so is morally serious.

In modern America, citizens possess lawful influence through voting and public participation. This influence is not trivial. When policies threaten vulnerable people (especially babies, children, and women), stepping aside or casting an ineffective protest vote is not moral neutrality—it selfishly allows harm against our neighbors to continue unchecked.

To refuse to use one's God-given power of lawful influence when it could meaningfully protect others is not moral purity; it is selfish moral passivity.

An Illustration from the Fight World

Imagine an MMA fighter who sees his neighbor’s children being violently attacked. He steps in to defend them but refuses to use his full strength and skill because he selfishly wants to preserve a weird sense of personal moral comfort.

Instead of using his full power and all the techniques necessary to stop the attacker, he chooses only to throw weak, ineffective jabs with his left hand so he can keep some strange sense of moral high ground. Because he refuses to use his full power, he eventually loses the fight against evil, and as a result, his neighbor’s children are seriously abused.

Yes, technically speaking, the MMA fighter opposed the evil that threatened his neighbors (he can pay himself on the back for putting up a so-called "fight"). But he failed to love them. Refusing to use all the power that God blessed him with to fight evil was not love at all. It merely preserved his personal moral comfort while his neighbors suffered.

In the same way, refusing to use available influence to oppose serious social harm—while congratulating oneself for moral distance—fails the test of neighbor-love.

Consider the famous scene in The Princess Bride. Westley, the Man in Black, initially fights the Spanish swordsman left-handed out of respect. But when he realizes that continuing to fight with his weaker hand will cause him to lose—and thus fail to rescue his true love—he makes the logical and loving decision to use all of his power and switch to his right hand.

Suddenly the duel changes, the threat is overcome, and his beloved is saved (literally from the government).

Sometimes love requires using the full strength and influence we have been given—not merely preserving our sense of moral comfort while others suffer.

The Weightier Matters

Jesus spoke of the “weightier matters of the law” (Matthew 23:23), reminding us that not all moral questions carry equal urgency. Christians are called not merely to avoid evil personally, but to oppose evil when they have the opportunity to restrain it.

Scripture repeatedly calls God’s people to defend the vulnerable and resist injustice:

Isaiah 1:17

“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”

Since Christians are commanded to defend the oppressed and speak for the vulnerable, then we must ask who today lacks protection and a voice. This includes unborn children, confused and vulnerable minors being pushed toward irreversible so-called "medical interventions," and women whose privacy and safety in intimate spaces and competitive sports are increasingly contested. Loving our neighbors requires taking these concerns seriously and using our lawful influence to protect those who are at risk.

Proverbs 24:11–12

“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter… does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?”

This command applies to situations today in which vulnerable human lives are at stake. For them, this includes unborn children lost through abortion as well as confused and vulnerable minors being guided toward irreversible so-called "medical interventions." If we believe young lives are being slaughtered, Scripture calls us not to stand aside, but to use our influence to protect them.

Psalm 82:3–4

“Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

In America, we are uniquely blessed to defend the vulnerable without resorting to violence. We possess lawful influence through our votes and voices. Christians should use that influence wisely, seeking policies that genuinely protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Ephesians 5:11

“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”

If we are called to have nothing to do with the deeds of darkness, we should think carefully before casting a vote that enables or protects them.

Romans 12:9

“Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.”

If we hate the evil destroying our neighbors, we ought to resist it and actively oppose it.

Romans 12:21

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

This command does not tell us to hate those who do evil, but to hate evil itself while still loving people made in God’s image. Yet if we truly believe certain policies or practices are objectively evil and cause serious harm to our neighbors, consistency requires that we not support or empower them through our public choices. Instead, Christians should seek to use both their vote and vocal influence in ways that promote what we know are objectively good and protective of our neighbors.

James 4:17

“If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.”

Scripture here speaks not merely about personal preference but about moral knowledge—recognizing the reasons as to what is objectively good and right, and then refusing to act accordingly. The issue, then, is not simply what we subjectively feel or prefer, but whether our beliefs about good and evil are actually grounded in good reasons and correspond to objective moral truth. When we become convinced that certain actions or policies seriously harm our neighbors, refusing to act with our votes and voices—we have the ability to use them for the good of our neighbors—becomes, according to James, a moral failure.

And Scripture recognizes that civil authority itself exists to restrain wrongdoing:

Romans 13:3–4

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong… They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Romans 13 reminds us that governing authorities exist to restrain wrongdoing and promote justice. In many nations, rulers hold this responsibility directly. But in the United States, political authority is shared in a unique way: governing power ultimately rests with the people themselves. In that sense, American citizens share responsibility in determining who exercises governing authority. Voting, therefore, is not merely a personal preference or political hobby; it is one way citizens participate in the moral responsibility of restraining evil and promoting justice within society. Christians should cast their votes with this responsibility in mind, not abstaining from participation or wasting the influence they have been given, but seeking to love their neighbors by using their lawful influence wisely and responsibly.

If this responsibility is taken seriously, however, it raises an uncomfortable question about how Christians sometimes act in practice. This is where an inconsistency sometimes appears among believers. Some Christians admit that certain political policies are objectively evil and seriously harm their neighbors, yet they refuse to vote in ways most likely to prevent that harm. Instead, they either give up altogether and abstain or cast votes that cannot realistically influence outcomes for neighbors who are, metaphorically speaking, being led toward destruction.

But if the threat is truly serious, then effective opposition matters. If danger is real, action must also be real.

Doing nothing—or casting an ineffective vote while hoping matters improve—does not fulfill the command to love one’s neighbor.

A Moral Obligation at the Ballot Box

The issue can be summarized deductively:

1. Christians are commanded to love their neighbors and, when they have the power to do so, to restrain evil and defend the oppressed.

2. Failing to effectively restrain evil that seriously harms one’s neighbors—when one has the power to do so—is itself a failure to love one’s neighbors.

3. Using one’s power in a way that enables or advances such evil likewise fails to restrain evil and fails to love one’s neighbors.

4. Therefore, when Christians possess the power to effectively restrain serious evil threatening their neighbors, they are morally obligated to use that power to oppose and restrain that evil.

The bottom line is straightforward: Christians must not use their power in ways that enable serious moral harm, nor may they refuse to use their influence when doing so allows objective evil to continue unchecked.

Loving Our Neighbor in Practice

Voting is not merely a personal expression of preference; it is one way citizens help shape the moral and social direction of their communities. If policies genuinely threaten human flourishing, Christians cannot simply withdraw from responsibility.

Now, someone might object: what if all available political options are equally morally disastrous? Imagine a two-party system in which the only choices were figures like Hitler and Mao—leaders whose policies would inevitably lead to the deaths of millions. In such an extreme scenario, a Christian might reasonably conclude that participation in the system itself would not represent a morally meaningful choice.

But it would be a serious mistake to think that this is where we find ourselves in America today. However imperfect our political options may be, the choices before voters are not morally indistinguishable.

On issues Christians ought to know are morally urgent, the parties differ significantly. One party supports abortion access with no limits, while the other seeks to significantly restrict or eliminate it. One party supports medical and surgical so-called "gender transitions" for minors that mutilate their bodies, while the other opposes and seeks to prohibit this child abuse. One party supports policies allowing biological males to participate in women’s sports and access women’s private spaces, while the other vehemently opposes those policies. One party supports an open border allowing millions of unvetted illegal aliens to invade our neighborhoods (which has led to the rapes and murders of many of our neighbors), while the other party argues for stronger border enforcement combined with highly regulated legal immigration.

These choices are not remotely comparable to a Hitler-versus-Mao dilemma. As Jesus taught, there are “weightier matters of the law,” and when policies differ in ways believers know are affecting vulnerable people, committed Christ followers ought to thoughtfully use their vote and voice in ways that best protect their neighbors.

Loving our neighbors includes using the lawful influence available to us to protect them.

At the end of the day, the call of Christ remains simple—even when its application is difficult:

Be a good neighbor.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton